April

2, 2012 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVII No. 17

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we will have private member statements from the Member

for the District of Port de Grave; the Member for the District of Signal Hill

Quidi Vidi; the Member for the District of The Straits White Bay North; the

Member for the District of St. John's East; and the Member for Burgeo La

Poile.

The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand in this hon. House to recognize Mr. Vernon Petten for his fifty years

of volunteer service as Treasurer of the Port de Grave Pentecostal Tabernacle.

Mr. Speaker, a special service was held recently celebrating Mr. Petten's

fifty years as treasurer of his church. He received notes of congratulations

from our Premier and from former pastors of the church. As well, Mr. Petten has

travelled on several church missions to countries like St. Lucia, Zambia and

Montserrat building schools and churches for those less fortunate than

ourselves. He devotes many hours to the Gideon's where he is, you guessed it,

their treasurer. Mr. Petten is well known throughout the district for his many

years of community service and volunteerism.

I ask that all members of this House join me in congratulating Mr. Petten on

recognition of his dedicated service to church and community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

I rise today to recognize a constituent, and one of the Province's

outstanding artists.

Jillian Keiley, founder of Artistic Fraud theatre company, has been named the

For at least the next four years, Jill will bring her own magic touch to one

of the largest stages in the country, this country's foremost showcase for all

the performing arts. Happily, she will also continue to direct one show a year

here at home.

Anyone who has paid even cursory attention to Newfoundland and Labrador

theatre in the past couple of decades knows about Jillian Keiley's extraordinary

body of work. We all have our favourites - my own was Emile's Dream , but

Fear of Flight , Tempting Providence , Under Wraps and Oil

and Water are other stunning examples of the unforgettable production she

has given to us.

Jill is directing Andy Jones in his adaptation of Molire's Tartuffe

this summer at the New World Theatre Project in Cupids, then heads to Ottawa.

I ask all hon. members, Mr. Speaker, to rise and join me today in

language theatre at the National Arts Centre.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a team from my district which

celebrated a couple of firsts on the weekend of March 22 through March 24.

The St. Anthony Polar Bears under twenty female hockey team won the

Provincial A Tournament, held in Whitbourne. Mr. Speaker, just making it to this

level of the tournament was an accomplishment, as it was the first time any team

from St. Anthony has ever competed in the A division. This makes the team's win

even more worthy of congratulations.

Last year, the Polar Bears won in the C division. This would normally have

moved the team up to the B division, but Hockey Newfoundland and Labrador

thought the team's talent and determination merited the leap to the top

division. The young women on the team, some of them as young as fourteen are:

Sarah Blake, Sarah Cull, Holly Earle, Johanna Elliott, Brooke Noseworthy, Kerry

Patey, Joanne Payne, Megan Pynn, Heather Richards, Dana Saunders, Rebecca

Sexton, and Karley Slade. The coaches are Barry Pynn and Tonya Noseworthy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the St.

Anthony Polar Bears under-twenty team for their historic win.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to tell you of the fiftieth

anniversary of my Alma Mater, Gonzaga Regional High School.

Gonzaga High School officially opened for classes on September 4, 1962. Since

then, thousands of students have passed through the hallowed halls, and Gonzaga

holds its place in Newfoundland and Labrador's educational history. Mr. Speaker,

I, myself, am among those alumni. As I told this House last week, my time at

Gonzaga and the teachers I encountered there were major contributors to the

person I am today.

To celebrate the school's anniversary, a committee of volunteers has put

together several events. These events include the fiftieth anniversary Alumni

hockey and tonight's "Gonzaga's Got Talent" event at the Arts and Culture

Centre.

I encourage all graduates, former teachers and staff of Gonzaga to visit the

official Web site for more details of upcoming events to help us celebrate the

fiftieth anniversary of one of Newfoundland and Labrador's best high schools.

The address for that is www.gonzaga50.ca.

Go, Vikings!

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise today to recognize and congratulate Mr. Paul Osmond of Channel-Port

aux Basques upon his receipt of the Canadian Coast Guard's Commissioner's

Commendation. This is the highest award the Coast Guard gives to its service

members.

The award was presented to Mr. Osmond in Ottawa on December 6 by Coast Guard

Commissioner, Mr. Marc Grgoire. Mr. Osmond was also presented with an award of

distinction by Deputy Commissioner of Operations, Ms Jody Thomas.

Paul is a leading seaman aboard the CCGS Henry Larson. The ship was stationed

at Resolute Bay on August 20, 2011 when a First Air charter flight crashed near

the community's airport. Mr. Osmond, who is a Coast Guard rescue specialist,

flew by helicopter from the ship to the scene, along with three other crew

members. They were first on the scene where unfortunately only three of the

plane's fifteen passengers survived.

When he is home in Port aux Basques, Mr. Osmond volunteers his skills at the

Bruce II Sports Centre, and is also a volunteer for Red Cross Disaster Services.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending

congratulations to Leading Seaman Paul Osmond on his receipt of this prestigious

award. All the best to Paul and his family.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker is somewhat surprised today that all hon.

Members did not take advantage of the opportunity to wish the Clarenville

Caribous congratulations on winning the Herder, but despite my surprise, we will

move on to the next order of business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We move on now to ministers' statements.

Statements by Ministers

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, throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, small and medium-sized

enterprises are becoming increasingly more innovative. This is leading to new

economic and business opportunities at home and abroad.

Expansion into new markets is critical to the success and future growth of

any business. This growth is not only benefiting the companies themselves, but

the communities in which they operate, and the Province as a whole.

Export-related activities are important generators of wealth and prosperity,

and contribute to the social and economic development of Newfoundland and

Labrador. They create jobs, stronger communities, and stronger companies. In

terms of direct and indirect employment alone, export activities create one in

four jobs in our Province.

The strength of the local business community is a result of strong

partnerships, combined with the provincial government's strategic programs and

services. This has created a business-friendly environment where enterprises can

succeed and develop their export markets.

We as a government want to celebrate those successes and the entrepreneurs

who live in our towns and our communities.

Recently, at St. Francis School in Harbour Grace, I had the opportunity to

meet with the next generation of innovators and business leaders. While speaking

with these young minds, I launched a call for applications for the 2012 Export

and Innovation Awards.

These awards recognize individuals, businesses, groups, and institutions that

have excelled in the areas of innovation and exporting.

Applications are open for three awards: Innovation in Business, Distinction

in Innovation, and Exporter of the Year. They will be reviewed by a panel of

judges and announced at a ceremony on May 25 at the Delta Hotel and Conference

Centre in St. John's.

Previous winners represent a diverse range of industries such as Hi-Point

Industries in Bishop's Falls, and Dynamic Air Shelters in Grand Bank.

I encourage all businesses to submit an application. I also call upon all

members of this hon. House to submit an application for a successful business in

their district. The deadline for applications is Friday, May 4, 2012.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Truly small business is the backbone of a modern economy. Small business

happens when somebody sees an idea, sees a need, and fills it. These are the

same people who pledge all of their funds, they commit all of their time and

family resources, and they struggle, generally, scrimp, save, work day and

night, and make a success. Sometimes after five years, ten years, or fifteen

years, they become an overnight success. So it is indeed encouraging to see the

minister with this statement. Clearly, export opportunities are very important

to small business.

This brings me to some of the subject matter of the recent federal budget,

wherein I saw the cuts to ACOA. One of the agencies that ACOA funds is the

community-based development banks, the small banks that provide venture capital

to small businesses throughout all of Atlantic Canada. I certainly hope that the

minister will advocate to the federal government that any cuts to ACOA, if at

all, are certainly minimal and that they not be focused on the operating budgets

and the lending budgets of the small, community-based development banks.

I thank the minister for his announcement on the awards. Clearly this will be

distributed through my district as well as all others.

Thank you.

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

Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

I would first like to congratulate previous recipients and encourage small to

medium export businesses in all districts to submit applications for this year's

award.

Our strategic location as the most easterly point in North America should

serve as a driver for rural and urban exports. This, of course, is given that

the government chooses to further invest in advanced telecommunications and IT

infrastructure to bridge regional investment gaps.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a very important milestone for the

Department of Child, Youth and Family Services.

On Friday, March 30, I visited Happy Valley-Goose Bay to welcome the

ninety-five Child, Youth and Family Services staff who transitioned from the

Labrador-Grenfell Regional Health Authority to the department. This was a

wonderful opportunity to meet with new staff and to share in acknowledging that

together we have completed the transition process.

Mr. Speaker, the amount of groundwork and preparation that went into the

regional transitions was significant. To transition approximately 700 staff in a

span of one year is no small feat and I would like to express my appreciation to

all Child, Youth and Family Services staff as it was made possible by their hard

work, dedication, and co-operation.

Since the beginning, our government stated that we are committed to

transforming and revitalizing child, youth and family services from the ground

up. This meant more than just the creation of a line department. This meant

undertaking key systemic improvements that allow our frontline staff to better

serve our most vulnerable children and youth. This includes the redesign of the

new provincial organizational model, proclaiming the new Children and Youth Care

and Protection Act, establishing a new Training Unit and Adoptions Division, and

creating a new Quality Assurance Division.

Numerous other improvement projects are being finalized, including a new

continuum of care for children in need of protection, a comprehensive child care

strategy, and a review of our Behaviour Management Program as well as the

Adoption Act, to name just a few. Every program area is being assessed and the

department is implementing a quality improvement process to track performance.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to building upon this strong foundation as we

continually strive to offer the best possible supportive services to children,

youth, and their families throughout our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo La Poile.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement. We want to commend

CYFS on this milestone. The new department was announced in March 2009 and now

we have a transfer complete from all social workers from the regional health

authority to the department. These social workers do face many challenges.

