April

28, 2009

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 11

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit visitors.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Today we welcome the following members' statements: the hon. the Member for

the District of Topsail; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave;

the hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands; and the hon. the Member

for the District of Ferryland.

The hon. the Member for the District of Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to recognize a

Paradise Elementary School Teacher, Mr. Ellis

Coles , who has been awarded the Physical Education Teaching Excellence

Award. This award acknowledges Ellis' outstanding contribution to physical

education. He is one of only three teachers across Canada to win the award this

year.

Mr. Speaker, this award recognizes Ellis for the exceptional physical

education program he continues to provide and for his influence as a positive

role model for his students. Ellis is an extraordinary physical education

teacher who continually demonstrates a passion for healthy living, sportsmanship

and an inclusive teaching model.

Under his leadership, Mr. Speaker, the physical education program at Paradise

Elementary School is enriched through activities such as SpecTAGular, Healthy

Commotion Day and Hockey Day in Canada.

Ellis is traveling to Banff, Alberta this week to attend the Physical and

Health Education Canada National Conference, where he will be formally

recognized for receiving this award.

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

congratulating Mr. Ellis Coles on being awarded this very prestigious award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week being Volunteer Week, I want to pay tribute to a young gentleman

from my district. I rise today to congratulate twenty-one-year-old Trevor

Deering of Shearstown on completing a three-year training session in pastoral

studies at the Vanguard Bible College in Edmonton, Alberta.

Trevor was an active volunteer in his community, taking

part in events for

children, and performing at benefit concerts to assist those in need; truly a

caring and compassionate individual.

One of eight who graduated with top honours from Ascension Collegiate, Bay

Roberts, Trevor had a dream to serve others. After a training session with The

Billy Graham Association, his dreams were on the road to becoming a reality.

On April 26, 2009, Trevor became a credential holder with the Pentecostal

Assemblies of Newfoundland and Labrador and will soon be assigned a pastoral

charge. I have no doubt his new congregation will be delighted to have him and I

know he will serve the community well, as he did in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me, as well as his family and

many friends, in congratulating Trevor Deering and wishing him continued success

in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a

tremendous group of volunteers.

Mr. Speaker, starting February 21 to March 1 of this year the ECMA Awards

took place in the Pepsi Centre in the City of Corner Brook.

To make this event a success, volunteers in the 700 range headed by local

host committee chairman, David Smallwood, along with twenty-five other event

committee chairs accepted the task. Volunteers from Deer Lake, both sides of the

Bay of Islands and, of course, the City of Corner Brook, worked day and night to

see this event be a success. The city was one of the smallest cities, Mr.

Speaker, to host this event.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of the success, over $5 million was pumped into the

economy. Hotels, motels, bed and breakfasts from Deer Lake, both sides of the

Bay and Corner Brook benefited from the successful awards, showcasing our own

talent in Eastern Canada, but most importantly our Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, to some thirty-five music buyers throughout the world.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members here today to acknowledge Mr. Smallwood and all

of the volunteers and thank them all for their time and talents.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to ask all members to join with me in

recognizing the tremendous accomplishments of the three girls' basketball

teams from Baltimore School in Ferryland. These three teams won the provincial

championships in their respective divisions.

The Baltimore Bronco Senior Girls basketball team captured the 3A Provincial

Championship in Stephenville on March 22, while the Baltimore Bronco Under 14

Girls basketball team, who went undefeated in their four games, captured the

East Coast Provincial Championship in Mobile on March 28. The Baltimore Bronco

Under 13 Girls basketball team went undefeated in their six games and captured

the East Coast Provincial Championship in Clarenville on March 14.

With these teams' accomplishment for Baltimore winning provincial

championships, the region continues in the steep tradition of successful

basketball teams. What makes this achievement even more outstanding is

recognizing the number of students the team had to draw from, and the fact the

schools competing have much higher enrolments. It is indeed a tribute to the

community, the players and coaches, that they commit themselves to a program of

excellence and continue the strong tradition of competitive basketball programs

in the region.

I again congratulate the Baltimore Bronco Senior Girls Under 14 and Under 13

Girls basketball teams on this tremendous accomplishment and ask all members to

join with me in extending best wishes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House to recognize that

today, April 28, marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of National Day of Mourning

in Canada. This occasion provides us with an opportunity to remember workers who

have been killed, injured or suffered illness due to workplace hazards and

incidents.