According to the workforce report in 2011, April, there was a total of

thirty-nine vacancies within the four regional health authorities; twenty-five

of those in the CYFS division.

Government has said they are adjusting caseloads and supervisors for these

social workers to make the caseloads more manageable. We commend government for

these actions and hope that we stick to this commitment. We hope the adjustment

in caseloads will help decrease the challenges that are faced by social workers,

as well as enhance the services for children and their families.

We have over 700 children in care, and of those over 200 are from Aboriginal

communities. Social workers have to deal with these difficult issues, not just

working with the children but with the families as well. These social workers,

as well as all others in this Province, do tremendous work. We certainly

appreciate their effort and significant contributions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. I

congratulate staff in the department for working hard to accomplish this huge

transition while maintaining services. I hope that the new continuum of care for

children in need of protection will include more social workers so caseloads do

become manageable and children and families get the attention that they need.

More resources must go towards prevention in helping families so fewer

children have to be removed from a home. Providing more resources to families

and investing in prevention must be part of protecting and safeguarding children

at risk.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the PUB concludes that the information

provided by Nalcor in the review is not detailed, complete, or current enough to

determine whether the interconnected option represents the least-cost option for

the supply of power to Island Interconnected Customers over the period of

2011-2067 as compared to the Isolated Island Option.

My question to the Premier: What are we going to do now?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, while I must say that I am disappointed and puzzled by the

report from the PUB, nevertheless my responsibility as Premier is to make sure

that all the information that is available to us is made available to the people

of the Province before we go to the sanction decision.

To that end, Mr. Speaker, we have engaged MHI to review all the sanction

numbers, Decision Gate 3 numbers. They will be made available, as well, pending

reports, especially those on natural gas and wind. When all of that information

is in the public purview, Mr. Speaker, which we expect will not be until

probably the end of June, we will call the House together for a full debate in

case the House is not sitting at that time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Almost $1 billion has been spent on this project to date. I ask the Premier:

Are you now prepared to stop spending taxpayers' money on this project until a

full, independent review of all options is completed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when you are looking for a full, independent analysis which is

what we were trying to do with the PUB review wherein we spent nine months and

over $2 million and did not get any recommendation from the PUB, the value we

got from it was the report from MHI. Otherwise, the PUB walked away from its

responsibility, the terms of its mandate, to give us a recommendation. A

recommendation that had already been endorsed by Navigant, by Manitoba Hydro, by

the Consumer Advocate Mr. Johnson and his expert Knight Pisold, and Dr. Wade

Locke. They all concur that it is the least-cost and we need the power. The PUB

was not able to arrive there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, government's much hyped PUB report on

Muskrat Falls is not what they were expecting. It is amazing that even though

the government did all they could to limit the scope of the PUB's review, they

came back with a damning report.

I ask the Premier: Are you going to discredit the PUB report, just as you

have every other criticism of Muskrat Falls?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I did not get a report from the PUB. After nine months and $2

million, the reason that the PUB put forward was they could not make a

recommendation because they did not have sanction numbers, Decision Gate 3

numbers. Mr. Speaker, they had known for a long time, as has everybody else in

this Province, that those numbers would not be available until June. When they

asked for an extension, they only asked until the end of June. How were you

going to get the numbers in June to have MHI do an analysis and write a report

to the end of June? It is very puzzling, Mr. Speaker, but be that as it may, my

responsibility is to the people of the Province. Members opposite have been

demanding a debate. Your request is now being accommodated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the PUB concluded that the information which

government made available during the review was considerably less detailed and

comprehensive than the information that Nalcor has today.

I ask the Premier: Why did you withhold this information from the PUB, and

will you now commit to making all information public as we have called for on

many occasions?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference that were given to the PUB asked for

recommendations on two critical questions that had been raised time and time

again about the Opposition as to whether or not we needed the power and whether

this was the least-cost option. They were to base that information on the

feasibility numbers that were provided in Decision Gate 2; that is their

mandate. What they have come back and said we are not prepared to make a

recommendation unless we have sanction numbers, Mr. Speaker. The question is,

when they asked for an extension at the end of December to the end of June, it

was for public consultation purposes. Nowhere in any of their communications

with us have they indicated that they needed sanction numbers for a

recommendation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the PUB stated that government has been

relying on Decision Gate 2 numbers for Muskrat Falls. These are concept studies

or feasibility level stage numbers. Additionally, the PUB said that the numbers

government put forward for the isolated-island option are even less detailed.

I ask the Premier: Why are you so confident in this project if only 5 per

cent to 10 per cent of the details have been worked out?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have explained time and time again as we move through this

process that it is a gated process, where you identify a number of activities in

one gate and you complete all of them before you move to decision two. What we

have in decision two gate, Mr. Speaker, is the result of a feasibility study

that answers fundamental questions and allows you to make a decision on whether

or not to go forward. That information was solid enough for us to move into the

next tranche of the examination of this project. We provided all of that

information in the mandate to the PUB, the mandate they accepted to review those

numbers (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the PUB has put up a giant stop sign on this

project. They stated that there seems to be a strong and widely held belief that

supply options such as natural gas, additional wind, and Upper Churchill power

could be viable options.

So I ask the Premier: Will you now allow for the detailed study of all

options, including natural gas, to meet our energy demands up to 2041?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the very first thing I suggest for the Acting Opposition House

Leader is that he read the PUB report, because it does not say any of that. What

it does say there is no new information, Mr. Speaker, in the PUB report. All

of the information that is in the report that was released on Friday has been in

the public domain for some time. What the PUB has said is that they are not

prepared to make a recommendation on the two fundamental questions, even though

Navigant was able to; even though their own expert was able to, Manitoba Hydro;

even though the Consumer Advocate and his expert, Knight Pisold, and Dr. Wade

Locke, were all able to make recommendations and qualify the results, the PUB

has refused to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, the MP for Labrador, Peter Penashue, has

emphatically stated that the federal government will not reverse its decision to

close the Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre in St. John's.

I ask the Premier: Since it is obvious that your letter-writing campaign with

Ottawa is not having an effect, what are you now prepared to do to intensify

your efforts to have the sub-centre in St. John's remain open?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: (Inaudible) centre since the decision was made. We

put innovative ideas and offers of partnership before the federal government in

order to maintain the centre, Mr. Speaker. We will continue to press our case.

It is disheartening that so far it has fallen on deaf ears, Mr. Speaker. We

remain very, very concerned.

My most recent meeting on this was with Rear-Admiral Gardam, who is

responsible for all of this, Mr. Speaker, and again reiterated my concerns and

asked for his vigilance in terms of what is happening off the waters of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, we have learned that the requirement to be fluent

in French to be transferred through the JRCC in Halifax has been dropped because

the Quebec sub-centre is remaining open.

I ask the Premier: In your discussions with Ottawa and the Prime Minister,

have you confirmed that the Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre in Quebec will remain

open while the sub-centre in St. John's closes?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when I have conversations with the Prime Minister, with Minister

Ashfield, with Minister MacKay, I concern myself with the issues concerning

Newfoundland and Labrador. I know that the minister has spoken in the Parliament

of Canada to say that the Quebec marine sub-centre will close. As well, Mr.

Speaker, it is at a later date.

Mr. Speaker, all of my efforts are focused on Newfoundland and Labrador, not

on Quebec.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the federal government

released their budget, which included massive cuts to ACOA, Marine Atlantic, and

other programs essential to this Province. It also announced the layoffs of

19,500 federal civil servants. In response, the Premier casually dismissed the

local impact, stating effects would be minimal.

My question to the Premier: Do you still believe in the minimal impact of the

federal budget on this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, none of us at this point in time can speak cogently about the

effect of the federal budget on Newfoundland and Labrador because we do not have

the detail. We are guessing. Until we get more detail, there is not much we can

say in a definitive way, other than to say any impact on frontline services to

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is not acceptable. We are very, very

concerned about job losses in this Province where the federal government is

already under-represented.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, now that the talks have once again fallen apart

between OCI and the locked out trawler men, will the Premier move to settle this

strike or will she just declare this Province to be a scab labour jurisdiction?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me just say, as a government, obviously we are very saddened that talks

have broken off. I just found out about it within the last few minutes, Mr.

Speaker, and obviously we are disappointed. We continue to encourage them to

work through the process. We have conciliators available. They have been working

with a conciliator thus far, and I encourage both parties, Mr. Speaker, to stay

at that table. It is certainly the benefit of everybody when that happens and I

encourage them to stay at the table.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, a year ago the federal government committed in

a letter to the Premier to defend Canada's sealing industry in costal and

northern communities that depend on the hunt. The Province has also stated to

keeping this industry alive. The word from the industry is that we need a

stronger and more aggressive approach, not just soft commitments.

I ask the Minister: What action is this government taking to step up the

campaign to ensure the long-term survival of this important industry?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a very good question, a very timely question. We have been engaged with

the sealing industry for quite some time. I am not sure what part of the

industry that my critic, the member opposite, has been talking to, but certainly

not relaying the same message in the House that we are getting from the

industry.

We have made representation to the Senate Committee just Thursday past; I was

there myself. We made representation to the federal minister at least on three

occasions. We continue to work on marketing opportunities. If the member is

versed in the subject, I am sure he is well aware of the challenges, the

political challenges that we face in Russia and China. It is not a question of

people wanting the product. There are some bureaucratic and political red tape

we have to get through, Mr. Speaker, but we will continue to push hard. In the

interim, we are continuing to work on a daily basis with the industry about some

support for this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the harp seal population has now exploded to

over 10 million, requiring 14 million pounds of seafood annually to survive.

That is over fifty pounds of seafood for every pound landed in our Province.

Clearly, our seafood industry cannot survive if seals eat everything in the

ocean.

I ask the Minister: When can we expect integrated management plan that

addresses research and harvesting to manage this explosion and to protect our

fish?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to hear the member opposite is reading my Tweets, my

Facebook posts, and he is becoming engaged and interested in the industry. I

thank him for that, and I thank you for offering your support.

I would however, like to point out that the very essence of the question you

ask is a federal issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KING: Sealing is not a provincial jurisdictional issue. Sealing is

not a provincial issue, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to quotas and harvesting. We

make representation on behalf of the harvesters in our Province to the federal

government, but it is clearly a decision-making issue that rests with the

federal government. I suggest to the member based on what he is saying, that

he is supportive of government's position to join with us in our continued

advocacy for the same.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, on April 7, 2011 this Premier wrote to the

Prime Minister stating that our fishing industry is overcapitalized without

providing any hard evidence. In fact, the real problem in our fishery is

underutilization; too much of our seafood is shipped out of our Province with

little or no processing leaving our 100-or-so plants without raw material.

I ask the Premier: What plan does this government have to ensure our small

seafood processors get enough raw materials to survive?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I politely would ask the member opposite if he would be prepared to table or

at least share with me the information that he is putting before this House.

What he has just shared with you is clearly not the indication that we get from

the industry, Mr. Speaker.

There are a number of significant challenges, but the challenge around most

of the product going out unprocessed is categorically false, I say to the member

opposite. I am prepared to provide a briefing with my officials, if he would

like that.

The biggest challenge of resource leaving this Province that the public

raised concerns with was around yellowtail and red fish. As we speak, none of

that product is leaving this Province unprocessed, Mr. Speaker. Crab, shrimp,

and lobster, which are three mainstays of this industry, all go through some

form of processing in this Province with the exception of live lobster for live

market.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Premier's 2011 election

letter to Mr. Harper, the Prime Minister committed to introduce legislation in

its first sitting this year to give our Province a formal role in the management

of the fisheries.

I ask the Premier: What initiative have you taken to ensure that the federal

government lives up to that commitment?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, for those watching at home and in the galleries, I

hope you are paying attention to the line of questioning. It was about two

questions ago the member opposite suggested that this government have

responsibility for managing the fisheries. He just acknowledged in the last

question that he does understand, in fact, that the federal government has

responsibility for managing the fishery. I say to the member opposite: At least

be forthright and share with people, who has complete jurisdiction and

responsibility, if you are going to talk about fisheries and put questions in

this House that are very important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that we continue to engage with

processors, harvesters, and all who have a stake in the fishing industry. If

there is one thing that this government will do, Mr. Speaker, is we will fight

until our dying days to make sure that the interests of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, and those who make a living from the sea, are protected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, in The Telegram this weekend the Premier spoke of

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: 600 federal government jobs in the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker recognizes the Leader of the Third Party.

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

In The Telegram this weekend, the Premier spoke of 600 federal

government jobs in the Province and noted that she anticipated a loss of between

twenty and thirty jobs. There are actually thousands of federal jobs in the

Province and the cuts could number in the hundreds.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: How could she have been so wrong about the

number of people working for one of the biggest employers in this Province?

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 take full responsibility for the miscommunication. It was

entirely mine. I meant to say 6,000, between 250 and 300. I omitted a very

important zero in all of those numbers; the fault was mine, not the newspapers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Between 6,000 and 7,000 workers, and it will be hundreds of

jobs that will be lost, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, with the report of the Public Utilities Board today with regard

to Muskrat Falls, government's best attempt to thwart real discussion and debate

on the Muskrat Falls proposal has failed.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Once Nalcor really has the proposal

ready to be looked at, would she allow the PUB to do a full review, and then,

once government is properly informed, a real debate on nothing else but Muskrat

Falls in this House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we provided a mandate to the PUB. Nine months later and $2

million later, Mr. Speaker, the PUB says that they are not prepared to make a

recommendation unless they have sanction numbers sanction numbers that they

would not have been able to do that piece of work on even if we had given them

the extension to the end of June, Mr. Speaker. I do not know how long they were

intending to do this review.

Mr. Speaker, while I put that forward time and time again in this House,

members of the Opposition kept telling me that it was completely unacceptable

and that they wanted a full debate here in this House, Mr. Speaker. We are going

to provide all the information to them and to the rest of the people in the

Province and we are going to have a debate right here (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

It is this government, Mr. Speaker, who were the ones who gave an incomplete

feasibility study to the PUB. They knew what they were doing. They asked the PUB

to make a decision on a feasibility study and they never told that to the people

of this Province, Mr. Speaker. The Premier has been touting her experts on

Muskrat Falls for months

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: while ignoring the recommendations and conclusions from a

wide range of independent experts, Mr. Speaker. Now, the Public Utilities Board

has concluded the information provided by Nalcor is not detailed, complete, or

current enough to make such a determination.

So I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Will she finally heed the advice of the

experts out there who have been putting out the information, or is she

determined to gamble taxpayers' money and proceed with this proposal without

in-depth study?

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 suggest to the Leader of the Third Party that you do some

homework as well and read the terms of reference to the PUB. They were asked to

make their recommendations based on Decision Gate 2 numbers feasibility

numbers very clearly stated in the terms of reference. I also suggest that you

read the report as well, because in the report the PUB acknowledges that based

on Decision Gate 2 numbers that it is the least-cost alternative, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KENNEDY: (Inaudible) sixty-five.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Page 65. The same conclusion arrived at by Navigant,

Manitoba Hydro their expert, I might say, Mr. Speaker the Consumer Advocate,

and Dr. Locke.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I love the way the Premier delights in

interpreting this report the way she wants to interpret it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: I cannot use it as a prop, Mr. Speaker, but it is sitting

here on my desk, and believe me, I have just spent the last two hours combing

it.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has taken delight in quoting MHI conclusions

regarding the least-cost

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has taken delight in quoting MHI

conclusions regarding the least-cost option, without paying any attention to the

risks and uncertainties that MHI itself pointed out regarding load and

reliability of the transmission line. The board concludes that the gaps

identified by MHI and I point out all the gaps have to do with the

interconnected option in Nalcor's analysis

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: have the potential to significantly impact the viability of

their Interconnected Island Option.

So, will the Premier now admit that serious doubt has been cast on Nalcor's

conclusions and direct (inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Third Party was so poorly impressed with

Manitoba Hydro that she did not present to them. With all of the knowledge that

she professes to have on hydro generation, power generation, you would think

that was something she would have looked forward to.

Mr. Speaker, she refers to Manitoba Hydro. I am happy to tell her that we

have engaged Manitoba Hydro to do a complete analysis of sanction numbers, Mr.

Speaker, and Decision Gate 3 numbers. All of that information will be made

available to her and to others in preparation for the debate here in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Leader of the Third Party.

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

Mr. Speaker, I point out to the Premier that it was the PUB I did not make an

oral presentation to. In my written presentation, I pointed out I had been

muzzled by the mandate of the government and therefore did not take their time.

Mr. Speaker, the PUB was loud and clear about their many concerns regarding

the Muskrat Falls proposal. It noted that industrial customers had serious

concerns and suggested the PUB, under its statutory mandate, should have the

opportunity to further review in an open and transparent way the areas of

concern outlined by both the board and MHI.

So I ask the Premier: In light of this damning report, will she mandate the

PUB to do further review?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have always made it clear that we would consider all of the information

and reports, including the PUB. We have always made it clear also that the

Decision Gate 3 or sanction numbers would be crucial in terms of making our

decision.

So what the Premier has announced here today, Mr. Speaker, I thought the

Opposition would be happy with. They will have their opportunity of a full,

special debate on Muskrat Falls. An independent expert, Mr. Speaker, has been

engaged who will continue their work and provide the information. We have

indicated that we will provide studies on natural gas and wind, Mr. Speaker. So

everything I thought they were asking for we are giving them today.

Mr. Speaker, as for the conclusion of the PUB, essentially their

recommendation is no recommendation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since the beginning of the Muskrat Falls proposal, I have been asking

government to slow down and examine all of the options available in the short

and medium term on the Island for electrical generation. Government has

consistently and categorically refused to even consider doing it. Today the PUB

says Nalcor's load forecast does not demonstrate an immediate need for the

significant amount of new generation Muskrat Falls would produce.

So, Mr. Speaker, in light of today's PUB report, I ask the Premier: Will she

now direct Nalcor to do an independent, in-depth study of the many Isolated

Island Options?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government alone has spent eight years planning this

project. Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Third Party says she spent two hours

reading the report. I suggest you spend two more because in the report the PUB

acknowledges that

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: - it got the reliability information from Nalcor in

March but have not read it nor commented on it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government has said that it will replace the provincial student loan

program with a new needs-based grants program.

Can the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills tell us if this new grant

program will be in place when the academic year begins next September?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to remind the hon. member that Newfoundland and Labrador is touted as

having the best student aid package in the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, back in the 1990s, the Liberal government at that

time took away the grants that students received. Mr. Speaker, this government

has been instrumental in bringing back the grant program as part of the student

aid package in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, at this time and the program is already in, we would like to

expand the program within this mandate. Mr. Speaker, at this time students who

borrow will not have to pay back the first 60 per cent of the provincial portion

of their student loan because that is a grant at this time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, we know that the minister has recently hired a

high-priced consultant to look for places to cut in her department.

I ask: What is this government going to do if this consultant decides that

the promise to phase out student loans is a promise that should be cut?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Advanced Education and

Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I can say that the consultant, or any consultant

we have hired who is helping us look at any initiatives or any work that we do

in this department will be very supportive of our initiatives within the student

loan program and where we are moving and our reasons for doing that. As I said,

we have the best student aid package in the country, Mr. Speaker. We eliminated

the interest on student loans and we have had a tuition freeze in place since

2004, Mr. Speaker. We will stand on our record for what we are doing for

students.