In observing National Day of Mourning we raise awareness about the importance

of workplace health and safety. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have much to

reflect on during this year's National Day of Mourning, having just

experienced the devastating effects of a workplace accident with the recent

offshore helicopter tragedy.

In 2008 there were twenty-three work-related deaths in this Province, with

six due to accidents in the workplace and seventeen as a result of occupational

disease. In terms of national statistics, in the fifteen year period from 1993

to 2007 just over 13,000 individuals lost their lives in Canada due to

work-related causes.

Mr. Speaker, these statistics demonstrate how important it is to encourage a

strong commitment toward occupational health and safety, and I am happy to

report that in this Province we are seeing that commitment grow. I remind the

hon. members that I recently reported the encouraging news that since the year

2000 on-the-job injuries in Newfoundland and Labrador have decreased by 38 per

cent.

This significant improvement is largely due to the dedication of employers,

unions and workers throughout the Province. I applaud everyone who is making an

effort to enhance health and safety practices in the workplace, and I ask that

the losses we reflect upon today always keep us mindful of the price that is

paid if we slip in our vigilance.

Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the contributions made by

the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, and the Occupational

Health and Safety Branch of the Department of Government Services. These

institutions play a key role in the administration of regulations and the

development of promotional efforts that help keep our workplaces incident free.

With government, business and labour working in partnership, I am confident

we can ensure the well-being of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and minimize

the kinds of unfortunate losses we are called to reflect upon today.

I will now ask all hon. Members of this House to observe a moment of silence

in remembrance of workers who have been killed, injured or suffered serious

illness while on the job.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask all members to stand.

[Moment of silence]

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of her statement, and to say that

we in the Official Opposition join all those who took

part in the ceremony here

today and throughout this Province, in mourning those who have lost there lives

in the workplace.

Having worked in the construction industry myself, Mr. Speaker, not only here

in this Province but in Ontario, you come across the unfortunate opportunity

sometimes, to see coworkers who are seriously injured, and some of them, yes,

result in death.

As the minister stated, we do see a decrease in incidents happening in our

Province, but however, we have to keep striving, Mr. Speaker. We have to be

dedicated, the employers, the unions and the workers throughout this Province,

to see that each and every jobsite becomes accident free.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure I speak for all members here, that

in my past twenty years involved in the political arena in one way or the other,

there are dozens of times we have to go to the appeal boards to represent

injured workers. I think we have to do more to see that their issues are brought

to the forefront, rather than many of them having to suffer in the long term.

Mr. Speaker, I challenge government, business and labour to continue to work

together. On behalf of the Official Opposition, I want to join all stakeholders

in this Day of Mourning. Only recently, like many other communities in this

Province, I had the unfortunate incident of a constituent with regards to the

helicopter crash. So we want to join all members of government and the

stakeholders in remembering those who have paid the supreme sacrifice, and to

say let's all work together to make sure that every industry is safe for all

employees.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

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

I do thank the minister for the advanced copy of her statement. I think it is

right and fitting that the ceremony that some of us were at today does take

place here in this House of Assembly. I am proud to remember actually, and some

of you will remember, that it was Mr. Jack Harris, the former Leader of the New

Democratic Party and MHA at that time for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi who provided

leadership in the House to see that the Day of Mourning would be formally

recognized and observed in this Province. I think it is good that we take the

time to be part of that.

While we have achieved much over the twenty-five years since this day has

been recognized, we still have a lot to do, and we all know that, in our

Province. The reminder, of course, of the disaster in March with the loss of

seventeen lives and the fact that we have workers today in Baie Verte, for

example, former workers from the mine up there, who are walking around knowing

that they are going to die. These are the things that remind us of how much we

have to do.

Today I just stand in memory of those who have died and know that our

thoughts and prayers are with the families, especially the families of those who

died recently, the Cougar helicopter, and to tell workers like those who are

dying in Baie Verte, that we are with them and we are going to work to make sure

that these kinds of deaths become minimized to the point of becoming zero.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to report on a significant,

highly-anticipated trade initiative.