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 PUB points out many issues around transmission line design

criteria and lack of adherence to best practices in their work.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why did she not direct Nalcor to use best

practices in all instances in the work they have done?

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, but the time allocated for Question Period has

expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister Responsible for Advanced Education and Skills.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a

bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act. (Bill 15)

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

MR. KENNEDY: 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, April 3, 2012,

and further I give notice that, under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this

House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 3, 2012.

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I give notice of a motion, seconded by the

Member for Bay of Islands, to reaffirm the principles of disallowing the export

of unprocessed seafood:

WHEREAS the fishery is the lifeline of hundreds of communities in our

Province, with both the harvesting and processing contributing significantly to

personal incomes and regional economies; and

WHEREAS the shipping out of unprocessed seafood negatively impacts our

people, communities and Province; and

WHEREAS provincial legislation is already in place to restrict the exporting

of our unprocessed fish products; and

WHEREAS there is a growing concern that the community unit will become even

less of a beneficiary of one of our most important renewable resources; and

WHEREAS this government is already on record as stating that our people and

our communities must be the primary beneficiaries of our fish resources; and

WHEREAS there is increasing evidence that other countries are benefiting

greatly from our unprocessed, raw seafood products; and

WHEREAS there are warnings that our Province is running out of time to

diversify its economy before oil runs out and we will be left with insufficient

money to pay the bills;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly encourages the

provincial government to immediately recommit to the principles of disallowing

the shipping out of unprocessed resources in order to protect regional and

provincial economies; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House of Assembly encourages the provincial

government to work with the federal government to adopt a policy that if a

company is unable to process its quota allocation, then it must be obligated by

law to offer it to other processing companies at cost and a reasonable profit

margin as determined by the industry; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House of Assembly encourages the provincial

government to adopt a policy that in cases where it is absolutely necessary to

ship out unprocessed fish, to ensure the survival of the industry in the long

term, it must be shipped out for only a definite time frame, and a company

exporting unprocessed seafood has, first, to reapply for the export licence

annually; and secondly, it must pay a fee to the Province, as is done in many

other industries, so that our people and our communities continue to benefit

from this natural resource.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand with a petition today:

WHEREAS the Premier has the authority under the Public Inquiries Act to

establish a public inquiry into a matter of public concern; and

WHEREAS there have been several tragedies in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador where search and rescue responses have been called into question; and

WHEREAS the Burton Winters tragedy has increased the awareness of search and

rescue capacity in Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the Maritime Search and Rescue Sub-Centre in St. John's is scheduled

to close on May 8, 2012;

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

House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to

establish a public inquiry into search and rescue in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I present this petition here today on behalf of all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. As we all know, there are many Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians who depend upon the sea for their living and use the land for

living and for recreation, and because of the harshness of the environment, we

need good search and rescue in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the sub-centre is going to close in St. John's,

but we just found out that the one in Halifax will remain open. It is imperative

that we have such a good search and rescue here that there is never a question

on the ability and for people to be able to call for search and rescue.

This petition, Mr. Premier, is asking the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador to hold a public inquiry so that we can look at all aspects of search

and rescue in Newfoundland and Labrador, so that all aspects are examined, and

ask the federal government also to partake in the inquiry, so that we can ensure

that no matter how small or how big the issue may be in Newfoundland and

Labrador, that we have the capacity, we have the ability, and we are prepared

for any event to try to help any person in need, and save as many lives as

possible in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

As we have seen over the last little while, there have been incidents where

search and rescue has been called into question the protocols have been called

into question, Mr. Speaker. What we need is an inquiry where we can set down the

protocols. In a public inquiry, Mr. Speaker, there will be recommendations made

that are followed by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We would improve

search and rescue in this Province, we would improve the capacity for the people

who are supplying search and rescue to help every resident in Newfoundland and

Labrador. We can instill confidence again in the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador that everything is being done that can be done to ensure that lives are

not at risk and that everything possible is put forward to help.

Mr. Speaker, I present this petition on behalf of the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand 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 showeth:

WHEREAS the moose population is in decline in Moose Management Areas 40, 45,

and 1 due to overkill of female and calves and the extended season; and

WHEREAS increase to licences, including female only, calves, and either sex;

and

WHEREAS the extending of the moose season is having an impact on all animals;

using ATVs or snowmobiles destroying and pursuing animals in winter yards. It is

no longer a hunt but a kill;

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

House of Assembly to discontinue female only, calf, either sex, return hunting

season dates back to the last week of November and reduce licences.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

This is a petition that has been presented all around in the District of The

Straits White Bay North. It is a significant concern to the people, not only

recreational hunters but outfitters that the population is in drastic decline in

the area and there needs to be immediate action, and 2013 certainly will be too

late. We need to have action right now where we look at reducing the number of

licences.

Right now, with the season being extended, there are snowmobilers that are

going in, chasing female calves that are pregnant. They are aborting their

calves and it is having a big impact. We cannot have a sustainable hunt if we do

not protect the female population there so that they continue to have calves. We

really need to look at doing something to ensure that the outfitting industry

remains viable in the region. It is a $40 million industry across Newfoundland

and Labrador. The people in my district, the recreational hunters and the

outfitters, are saying that it is in decline and action needs to be taken.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador. This is a petition for anti-scab legislation. The petition is:

WHEREAS strikes and lockouts are rare, and on average 97 per cent of

collective agreements are negotiated without work disruption; and

WHEREAS anti-temporary replacement worker laws have existed in Quebec since

1978 and in British Columbia since 1993, and successive governments in those

provinces have never repealed those laws; and

WHEREAS anti-temporary replacement workers legislation has reduced the length

and divisiveness of labour disputes in other jurisdictions; and

WHEREAS the use of temporary replacement workers during a strike or lockout

is damaging to the social fabric of a community, the local economy, and

well-being of residents, as evident in the recent use of temporary replacement

workers by both Ocean Choice International and Vale in Voisey's Bay;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge government to

enact legislation banning the use of temporary replacement workers during a

strike or a lockout.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, we saw the damaging impact of the absence of this legislation in

this Province when workers in Voisey's Bay went on strike for eighteen months,

which is an incredible amount of time for workers to be off the job and unable

to be able to provide for their families in the way in which they would

otherwise want to. We have seen this ongoing problem now with Ocean Choice

International having their trawler, the Newfoundland Lynx , out there

working with scab labour on board. I understand that the boat recently went

ashore to be re-scabbed, Mr. Speaker.

I think that there is plenty of evidence out there; I know the Minister

Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency said several weeks ago that he has

read two articles on this, one in favour and one against. I just encourage the

minister to read more widely in that research because there is certainly a lot

of evidence out there that this is progressive legislation that we need in

Newfoundland and Labrador. I hope the government will listen to these

petitioners during this legislative session and enter that 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 rise again on a petition dealing with the

Animal Protection Act.

To the hon. House of Assembly for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador

in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly

sheweth:

WHEREAS the current Animal Protection Act was enacted in 1978 and is woefully

inadequate; and

WHEREAS it has been almost two years since the Animal Protection Act was

passed in the House of Assembly but has not yet been proclaimed; and

WHEREAS the inadequacy of current animal protection laws is of grave and

immediate concern to the SPCA; and

WHEREAS the new Animal Protection Act would ensure much more severe

punishment and ultimately reduce instances of these crimes;

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

House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to

immediately proclaim the new Animal Protection Act.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is important legislation, but it is important to a very

small group of individuals who are unheard. That is our animal friends. The

animals people's pets, their livestock, wild animals all need the protection

of this government. We have recently seen instances of horrific animal cruelty

and I am absolutely positive that it is a concern to everybody.

This piece of legislation has been passed for nearly two years, so clearly it

should not require very much effort or very much initiative for the government

to be able to finally proclaim this important piece of legislation. The animals

cannot speak for themselves, so we much speak for them; fortunately, they have

their own lobby group through the SPCA and others who will keep coming forward

and insisting this legislation be proclaimed.

Public education will be important to educate people as to animal rights, but

clearly we need the enforcement arm; that is what these petitioners are humbly

seeking, that this Animal Protection Act be proclaimed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a petition to reinvest in rural broadband initiatives.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS in the District of The Straits White Bay North, despite the $4

million Rural Broadband Initiative announced on December 22, 2011, only one

community, Ship Cove, is slated for broadband coverage; and

WHEREAS the communities of Pine's Cove, Eddies Cove East, Bide Arm, North

Boat Harbour, L'Anse aux Meadows, Great Brehat, St. Carol's, Goose Cove,

Grandois, and St. Anthony Bight still remain without services; and

WHEREAS many small businesses within the district rely on Internet to conduct

business; and

WHEREAS broadband Internet permits a business to be more competitive than the

slower dial-up services; and

WHEREAS broadband Internet enhances primary, secondary, post-secondary, and

further educational opportunities;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to

re-invest in the rural broadband initiatives in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

It is absolutely essential, in this day and age, that we have access to

broadband Internet. In many of the communities which I listed, there are very

limited businesses currently operating, and this just goes to show the

hindrance, the inability to advance a community and a region without having such

basic infrastructure as broadband Internet.

The government has been doing a good job in making these investments to

increase communities, but it needs to be more and they need to really have a

strategic telecommunications plan to ensure that many communities are not

missed.

We talk about the export potential, and the minister made a statement today

about the opportunities. Well, we do not have opportunity for export and for

small business development, home-based businesses, if we do not have broadband

Internet. There are eleven communities there in my district that does not have

it and they are calling on the minister to listen to their concerns so we can

have and build stronger, more vibrant communities in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

I present another petition here today.