From July 26-28, 2009, our Province is set to host the second annual

Southeastern United States Canadian Provinces Alliance conference.

Excitement levels are building among businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador and

among our American and Canadian partners that include: Mississippi, Tennessee,

North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia; as well as the Canadian

provinces of Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince

Edward Island.

From a local perspective, the conference will place Newfoundland and Labrador

small and medium-sized businesses, industry associations, and academic

institutions front and centre as they explore valuable business partnerships and

export opportunities with Canadian and American businesses and government

leaders.

Mr. Speaker, trade has long been an essential component of our provincial

economy.

In today's shifting global economy, the value of trade has never been

greater, placing significant emphasis on initiatives of this nature. To

cultivate real opportunities for prosperity and growth it is important for

jurisdictions to come together to explore and form mutually beneficial

relationships.

The Southeastern United States - Canadian Provinces Alliance conference is an

exceptional venue for fostering business-to-business networking.

I believe that it is this personal approach to business relations - the

face-to-face communication between conference members - that leads to real

results.

The ties between Newfoundland and Labrador and the Southeastern United States

are drawing closer.

In 2008, for instance, $228 million worth of world-class products from this

Province were exported to the Southeastern United States. Heavily impacted by a

growing market for our natural resources, this represented an increase, Mr.

Speaker, of over 80 per cent over the previous year, representing the highest

growth rate among Canadian Alliance members.

Organizations like the Fisheries and Marine Institute of Memorial University

and the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Technology Industries, as well

as local ocean technology companies are already forging strategic alliances with

their counterparts from the Southeastern United States region.

This year's conference will build on these successes and focus on key

sectors including energy, ocean technology, and advanced manufacturing.

These sectors represent areas where Newfoundland and Labrador has significant

expertise and where real value can be attained as we link our firms with those

from other parts of Canada and the Southeastern United States.

As Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, I encourage our

business leaders, our industry associations, our academic institutions, and our

government officials to become involved in this worthwhile event that promises

to provide considerable opportunities for trading partnerships and business

growth.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement.

It is good to see. We often have trade missions that go from our

businesspersons, go outside the Province, of course, to try to get business, and

that is a great way to do it, but it is great to see that we are going to be

hosting it as well because there is a twofold advantage to this, not only will

they get an opportunity to visit and see the business opportunities that are

here for them, and hopefully that will, in some way, impact on departments such

as the Department of Business, for example, but they are also, of course, going

to be boosting our tourist industry at the same time. That is a very positive

spin-off to that as well.

Of course, anyone who has been involved in business knows that 90 per cent of

the task sometimes, besides the product you are selling, is the contacts and the

networking that you do in order to make your business grow.

We will certainly be supportive of anything that is done to advance the

interests of the businesspersons, the entrepreneurs in this Province, who can

integrate and make relationships with people in Eastern Canada and in the

Eastern Seaboard of the United States.

In fact, I was quite astounded, and I will be discussing it later with the

minister, the figure of $228 million of our products that were sold in the

Eastern United States in one year. The figure jumped out at me, that that is an

80 per cent increase in one year. So I would certainly like to inform myself

more as well because we have some real diamonds here in this Province when it

comes to business proposals, projects and marketing things. I would certainly

like to make myself more aware of it, and I would encourage everybody else as

well to find out the details because there are lots of opportunities for

employment when these industries do, in fact, be created and grow.

We congratulate the minister. Hopefully, you have a successful hosting and

convention here and show them some good old Newfoundland and Labrador

hospitality, in addition to the businesses that we do have.

Thank you.

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

Vidi.

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

I, too, thank the minister for the advanced copy of his statement.

This is a great way to make the connections that the minister was talking

about with this new alliance, and it is new, it is only two years old. Not only

will hosting the conference here mean that people will get to meet

businesspeople right on the ground, the people from the Southeastern United

States and the other parts of Canada, but they will also see the Province, as my

colleague has said.

You will be showcasing both businesses as well as the Province, and that can

only be good. I do agree with you that face-to-face meetings do bring results no

matter what it is that we are talking about. It is just as true in business as

in other places, in other areas.

I, too, minister, would be very interested in getting information on the $228

million worth of products exported, especially to know how much of that is in

the raw state, natural resources in the raw state, and how much of it has been

manufactured because of secondary processing here in the Province.

I would like to know, too, is trade flowing in the other direction? Are they

trading back with us, because I think that will strengthen maintaining our

exports if also there is some import? So I will be interested in hearing more

about the import side as well.

I wish you well with the conference. I hope it goes well.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was recently revealed on the Fisheries Broadcast that the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture had rejected a decision of the Fish Processing

Licensing Board for a shrimp licence for the Beothuk Fisheries Plant in

Valleyfield.

The former chair of the board, Mr. Richard Cashin, said that he felt this was

the worst decision that he had ever witnessed by the Department of Fisheries and

certainly was not made in the best interests of the industry.

So I ask the minister to outline for us today the reason why he rejected the

recommendations of the board.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I think it is common knowledge throughout the

industry, and certainly this government has taken a position that the capacity

within the shrimp industry is to a point right now where the individual

thresholds of the plants are not being met, and until those thresholds are met,

we as a government cannot see issuing any new licences at this particular time.

It was on that basis that my decision was made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There were also some interesting allegations made by the minister's

colleague, who happens to be the MHA for Bonavista North, in which he stated

that the minister was actually wrong in his decision to reject the licence and

it had nothing to do with overcapacity. He went on to state, Mr. Speaker, that

the minister had been fooled by the lobbying of other processors.

I ask you today, minister: Was your decision impending upon the lobby efforts

of big fish businesses in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: I guess, Mr. Speaker, the simple answer to that is

absolutely no.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The MHA for Bonavista North also stated that the decision to reject the

licence was a bad one and that he indeed did have input on the issue.

I ask the minister: Did your colleague provide you with any facts, and if so,

why did you reject the advice and the information that he was giving you, along

with the information and the recommendations of the licensing board under which

your government established?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I say on behalf of this government that we do

listen. We listen to everyone, I guess, but there comes a point where we have to

stand by our principles as a government, and the principle I have already

outlined to you. We are not deviating from that. It is in the best interests of

the industry.

We take advice, but I, as a minister, have to basically make the decision.

The decision was made, it is the right decision, and I will live by that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cashin also stated that he has lost confidence in the process of awarding

licences through the Fish Licensing Board, and he remarked that government's

experiment in independence has come to an end in that regard.

I ask the minister: If you are going to make the final decisions around fish

licensing in this Province, why do we even have a board?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, that board was set up for a very good reason.

It was to make sure that it was open, that is was transparent, that all parties

were aware of what was going on, and 99 per cent of the decisions, obviously,

were certainly accepted.

This particular decision that was put before me was not acceptable, for the

reasons that I have pointed out to you. Again, I stand by the decision that I

made. It was the right decision, the decision that is in the best interests of

this industry, and that is where we stand right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So the board is independent as long as they toe the government line, as long

as the decision-making is not contrary to what the government believes.

Mr. Speaker, Richard Cashin is well known for his knowledge around the

fishing industry, and is a real visionary for the future of the industry. I am

sure that is the reason why government appointed him to that position in the

first place.

I ask the minister today: Why was Mr. Cashin not reappointed to serve on this

board? Was it because of this issue around licensing, and can you tell me who

will be appointed as the next chair of the board?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cashin served out his term. His term was

up in March, and it was the decision of the government to move forward with

another chair. The naming of that chair is pending, and I guess it would be

inappropriate for me to name any names until that is done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Just like Memorial University, Mr. Speaker, if we don't like

the decisions you make we will get rid of you. We will clean house. We will

bring in a new slate.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we asked the Minister of Finance why government would

not go to binding arbitration with nurses on the extended earnings loss benefits

and the market adjustment clauses in order to avoid a strike in this Province

and protect the healthcare and the welfare of the people who depend upon the

service.

I did not get an answer from the minister yesterday, and today I pose my

question to the Premier: To ensure that there is stability in our system, and to

avoid a strike, will government commit to binding arbitration on the two issues

that are outstanding with the nurses?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Absolutely not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we realize that government has made good progress in these

negotiations, and we acknowledge that. We also acknowledge the fact that there

are no monetary issues left on the table. As per the minister's comments

yesterday, these two issues are policy related and they are at no cost to the

government.