WHEREAS the current Animal Protection Act was enacted in 1978 and is woefully

inadequate; and

WHEREAS it has been almost two years since the Animal Protection Act was

passed in the House of Assembly but has not yet been proclaimed; and

WHEREAS the inadequacy of the current animal protection law is of grave and

immediate concern to the SPCA; and

WHEREAS the new Animal Protection Act would ensure much more severe

punishment and ultimately reduce instances of these crimes;

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

House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to

immediately proclaim the new Animal Protection Act.

In duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I am after presenting petitions on this now for a number of

weeks and for several days per week because I think it is such an important

issue for the animals in Newfoundland and Labrador. The work has been done on

this. We need the regulations. We need them proclaimed so that the people who

are going to be out helping to protect our most vulnerable, the animals, do have

the tools and the mechanism so they can help the animals. Then we may even, at

times, be able to stop it before it happens.

Mr. Speaker, we have noticed in the media for several weeks and several

months particularly some of the animal cruelty in the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador. We have been hearing about it all across the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador. I think it is incumbent upon the government, Mr.

Speaker, that this act be proclaimed so that the people who are in this field

can help protect the animals and to bring the people who abuse animals to

justice. To ensure that they get a bit more than a slap on the wrist, Mr.

Speaker, this act should be proclaimed.

It has been over two years, Mr. Speaker. The regulations in this should have

been done. We know there are many people asking to have this legislation done.

We know the regulations will enhance the ability for people to enforce the rules

and to ensure better animal protection for all of the animals of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to urge the government to get the

regulations in place so that we can move ahead with this act. It is becoming

more and more important, more and more vital everyday because we hear of animal

abuse in the Province, and it is becoming more severe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

If I could go back to the Notices of Motion, specifically the motion read by

the Member for St. Barbe. We neglected, pursuant to

section 63.(3) of the

Standing Orders, to give notice that that is the motion to be debated on

Wednesday. I am asking for leave that I be allowed to rise here now after

Notices of Motion to read that in.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

I believe the motion has been read in, and that is the motion to be debated.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker acknowledges that the motion that the House will

be dealing with on this Wednesday coming will be the motion read into the record

by the Member for St. Barbe earlier this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Service

Newfoundland and Labrador, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To

Amend The Registration Of Deeds Act, 2009, Bill 14, and I further move, Mr.

Speaker, that the said bill be now read for the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of Service

Newfoundland and Labrador have leave to introduce Bill 14, and it be now read a

first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to

introduce Bill 14 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'.

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Registration Of Deeds Act, 2009",

carried. (Bill 14)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Registration Of Deeds Act, 2009. (Bill

14)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read the first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 14 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I refer to Order 9, I call from the Order Paper

second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act. (Bill 11)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that Bill 11,

An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 11,

An Act To Amend The

Liquor Control Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act".

(Bill 11)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This bill is

An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act. I think we will find we

have in this House of Assembly from time to time debates that are very important

to the history of the Province. For example, the Premier announced today we are

going to have a debate it looks like sometime in July or late June on the

Muskrat Falls Project. That will be a very important debate for the future of

our Province and to ensure that our seniors and people on fixed incomes have the

lowest possible electricity bills that are possible.

Sometimes in this House we have to deal with certain matters which are not as

important. We have to deal with technical matters and housekeeping matters to

clean things up. That is what this bill is doing today. It is looking at the

Liquor Control Act, which became enacted in 1973, I believe. The regulations

under the Liquor Control Act, known as the Liquor Licensing Regulations, came

into effect in 1996.

Many of the provisions of the legislation have become outdated. Sometimes in

order to do a review of the legislation, government has higher priorities in

other areas, and certain acts that need to be reviewed are delayed. Many of the

provisions are outdated and many of the provisions in the legislation do not

contemplate the realities of what the real world has become and what modern

business practices are, what the modern business environment is in 2012.

This particular legislation is to provide about three amendments to the

Liquor Control Act involving first of all, there are going to be some new

definitions. I can remember quite a few years ago I was in Toronto and my son

was being looked at, at the SickKids hospital in Toronto. I was able to meet

some of the other parents and some of the kids there. One of them invited me out

to lunch. We went to a restaurant and it was something I had never seen before;

it was a restaurant that had in it its own brewery. It was something called a

microbrewery, in which you had a restaurant and you had the brewery there. That

was all new to me.

Now, I understand that this business concept is now becoming popular in the

country; I know we have one here in St. John's now. The problem is that the law

and the regulations have not necessarily kept up with that. Therefore, this

legislation is going to do a number of different technical things. We are going

to bring amendments into the act to bring in some new

definitions; we are going

to define the meaning of brew restaurant; we are going to define the meaning of

the word microbrewery. We are also going to remove a requirement that beer that

is sold for off-site consumption has to be sold in a package of six or more.

That will be the second amendment. The other amendment will be to allow a brewer

who owns and operates a brew restaurant to sell beer either by the glass or the

open bottle to guests at meals for consumption at the brew restaurant.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, the Liquor Control Act received royal assent in 1973.

That act governs the distribution and sale of all liquor in Newfoundland and

Labrador. The three amendments address changes in the operating environment in

the Province since that legislation came into force.

Mr. Speaker, currently the act defines a case to mean a sealed package,

carton, or container containing the number of bottles of beer not fewer than six

that may be prescribed by the Liquor Corporation under the Liquor Corporation

Act. Mr. Speaker,

section 28 of the act requires that beer sold by stores also

has to be sold by the case. That means that beer must be sold in packages of

six, Mr. Speaker, or not less than six.

As most of us are likely aware, beer may be purchased in increments of less

than six. Liquor stores offer for sale variety packages. They offer gift packs

of beer, particularly around the holiday season, and those packages contain less

than six bottles of beer. Certain types of beer may be bought by the can, the

individual single can, or it can be bought by the one-litre bottle. This is

certainly less than six in a package, the requirement of a case.

In 1979, the legislation was amended, which included the requirement to sell

by the case, Mr. Speaker. When this amendment was first introduced, the

evolution of marketing techniques such as sample packs or gift packs had not

reached the beer industry. In recent years, beer has been packaged in more

creative ways. A person can purchase a four-pack of beer which contains one

bottle each of four different types of beer. A person can purchase a single can

of imported beer. A person may purchase a gift pack of two bottles of beer with

a branded beer stein included in the box. These are marketing tools that were

not contemplated in 1979, Mr. Speaker, but these are the realities of the world

we live in today.

It is important that the laws of our Province reflect the values and the

realities of today's society. Laws must remain current to today's ways of

thinking, Mr. Speaker. That is why we are amending the act to remove the

stipulation that beer must be sold in package sizes of at least six containers.

Mr. Speaker, removing the requirement that beer has to be sold by the case

does not allow for the breaking open of a six-pack of beer for the purposes of

selling the individual contents bottle by bottle. The amendment requires that

beer be sold in a container and package sizes that are approved by the

Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation, known as the NLC.

The NLC has published a product listing, Mr. Speaker. The product listing

names all of the products that are available for purchase through the NLC and

its various agents, and it discloses the price of those products. The listing

also states the container sizes and the number of containers in the package that

are available to be purchased. No products are permitted to be sold unless they

are approved by the NLC. The product listing is the vehicle by which the Liquor

Corporation communicates the approved package and the container sizes of

alcoholic products.

Further to this, Mr. Speaker, products must be sold in the particular

packaging, as indicated on the product list, in whole and unchanged from the

specifics of the product listing details. Mr. Speaker, the product listing can,

and in fact does, specify that some beer are to be sold in packages, or cases,

if you will, of six, twelve, or twenty-four. This is the traditional packaging

sizes of bottles of beer. This amendment does not and will not change this, Mr.

Speaker. The amendment just allows for recent developments in packaging of beer

products outside of what has been the traditional case.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, as I said earlier, the amendments to the

legislation will also address an issue related to the evolution of the craft

beer market. It adds

definitions of a brew restaurant and microbrewery to

accommodate the operation of microbreweries and restaurants from single

premises. The term microbrewery is not currently defined in the legislation, so

the amendment will define a microbrewery to mean a small capacity brewery that

produces less than 5,000 hectolitres or approximately 120,000 dozen bottles of

beer per year. When the act was first introdced in 1973, the microbrewery was

not contemplated, Mr. Speaker. As I said earlier, this is a relatively new

phenomenon. It is a new commercial entity that has grown in popularity in the

country.

A brew restaurant definition will be added to the act and it will mean a

restaurant that is housed within a microbrewery. Currently, this type of

arrangement operates under two licences; one licence for the brewery and a

separate licence for the restaurant. Mr. Speaker, the current licensing

structure does not contemplate the ability of a restaurant, under any

circumstances or conditions, to sell beer by the bottle or by any other means

for removing the beer from the premises. As we all know, if you are in a

restaurant and it is a licensed restaurant and it sells alcoholic beverages, you

cannot remove the alcoholic beverages from the restaurant. In fact, Mr. Speaker,

the act prohibits a holder of a restaurant licence from selling any alcoholic

products for the purposes of removing that drink from the premises.

This amendment will provide that a brewer may operate a brew restaurant

within the brewery, and like any other restaurant, may continue to sell beer by

the open glass or bottle. So, obviously, if the microbrewer is operating a

restaurant, the microbrewer will be able to sell the product that is being

brewed on the premises by open glass and bottle. Currently, a restaurant licence

allows a licensee to sell alcohol by the open bottle or glass to customers for

consumption at meals, but on the premises. A licensed brewer may keep for sale

and sell alcoholic liquor produced by the licensee to the Newfoundland and

Labrador Liquor Corporation, and to a person who is licensed to sell beer. There

is no provision in either a restaurant licence or a brewer's licence that

permits a patron to purchase beer brewed by the brewery for consumption offsite

in the absence of a brewer's agent's licence.

So, brew restaurants are a phenomenon not contemplated in 1973 when this act

was enacted and came into force. As there is no class of licence that allows us

to address the unique conditions under which these types of businesses operate,

this amendment is intended to do just that. Under the legislation we have now, a

restaurant which operates within the walls of microbrewery is not permitted to

sell its own product its own bottled, unopened product to a patron for that

customer to take it home. The brewery may sell the brewed beer to the restaurant

for services within the restaurant, for consumption within the restaurant, but

cannot allow a patron to buy and bring any home, unless there is dedicated

commercial space and a brewer's agent's licence. This means that the restaurant,

which is housed within the microbrewery, is not allowed to process a transaction

to sell beer to a patron for removal from the premises.

Currently, a brewery is not permitted to sell the beer they brew to a

customer who is not either the NLC or licensed by the NLC to sell beer. This

means that a patron cannot legally purchase beer to take home at a restaurant or

at a micro-brewery that is not licensed as a brewer's agent. So, to be licensed

as a brewer's agent, there must be a separate commercial space from which the

brewery may operate a retail operation. This amendment will allow a brewery or a

brew restaurant to sell beer to a person who is not otherwise disqualified from

purchasing beer.

The restaurant of course offers the equivalent of the commercial space. The

restaurant operates a cash register and processes payment transactions. It would

be unrealistic, it would be onerous, and it would be burdensome to require that

an enterprise build an additional four walls to create a dedicated commercial

space solely for the purposes of selling its product for removal from the

premises. To

section off a part of the restaurant where patrons would have to go

to purchase product to take home with them seems unnecessary, in that the

restaurant itself is the equivalent of the commercial space.

Mr. Speaker, it has been the goal of this government the goal of the

Minister of Business through the years, the role of the Minister of Innovation,

Business and trade to reduce red tape for local business people. It has been a

goal of this government to promote the Province as a place that is favourable to

business and to remove obstacles where possible to allow businesses to prosper

and to flourish. This amendment will allow a microbrewery which operates a

restaurant to sell its own product within the walls of the restaurant without

requiring the additional construction costs associated with building a dedicated

shop. It will allow the business to make use of existing infrastructure to

conduct its business, thereby reducing costs to the business.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment does not allow all restaurants to sell beer for

removal from the premises. It is not appropriate to permit all restaurant

licensees to sell beer by the unopened bottle. It does not remove the authority

of the restaurant to offer beer for sale by the glass or open bottle for

consumption with a meal. A restaurant will continue to be permitted to sell the

product of the microbrewery in this manner. The introduction of these amendments

regarding a brew restaurant allows for those businesses to sell their products

in quantities of less than six bottles for consumption off-site while

maintaining the integrity of the restaurant license. It allows for the

customization of requirements and responsibilities for the operation of this new

and unique commercial venture.

Further to this, Mr. Speaker, it is proposed that a new class of license be

created for a brew restaurant. This new class would be outlined in the

regulations and would permit the holder of the license to sell beer by the glass

or opened bottles to its patrons at meals. This is the same condition that

exists for licensed restaurants today. It will also allow them to sell the

unopened product they brew on-site to customers for consumption off the

premises. This new class of license would remove the requirement to create a

separate retail area for this purpose to meet the legal requirement for a

microbrewery restaurant combination to offer its products for its customers to

take home with them.

Mr. Speaker, with that, these simple amendments will simply allow this new

type of commercial operation that exists in all parts of the country to exist

here with no onerous expenses that would impact the success of the business.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister mentioned Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker, so I assume I am allowed

to have a little comment on Muskrat Falls as you bring everything into the

House. The only difference with this and Muskrat Falls this was not forced in

the House like Muskrat Falls debate was forced to have in the House, Mr.

Speaker.

This bill here is a bill that was brought in by the minister. It is more

housecleaning than anything else, Mr. Speaker. I remember going into other

countries where the microbreweries are a business in itself, and Newfoundland

and Labrador now has one and several that may expand with this.

Mr. Speaker, the minister brought in about the regulations by Newfoundland

and Labrador Liquor Corporation. We need to let the public know that all

regulations will be enforced by the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor

Corporation. They will not be able, as the minister stated on several occasions,

to take alcohol outside the premises and just to drink as they see fit. These

restaurants and microbreweries are going to be guided by Newfoundland and

Labrador regulations also, Mr. Speaker.

As we know, back years ago and I know some of us probably did not avail of

it, the four and the six packs; and the business has changed with some of the

promotions. This is something that this bill will help as we move forward, years

ago we are just catching up now, because all those regulations that were in

place, and promotions for the breweries in Newfoundland and Labrador have

changed a lot over the years, Mr. Speaker. This bill here is just keeping us

current.

Back years ago I think the minister mentioned that this bill was back in

the 1970s I do not think microbreweries were even discussed at the time, and

we did not know much about it at the time, Mr. Speaker. I remember I was in

Germany back in the early 2000s, the middle 2000s. There were over 5,000

microbreweries in Germany over 5,000 in Germany. It is a small business entity

on its own. One would set up and people would come there, especially if you have

some kind of specialty beer. A lot of people would come there just to try it,

and with the service of a good meal, Mr. Speaker, it is a small entity. This can

promote and help foster small businesses in some of the service area and the

restaurant's area, Mr. Speaker, which is very good for Newfoundland and

Labrador.

I know the minister mentioned on many occasions about the ability not to be

able to take alcohol out of these restaurants. My understanding of it, that is

in place as we speak now, for all establishments in Newfoundland and Labrador,

not just microbreweries but any restaurant that serves alcohol. Just to let the

public know, these microbreweries will have the same stringent regulations as

the eating establishments have now, Mr. Speaker. There is no cause for alarm

that these regulations are helping to foster any illegal activities. Because you

are in a microbrewery, it is just another way. I know in some places that I have

visited, the microbreweries, you can actually sit down and watch the product

being made; which in itself, it is a pleasure just to sit down and watch how it

is being made. Then you can sit down and see the end result and try the end

result, Mr. Speaker. Again, it is a bit of a novelty for Newfoundland and

Labrador, but over the years it has expanded into some good business

opportunities for some people and I look forward to expanding on these

opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, the minister also mentioned where, right now as we speak and I

know some of the microbreweries here, they have two licences. I know the

minister mentioned that sometimes it becomes a bit encumbering, where you go to

one restaurant which can serve alcohol and operates under one licence and now

they have to operate under two. It becomes a bit encumbering upon the business

itself. This bill is just bringing it in line with all other regulations from

Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation, and just moving on with the times.

Mr. Speaker, this bill itself is more of a housecleaning bill. As the

minister mentioned, it is more of a bill just to bring things in line and to

ensure that we are moving ahead with the times. I encourage the small business

of micro brewing in Newfoundland and Labrador, because it does have a unique

culture and a unique style for people, visitors coming and for tourists coming

in, it would be great.

Mr. Speaker, I will end with that, and I know the minister is glad to bring

this forward just to have this done so that we can move in line with all of

them. Mr. Speaker, we will be supporting these amendments because it is great

and hopefully will create more business with it.

I just want to stress again, and the minister stressed it on several

occasions, that these will in no way be able to operate without going to the

regulations that are set down by the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor

Corporation. There is no way that there would be any safety put in jeopardy over

these new regulations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with great pleasure to rise in the House to speak on Bill 11. Good

points from the member opposite there, from the District of Bay of Islands. You

are right on the mark; you have captured the essence of the changes in the

legislation.

This is an excellent example of deregulation that is good for the consumer

and good for the manufacturer and is reflective of today's real world. Mr.

Speaker, prior to becoming an MHA, I worked in the brewing business for almost

twenty-five years. I do have very extensive knowledge of where the industry has

come from and trends relating to where it is going.

While Bill 11 is

An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act, it can be best

described as a necessary piece of housekeeping. That is the word that we are

using and we all agree to update the legislation. I would like just to take a

few moments to explain the background surrounding the amendments.

Mr. Speaker, this would amend the act and it has three key components:

"define a brew restaurant' and a microbrewery'; remove the requirement that

beer sold for off site consumption must be sold in a package of 6 bottles or

more; and" three, to allow a brewer who owns "a brew restaurant to sell

beer by the glass or open bottle to guests at meals for consumption at the brew

restaurant"; and allow brewed beer on the premise to be sold for consumption off

the licensed premise in sealed containers and package sizes approved by the NLC.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador has a rich brewing tradition that

dates back to the days when our ancestors first arrived in great numbers in the

late 1700s and the early 1800s. The first major brewing operation was

established in 1827 by Charles Fox Bennett on Water Street West who later became

Prime Minister of the country of Newfoundland at the time. The Bennett brewery

became a fixture in this Province ever since. As a matter of fact, Dominion Ale,

its roots go back to then, it is still brewed today by a brewery here in the

city.

The second major brewery was founded in the late 1890s and it was called the

Newfoundland Brewery. That became, actually, Molson later in 1962. Later, the

Bavarian Brewery was founded in the early twentieth century.

Mr. Speaker, there are still many people working in the brewing industry

today whose fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers worked in these early

breweries. As you well know how industries work, sons get employed as fathers

move on and, today, there are people working in the brewing industry who can

trace their roots back to the early 1800s. That tradition of fine brewing beer

in this Province is being maintained as we speak.

Twenty years ago there were just two breweries producing beer for the

domestic market in Newfoundland and Labrador. Today, there are two

microbreweries and one brew restaurant, in addition to the two traditional

breweries. Today, the Newfoundland and Labrador brewing industry produces

425,000 hectolitres of beer a year, which is about 10 million dozen beer

annually. Of that, the smaller breweries produce and sell in total about 4,000

hectolitres, or approximately 100,000 dozen of beer a year.

Mr. Speaker, the necessity to identify the differences between traditional

brewers, microbreweries, and brew restaurants is important in legislation and

even more important in the regulations that are derived from the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the smaller breweries operate with different business models and

require some unique consideration with regard to regulations and even taxation.