I ask again: In light of that fact, why would government not go to binding

arbitration, knowing that there isn't any cost, and avoid a strike so that

people in this Province do not have to go through a system where operating rooms

will be closed, where hospital beds will be closed, and where they will not get

the necessary treatment they require? Why not take it that extra step and go to

the arbitration process?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we went through a lengthy process with

nurses. We gave them every accommodation. We started early, well over a year

ago, nearly a year-and-a-half ago now. We asked to meet during the summer; they

did not want to meet. We then came back and we addressed the pay issues. They

wanted an increase in pay; we addressed that significantly with the template.

They wanted recruitment addressed, and we addressed that. They wanted retention

addressed, and we addressed that. They wanted standby addressed, and we

addressed that. They wanted shift differential addressed, and we addressed that.

We have now placed them either one or two in Eastern Canada, east of Ontario.

That includes Quebec and all the Maritime Provinces. We have stepped up. We have

offered them an extremely generous package, and it is a package.

If they wanted to take away their template, or take away parts of their

template, or they want to take away all of the extra benefits that they have

given them, then perhaps we can start to look at another package, but that

package is complete. It is the very, very, very best offer that we can make. We

cannot just keep stepping up every time they want to add on to the equation. It

is not going to happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, last night we received a letter from the alliance

of provincial groups who serve youth in the Province when it comes to addiction

services. These organizations, including the Recovering Addicts Fellowship Team,

the Community Youth Network, Turnings and Choices for Youth, have come together

to form an alliance and are expressing concerns over the recent announcement to

place the youth residential treatment facility in Grand Falls, Windsor. They

have posed a number of questions to government, Mr. Speaker, and we are

certainly prepared to pose these questions in the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, they stated that those youth who are affected, the majority of

them, are in the Eastern Region of the Province. My question to the minister is:

What are the clinical advantages to placing this facility in Central

Newfoundland?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: What I find interesting in the House, Mr. Speaker, is how

questions have changed over the years. For many years in this House members

opposite have raised questions around, what are we doing for rural Newfoundland?

Now, all of a sudden, we are getting questions in the House lobbying for St.

John's, Mr. Speaker. They want all services centralized in St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, I answered questions in this House a couple of weeks ago around

this very same point. One of the critical considerations for us as a government

was to ensure that we are able to provide quality programming with capable,

competent people, and we are very confident we are very confident indeed -

that Central Newfoundland, and in particular Grand Falls-Windsor, is a community

in a region of the Province that can attract the kinds of people that we need.

We are very confident that we are going to be able to provide the kind of

programming that will respond to the challenging needs of those individuals who

need that kind of addiction services.

So we stand by the decision to locate this new facility and this new program

in Grand Falls-Windsor because we believe it will be successful and the people

of all of Newfoundland and Labrador will be well served by that new program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not think the government should be offended that there are four groups

in this Province, who represent youth and youth treatment, who would question

your decision, Mr. Speaker. In fact, they have every right to question it.

These individuals are telling us that they have spoken to many groups who

work in addiction services right across the Province, and that those individuals

feel that the location of the facility is unacceptable, that it is unsuitable,

and that it was chosen merely for political reasons.

I ask the minister today: Who did your government consult prior to making the

decision to place this important residential treatment facility in the Central

Region of the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Again I am somewhat bewildered by the nature of the

questions and the persistence, Mr. Speaker, of members opposite.

I do not have any difficulty, as a minister, and none of my colleagues on

this side of the House would have any difficulty, meeting with any group in the

Province to talk about issues of their concern. So, if there are organizations

who would like to come in and talk with me about this decision, I am open to do

that at any time of the day. Just invite me, or make the request, and I will

have the discussion.

What I find very ironic, Mr. Speaker, is the persistence by not only the

Leader of the Opposition but the Opposition House Leader in the continuous

questions in this House, bringing into question a decision that we made about a

location of a service in Grand Falls-Windsor. An attack, I say, Mr. Speaker, it

is nothing more than an attack on the people of Grand Falls-Windsor and the

people of Central Newfoundland and Labrador, as if it is a place no one would

want to work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, what rubbish I have just heard coming out of the

minister!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister has a responsibility, and a

responsibility to provide services in this Province based on clinical cases and

factual information, not based on what is politically opportunistic for the

government

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to complete her question.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the minister has trouble defending his actions today - that is

quite obvious by his comments but there are four groups in this Province who

provide services and treatment to residential youth, and they have serious

questions.