This is recognized by both the large traditional breweries and the smaller

breweries.

Mr. Speaker, regarding packaging format and the removal of the requirement

that beer sold off-site retail consumption in a package of six bottles or more

be removed is not only synchronizing legislation with recent changes to NLC

regulation, it is reflective of the trends in the global beer market that

consumers in Newfoundland and Labrador have embraced. Mr. Speaker, for many

years packages for off-premise retail sales were limited to six-packs and

twelve-packs. Today, as a result of consumer demand, global trends, and the

growth of microbreweries and brew restaurants, several pack sizes can be found

on the shelves at the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation stores,

liquor agency stores, and brew agency stores, including large format single

serve packages, typically 500 millilitres, and larger two-packs, four-packs,

innovative packing, like mini kegs, and even very, very large format sized

bottles.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at consumer trends and why consumers are looking

for smaller pack sizes, we only need to look at what is happening in the wine

industry, for instance. Years ago, consumers gravitated toward their favourite

wine, while today consumers want to try different wines at different occasions.

Today there are hundreds of brands of wines to choose from as a result of

consumer demand. The same could be said for the beer category and how the

average consumer has shifted from a primary one-brand loyalty to a circle of

brands. The average consumer still gravitates toward their favourite brand but

will often choose other brands with different characteristics depending on the

occasion.

For instance, a light beer drinker going to a pub might prefer a pint of

heavier dark beer. On special occasions, this consumer might buy up to a more

expensive imported brand. So, many consumers might have one anchor brand or five

or six other brands they drink on occasion. By reducing the pack sizes,

consumers now have the option of purchasing single serve two-packs, four-packs,

whether to sample a product or just to have some different brands in the fridge.

It is simply for convenience.

Mr. Speaker, it is also important to mention that consumers are trending more

to off-premise consumption at home and at the cabin versus on-premise

consumption at bars and restaurants. It is interesting to note that twenty-five

years ago the split between off-premise sales and on-premise sales was

approximately 75 per cent, 25 per cent respectively. Today, that split is closer

to 85 per cent off-premise and 15 per cent on-premise, so the deregulating of

pack sizes is good for the consumer from the convenience point of view.

Today, the brewing industry supports over 300 jobs in brewing, packaging, and

distribution, many of which are very high-paying jobs. Mr. Speaker, suppliers,

contractors, and other business can account for dozens, if not hundreds, of

indirect jobs. The brewing industry is important to this Province and we, as a

government, must ensure we do all we can to keep the jobs here and keep these

breweries viable.

Mr. Speaker, government has consulted very closely with the industry players

and has spoken to many over the last few days. In fact, they all agree this will

have a positive impact for both the breweries, big and small, and the consumers.

The amendments will also bring existing Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor

Corporation regulations into alignment with the Liquor Control Act.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I believe all hon. members of the House

should support Bill 11.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to

Bill 11, an amendment to the Liquor Control Act. It is certainly very positive

to see changes to this act, which is mainly housekeeping, to basically bring

things up to speed, as the minister and other members stated.

With changing trends, seeing that we do have microbreweries and brew

restaurants in the Province, these need to be included. For some time, we have

been going outside the regular packaging of six, twelve and twenty-four and that

bottles have been sold. This is an immense opportunity for us to really support

small business in our Province and we must do things to ensure that they are not

burdened by unneeded regulation, so it is very encouraging to see that reduction

of red tape with the dual licensing and things like that being talked about.

Now, I have had the opportunity to live in the Czech Republic, which is a

beer nation, and certainly they have many microbreweries there, as in Germany.

Throughout my travels of many countries in Europe and across Canada, I had the

opportunity to take in and visit many microbreweries, as in Granville Island

microbrewery in Vancouver, and seeing what they have. It is not only about being

able to try a sampling of different beers that they produce, but to also take a

tour and to also look at the product development that they have. They have a

complete store with a bunch of different products and sales.

With that, we are really fostering an opportunity to enhance small business

development. Right now we have microbreweries here in the city; both are in the

member's District of Signal Hill Quidi Vidi. There is an immense opportunity

to go outside the city and look at where we can go into developing

microbreweries and brew restaurants across Newfoundland and Labrador. It is very

encouraging to see these types of changes in the act itself.

I do want to ask a question about why we have set it is a concern, I guess,

why we set the limit of what qualifies a microbrewery to 5,000 hectolitres per

year. This is something that the Minister of Finance said: It is approximately

120,000 dozen beer. In Nova Scotia, the qualification for a microbrewery is

producing fewer then 15,000 hectolitres per year. That is an extremely big

difference; so, what happens when a microbrewery wants to produce 10,000

hectolitres? What do they have to do then? Are they at the same competitive

level then as the larger corporations, which the Member for St. John's West had

just noted are producing in the millions of dozens per year? Are they going to

be faced at an unfair advantage? We are putting a specific number here in the

act itself. Should not something like this have been dealt with in the

regulations where we put the limitation as to what defines a microbrewery?

I do want to say though that this is a good thing to be putting forward, the

brew restaurants and the microbrewery into the Liquor Corporations Act, because

we do have opportunity as we develop our small rural regions and look at doing

more public houses and more social spaces, but also to tap into the history of

what it means to microbrew and some of the local samplings of different regions;

that is what is happening in other provinces across Canada.

With that, I would just like to see that also the Liquor Control Act where

it is a very antiquated act a full review of that may need to be considered in

the near future.

So I certainly support the measures that have been put forward, because they

are mainly of housekeeping duty, and I am very happy to see that we are bringing

things up to speed to get with the times here in Newfoundland and Labrador when

it comes to brew restaurants and micro-breweries; the one concern is the

limitation of the 5,000 hectolitres,

whereas other provinces have a much larger

percentage. Maybe the Minister of Finance will address this.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board speaks now, he will close debate.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly would like to thank the hon. Member for The Straits White Bay

North, and the Member for Bay of Islands, and the Member for St. John's West,

for their comments and taking

part in this debate. I do not think there is

anything more to add. I think everybody is supporting this legislation.

I will certainly undertake to find out why the limit is 5,000 hectolitres of

beer and not 10,000 or more, and it might be a good idea to, rather than have it

in the act, to put it in the regulations so that it can be amended from time to

time. I will certainly get that information and report.

As everyone has said, this is modern legislation; it is to modernize the

legislation with respect to a business reality, and we look forward to the

passage of this legislation. We can move on to the next bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the 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 Liquor Control Act. (Bill 11)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time.

When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?

MR. KING: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act", read a second

time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 11)

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for St. George's

Stephenville East, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at

5:30 o'clock p.m. today, April 2; and I further move, seconded by the Member for

St. George's Stephenville East, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House

not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock this evening as well, Monday, April 2.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved that the House do not adjourn this evening

at 5:30 p.m., nor does the House adjourn at 10:00 o'clock this evening, Monday,

April 2.

All those in favour of the motion, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, a bill,

An Act To

Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act. (Bill 6)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural

Development, that Bill 6,

An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business

Practices Act be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 6,

An Act To Amend The

Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act, be now read a second time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection

And Business Practices Act". (Bill 6)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to rise today to have an opportunity to speak to this bill,

An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act. This is a

bill which will add a new division to the current act. The act is separated into

divisions, which I will get into during my comments this afternoon. This is to

add a new division governing what we refer to as distance service contracts. A

distance service contract is defined in the bill as a contract or "means a

service contract for cell phones, residential phones, internet, cable and

satellite television and remote surveillance, and includes the goods used in

conjunction with the service contract".

Mr. Speaker, what that involves is anyone who has a contract with a provider

for any of the items I just listed, including cellphones, Internet and home

phones and so on, all of this will be included under a definition of a distance

service contract. It also includes the goods used in conjunction with that

service contract, such as a cellphone itself. Sometimes a person will enter into

a contract with a cellphone coverage provider and as part of that contract they

will actually be given a cellphone as an included part of their contract. It may

be provided with a satellite dish, as an example, or also you could be given a

PVR, a personal video recorder, that comes with the service contract or is part

of the service contract that you have entered into with the provider.

Mr. Speaker, the bill provides for consumer protection in various ways, and

that is what this is about. It is about protecting the best interests of

consumers. It is looking out for their best interests. We know that of the items

listed included in this distance service contract, cellphones, residential

phones, Internet, cable and satellite television or remote surveillance, we know

this is going to, potentially, have an impact on many people in Newfoundland and

Labrador. I know there is going to be a significant amount of interest in this

particular bill.

Essentially, the bill requires plain language contracts that are clear; to

make it easy for consumers to understand what is actually contained in their

distance service contract. This is about plain language for consumers. It is

about plain and clear language for consumers in distance service contracts. It

will allow consumers to make informed decisions when choosing a service

provider.

We all know that sometimes when you are trying to make a decision about what

service to enter into, because there are a variety of service providers for the

services that we have listed here, sometimes it can be difficult trying to

understand the difference in what one person or one company is offering versus

what a separate company is offering when they are not using common language.

They are using different jargon sometimes. This will allow consumers to make

informed decisions when choosing a service provider.

The bill essentially, as well, wants to ensure that it is fair to both

consumers and suppliers, and provides for fair business practices, clear

information on contract cancellations and other related cancellation fees. We

hear this from time to time, Mr. Speaker. In my department, we quite frequently

will receive complaints and inquiries from members of the general public who

have tried to cancel a contract. They have moved, they need to cancel a contract

or make amendments to their contract and run into difficulties when doing that,

unaware of the fact that they maybe had entered into a two-year or three-year

contract and now have difficulties in trying to either relieve themselves from

that contract or to make amendments to the contract. This bill will ensure that

we have fair play for both the consumer and the service provider.