Mr. Speaker, the day treatment program that services addictions for youth is

based in the St. John's region, and I guess one of the questions they have is

why government would choose to separate those two facilities and those two lots

of services.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I do not have any difficulty at all, none

whatsoever. I have no difficulty at all, or this government has no difficulty at

all, in defending a decision to relocate a service in Grand Falls-Windsor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: A community, Mr. Speaker, that has demonstrated their

innovative approach to providing health care. They have been leaders on a number

of fronts. They have a very comprehensive mental health and addictions program

already in existence there. They have proven they have the ability to be able to

attract the qualified professionals that we will need to run this program. It is

a community that is centrally located, provides easy access in and out of other

parts of the Province; because, keep in mind, this is a provincial centre, not a

St. John's centre.

This is purely a provincial centre. It is centrally located, provides ease of

access by road or by air, and it provides the professionals that will provide

the delivery of those programs, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the other issues that they raise is around the detoxification

services. I ask the minister today: Is that part of the program for this centre,

and will the people of the Province who need the service be assured that they

will have access, and affordable access, to that service?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: To the first part of the question, yes, it will include a

detox program. The second piece, by definition - I have said before, but let me

repeat it - this is a provincial program. It is a provincial program and we are

delivering it from Grand Falls-Windsor. By definition, every single person who

lives in Newfoundland and Labrador will have access to that particular program

and that particular facility.

This is not a regional facility. This is a provincial facility, so anyone who

needs it will have access to it, just like Humberwood does in Corner Brook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

MR. WISEMAN: This is purely a provincial program, no different than any

other provincial program; because we have many provincial programs in St. John's.

People travel to St. John's to access provincial programs here. Now people

will travel to Grand Falls-Windsor to also access a provincial program, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Native Friendship Centre has also raised an issue around the Aboriginal

component for this treatment process. They are asking if it will include an

Aboriginal component in the program. I ask the minister today if he will commit

to that.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, it will absolutely give consideration to the

Aboriginal community. In fact, as we develop the program, as we start to look at

the design of the building, the programming will be driving the design and the

program will give consideration to the Aboriginal needs of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, earlier this month The Telegram reported

that government had hired an environmental consultant to conduct testing for the

presence of hazardous material at the former Janeway site in Pleasantville. The

report was submitted and received by government a few weeks ago. I ask the

minister: Can he please advise the public what the results of the report were,

and whether there are any hazardous materials remaining at the site.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, as part of the demolition of the Janeway site we insisted

that the contractor engage an environmental consulting firm to assess the work

as it was being done, to ensure that there was no contamination left, to ensure

that the site was completely remediated.

Back a couple of months ago there was some concern expressed by Occupational

Health and Safety and Government Services when they had done some inspections.

They issued a stop work order. Our officials in the Department of Transportation

and Works met with officials from the company at the time, the contractor, and

insisted that there be an independent firm, independent of the government and

independent of the contractor, to go in and assess the site. There was some

level of asbestos containing material found in a number of the test holes that

were done. Probably, my guess is around 25 per cent of the holes had some level

of contamination. It is being reviewed now to see if it is within acceptable

limits. Mr. Speaker, I will be able to inform the House at a future date as to

exactly what that is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As a follow up to that story, workers with a construction company cleaning up

the site are speaking publicly that there are old fuel tanks that are leaking

oil and making the workers sick. They are also raising concerns that government

is not taking the issue seriously and may not address the problem.

I ask the minister: What is government planning to do to clean up the old

fuel tanks that are buried at the site to ensure that the health and safety of

the workers and the residents are taken care of?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the government is well aware of the fuel tanks

that are on site at the old Janeway. There was actually a piece included in the

tender call for the possible removal of those tanks by that contractor.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the contractor that if they have a problem

with air quality there are appropriate breathing apparatuses and clothing and

what have you that people are supposed to be wearing. That is part of the reason

why Occupational Health and Safety put a stop work order in place on that site

back some time ago because the contractor was not using the appropriate safety

equipment. So I suggest that the contractor get the job done that he is

contracted to do.

We have every intention of removing the tanks. It may or may not be by that

contractor. We have the option to have that contractor remove them, but we also

have the option to have somebody else remove them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I understood the minister, you said that the first tender that went out

included the removal of those fuel tanks from that site. From that, I just ask

the minister again for further clarification.

Once the report came back, was the oil tanks a part of that report that came

back, because I think there was some concern why the report was not released and

they felt that it should not be released too early it would complicate other

issues.

I just ask the minister: What was in the report that has not been released

and was of concern at that particular time?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the environmental work that was done, that we

insisted on having done over the course of the past month or so had nothing to

do with the oil tanks. We knew that the oil tanks were there. As I said, when

the original tender was awarded to - I will not get into the construction

company, but it is well known, it was in the paper. Anyway, it was Kelloway

Construction. There was a piece in there I was not going to say it, but it

was in the paper, so why not?

There was a piece in there I forget what the dollar figure is exactly

right now, but we could have engaged that contractor, if we so desired, and the

dollar figure was identified for that contractor to remove the fuel storage

tanks and remediate that site as well, but it was not something that absolutely

had to be done by them.

We have every intention of removing the tanks. However, Mr. Speaker, as I

said, it may or may not be by that contractor. I suggest that it will have a lot

to do with how well he does the job that he is tasked to do right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, my next question is to the Minister of

Government Services.

Back in 2004, 229 of our schools were identified as requiring air quality

testing for asbestos. However, in the 2009 Auditor General's Report it was

noted that only 28 per cent of those schools had been tested by April, 2007.

I ask the minister: How many of these schools are still waiting to receive

proper asbestos testing, and how long will it take to complete the remaining

inspections?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, we continuously do inspections with all of our buildings, and

certainly our schools, and the question that is asked today, I will take under

advisement. I will get back to the House with the answer for you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, air quality and toxic mould in schools are

serious issues in this Province. The incidents of air quality problems continue

to disrupt the academic year for students, teachers, and staff.

Back in 2006, we asked the Minister of Education whether she would carry out

a comprehensive review of air quality in all the schools across the Province. We

raised it again last year, and again the need for such a review has been

dismissed by the minister. In the meantime, the air quality issue has resulted

in permanent closure of one school and temporary closure of ten schools.

I ask the minister: How many more closures will it take to convince the

minister that there may be some merit in carrying out a comprehensive review of

air quality in the schools?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to take that question.

I think the member opposite is fully aware that our government is committed

to ensuring safe environments in our schools for our students and our staff.

I think the member is also fully aware that we have engaged in an enhanced

inspection process that puts us in a very good position to respond to schools

that are in need and experiencing air quality problems.

I remind the member that it is only this year we have reached $125.5 million

in investment in repair and maintenance in our budget for schools, Mr. Speaker,

because this side of the House and this government is committed to ensuring that

our students get the best possible quality of education and the best possible

learning environment we can provide.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his question, but I

have to go back again and ask him: Is he convinced that there may be some merit

in carrying out a comprehensive review of air quality in our schools?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. member opposite, if I were

convinced that that was the way to go, we would be doing that right now. We are

convinced, based on the professional advice that we receive from professionals

in the field, that the enhanced inspection is the process to take and the way to

go, and that is where we are headed as a government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, my next question is also for the Minister of

Education.

The Auditor General's report of 2009 recommends that the Department of

Education in cooperation with the school districts and the Department of

Government Services establish a centralized information system to ensure that

the monitoring of school inspection issues and any action taken be recorded

properly and shared by all stakeholders.

I ask the minister: Have you started this database for information relating

to air quality testing as recommended by the Auditor General, and if so, when

will this information be available to the public?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to inform the House that we have indeed started that process and

we are moving along. I cannot tell the member opposite the exact date when it

will be ready, but I will certainly look to provide some information and give

you clarity on that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

Mr. Speaker, I few weeks ago I brought up the issue that patients from

Labrador West were forced to move to other parts of the Province to receive

kidney dialysis because of the lack of service in their own community.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health and Community Services did commit to

looking into the state of dialysis in Labrador West. I would like to ask the

minister to give the House an update about how the issue of these dialysis needs

in Labrador West is being dealt with.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I can. As I indicated in the House some time ago, the issue of dialysis

services in Labrador West had been raised by a number of people, including my

colleague, the MHA for that district. I gave an undertaking that we would start

to look at dialysis services in that region.