Part V of the Consumer Protection and Business Practices Act currently

governs two types of consumer contracts. These are types of contracts where a

consumer and supplier would conduct their business. That is a direct sales

contract, which is known as Division 1 in the act. There is also Division 2 in

the act, which is a distance sales contract. Not to be confused with what we are

talking about today, being a distance service contract, Division 2 is a distance

sales contract. This may sound a little bit confusing at this point in time, but

I am going to take a few minutes to explain this as I move forward.

What I would like to refer to as a normal or a typical way of doing business

would be when a person wants to enter into for example, I will use a cellphone

contract with a cellphone provider. A person would go to a mall or go to a

retail outlet and you conduct business at that retail outlet.

Well, there are also times when we conduct business or retail business in

other ways, and one of those is a direct sales contract. That is when a direct

sales contract is entered into with a person at a place other than the

suppliers' place of business or a marketplace, auction, or trade fair,

agricultural fair, or exhibition. So, it is a place that you enter into an

agreement with someone, you conduct business with someone at a place other than

the normal place you would expect to do business, other than a retail outlet,

other than a kiosk at a mall or a business centre.

Sometimes, a direct sales contract is entered into at a person's home. Maybe

a person would sometimes solicit business by going door to door, or sometimes

you can agree to meet somebody and you can meet them at another place a

restaurant or a coffee shop. We know of places or times where direct sales exist

through those types of forums as well, at a place other than the supplier's

normal place of business.

There is also a distance sales contract, Mr. Speaker. That is a contract that

is entered into from a distance, which means they are not entered into in

person, but rather either through the Internet, or by telephone, or by fax, or

other electronic means. We see this very commonly today, Mr. Speaker, where a

person would enter into a contract through a distance sales contract. We see it

through television, through home shopping networks. People broadly and widely

throughout Canada and North America today will make purchases through telephone

shopping networks, or through infomercials, which advertise through television

on a regular basis, where you can call a number and enter into an agreement to

make a purchase right there over the telephone. Also, what is very popular today

is Internet shopping, where you can use the Internet to purchase goods from a

supplier that could be located anywhere in the world. We know that is broadly

used as well. So, any types of business that you would contact through any of

those means, through a distance, on the Internet, or telephone, by fax, or other

means, would be considered to be a distance sales contract, which is Division 2

in the Consumer Protection and Business Practices Act.

Division 3 as we are talking about today is a new part of the bill will

govern another type of consumer contract, being the distance service contract,

and that is the one we are talking about here today. It is important, Mr.

Speaker, to distinguish between the three types of consumer contracts: the

direct sales contract; the distance sales contract; and the distance service

contract. As I said, the focus of the existing types of consumer contracts,

being the direct sales and the distance sales contracts is the manner in which

the sales contracts are entered into. That is about the way you conduct the

business to come to an agreement either directly or at a distance. That is

what those two divisions are about.

The focus of a distance service contract is how the service, as I talked

about, the cellphone, the residential phone, Internet, cable, satellite

television, or remote surveillance is provided for in the contract and how that

is delivered from a distance. It could be entered into by direct sales or over

the phone by distance sales, in either one of those manners. Therefore, a

distance service contract can also be a direct sales contract or a distance

sales contract. If a distance service contract Division 3 in the act is also

a direct sales contract Division 1 in the act or a distance sales contract,

which is Division 2, both Divisions 1 and 3, or Divisions 2 and 3 of the act

will apply. There is a combination. I know that sounds confusing so I am going

to take a minute to try to explain that.

The act covers these different forms of contracts. Because you enter into a

distance service contract through one of the two means that are currently in the

act, both divisions in that act would apply. The rules under both of those

divisions in the act would apply in the protection of the consumer. Not just one

or the other, both of those would apply. If both of those applied in the process

to reach an agreement through a distance service contract so if you enter into

a cellphone agreement or let's say remote surveillance is one of the ones that

are covered under this. That is generally an alarm system that a person would

have in their home, quite often sold on a door-to-door basis through a direct

sale, when a person will come to your door and offer you the services of an

alarm system for your home. If that was the case, you have a direct sales

contract entered into for a distance service contract. Both sections, both

divisions of the act would apply to those contracts. It would be required that

the service provider, the person selling the contract, abide by the requirements

of the legislation for both of those divisions.

Mr. Speaker, there are two different types of distance service contracts

which are addressed in this bill; one being a fixed term distance service

contract having a specified term, while the other one is an indeterminate term

distance service contract not to have a specified term. The difference being

there is that a fixed term distance service contract would be one where if you

purchased a satellite television service, a cable television service, a home

phone service, or Internet service that you agree to a period of time, two years

or three years are quite commonly seen. Sometimes with Internet and home

television, you might see a one-year agreement; cellphones, very commonly,

require three-year agreements. That is referred to as a fixed term service

contract.

An indeterminate term distance contract would occur in a cellphone case where

a person has their own personal cellphone, and they would go to a retail outlet

and buy what is commonly known as a phone card, for example, where you can apply

minutes, data, or service to use on that particular phone. In that case, it

would be an indeterminate term distance service contract.

While complaints related to distance service contracts are heard from

consumers all across Canada, Mr. Speaker, regulation of these types of consumer

contracts is fairly new. Newfoundland and Labrador will be the third province to

pass such legislation. Amendments to the Quebec's consumer protection

legislation came into force on June 30, 2010, and amendments to Manitoba's

consumer protection legislation are expected to come into force sometime this

spring.

This bill was drafted based on a review of both the Quebec legislation and

the Manitoba legislation. It has many similarities to the Quebec legislation,

but there are also provisions of Manitoba's new legislation, which we have

included and incorporated into our bill as well.

I mentioned about complaints, Mr. Speaker, because just recently, in the last

number of weeks, I have noticed some media reports in relation to this very

issue, this very issue about distance service contracts. Just last night, I

heard a media report of a person in Canada who traveled outside of the country,

traveled to the United States, and when returned, according to the media report

had, I believe it was, a $12,000 cellphone bill after a two-week vacation out of

Canada, traveled to the United States.

That was $12,000 of what is known as roaming charges. Sometimes roaming

charges are not clearly understood by consumers; they are not clearly known to

consumers of what roaming charges, when they apply, and what those charges will

be. What a distance service contract division in the Consumer Protection and

Business Practices Act will require is for the service provider to provide in

clear language, so the consumer fully understands, what it is that is contained

in that contract. In that contract it will clearly articulate when roaming

charges would apply and what those charges would apply. Our intention is to let

consumers fully understand the contract that they are actually entering into.

This bill does not regulate suppliers that provide distance services. It

regulates the consumer contract itself so as to provide consumer protection in

areas where there are currently no enforceable measures in place. To clarify

that, Mr. Speaker, what this means is how cellphones operate, and I will use

that as an example, or how satellite television operates, with the services that

are received, the signals you actually receive in your house; we are not talking

regulated by Industry Canada. What you actually see, the channels you receive,

and the content of the information that is available to you when you purchase

that satellite television service, is regulated by the federal government. That

is not what this bill is about.

This bill is about regulating the contract you enter into to obtain those

services. That is where our responsibilities lie; when it comes to consumer

protection, it is about protecting the rights of consumers who are going to

purchase a service. So the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want to purchase

a satellite service, or telephone service, or home phone, or cellphone service,

Internet service; it is about protecting their rights and ensuring that the

suppliers are fair to all those consumers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: It provides consumer protection in various ways, and as I

mentioned, fair and clear distance service contracts are the intended outcome

here. This bill will prescribe information that suppliers must disclose to

consumers prior to entering into a distance service contract, including

information respecting all charges, terms, and warranty. It will establish the

circumstances under which a consumer or supplier may cancel or amend a distance

service contract, something that, quite often, is not clearly understood by

consumers today. It will prohibit and this is a very important one, Mr.

Speaker unilateral modification to material elements of the contract. For

example, if you sign up for a cellphone contract for a three-year period, and

you agree that I am going to pay X number of dollars per month for a certain

amount of data or talk time, then what this bill will do is it will prohibit the

unilateral amending of those charges by the supplier during that contract

period.

It will prohibit unreasonable cancellation fees, Mr. Speaker, unreasonable

cancellation fees, while allowing suppliers to recover some of the cost for

equipment that was rebated as a contract incentive. I want to take a minute just

to talk about that one, because that is one that we quite often will hear

problems or issues with.

Again, recently in the media, I heard a circumstance where a person moved,

and when they moved to another location, the provider that they had originally

had their service with never had service in the area to where they moved, and

that created a problem for the consumer. So, what this bill will do is outline

very clearly, under those circumstances, that it will prohibit unreasonable

cancellation fees. Quite often you will hear someone say: Look, I have had my

cellphone contract for a year or two years, as an example, and I have a year

remaining, but I am moving and I no longer need it, and I need to get out of it;

they will be quite surprised, on occasion, with the fees that they have to pay.

So what this bill will ensure is that it will prohibit the unreasonable

cancellation fees, while allowing the suppliers to recover some of those costs

for equipment that was rebated. Rebated, I mean, is that when you enter into a

distance service contract to obtain cellphone service, and as part of that

distance service contract the supplier agrees to provide you with what they

might call a free cellphone, or a cellphone for no charge; well, we are going to

refer to that as a piece of equipment that has been rebated as part of your

agreement. So, to be fair to both the suppliers and the consumer, we are going

to allow for cancellation fees, but there is actually a formula to reach what

the cancellation fee should be as contained in the bill.

It will establish rules regarding the use of security deposits. It will stop

charges for services that cannot be accessed due to damaged or defective

equipment that is under warranty, unless the consumer is responsible. If you

have a piece of equipment that comes with your distance service contract, any

piece of equipment might come, if it be satellite, your satellite dish or it

could