What has happened since then? There have been a couple of things really, one

at the community level. There has been a local community that has been mobilized

to work with the health authority, to start looking at dialysis services for the

region. More precisely: how do you deal with patients who end up with end stage

renal failure? That is the bigger question in these dialysis services.

One of the things that has happened is that the nephrologist who takes care

of that area, together with the regional health authority and that local

committee, has been looking at those individuals in the past who have needed the

service, and a profile of those who may need the service in the future. When

they are finished their piece of work they will come forward to me with a series

of recommendations and I will be able to provide a more appropriate update at

that time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to hear what the minister has said, and I did receive some

information to that effect today, but it has been pointed out to me that the

doctor who has been assigned to look into the cases of the seven patients from

Labrador West has been away for two weeks and people do not know when that

doctor is coming back.

Is the minister willing to look into this and to see how quickly this process

is going to be dealt with?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, the physician involved, as I understand it, is

a nephrologist, someone who has been following these patients. Basically, this

is a highly specialized area and only nephrologists are in the best position to

provide some clinical assessment of the appropriateness and the nature of the

treatment individuals get. So if the individual is on vacation during this

period of time, which is not unusual, many people take vacation during the

Easter period. So I am assuming, because we have not had a resignation, this

must be a temporary absence. The work is committed to be done and I am certain

upon his return that the work will continue. As I said earlier, when the

committee finishes their work they will make a series of recommendations to me

and I will be able then to determine what the future would be for services in

Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, since the issue of the lack of dialysis treatment in Labrador

West came to the forefront we have heard from other areas in the Province, for

example, the Southwest Coast and the Burin Peninsula. There are great concerns

about the distances that people have to travel to access dialysis. As the

minister just pointed out, not just in Labrador West but also in Central

Newfoundland in particular

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: -there is quite a list of patients who are pre-renal and we

know that this issue is going to increase as time goes on.

I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister, along with the members of

the Department of Health and Community Services, look at working with the

regional authorities in developing a province-wide system dealing with the need

of dialysis?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: It is interesting the member opposite asked a question

about, will we do something? The workings of that have already been done, I say,

Mr. Speaker. Back some time ago, as a department, we established a provincial

consultant to deal with dialysis services. We had the Centre for Health Research

at Memorial help develop a protocol for establishing dialysis services in

various parts of the region -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: - and a criteria to determine the level of service that

should be provided in what regions and how we determine those individuals who

are appropriate to be on a satellite dialysis service, those individuals who are

more appropriately served on a home-based dialysis service. So that piece of

work, Mr. Speaker, is well advanced.

One of the challenges we have in this Province, I say, Mr. Speaker, is the

lack of uptake on home dialysis. Many other jurisdictions in this country use

home-based dialysis more frequently than we do in this Province. So it is an

education piece that we need to do, Mr. Speaker, to make sure people who need

dialysis services fully appreciate that there are areas to do that other than in

institutions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

The time for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motions.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

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

I appreciate an opportunity to present a petition with regards to dialysis

for south western Newfoundland, particularly in Port aux Basques, and the

questions directed to the minister today by the Leader of the NDP are certainly

appropriate.

Anyone who has been aware, and I am sure the minister is aware because he had

a meeting with a group from that particular area, the Port aux Basques town

council in the City of Corner Brook last fall. Now, mind you, they are still

waiting for a letter from him. He said he would take it under advisement and get

back to them. That was some six or seven months ago and they still have not had

a response from the minister as to what happened in that meeting.

Just for those who are not aware, we are not all fortunate enough in our neck

of the woods, in south western Newfoundland, to have dialysis. Right now, we

have it ranges, of course, we have nine to ten people at any given time who

have to travel from their homes to Corner Brook to get dialysis. Now you can

imagine, you are doing this three days a week. You are not doing this because

you enjoy a shopping trip in Corner Brook. You are doing this three times a

week. You are travelling 500 kilometres three times a week, in and back, because

you have to go in there and spend a full day hooked up to a dialysis machine.

You are going through the roughest weather, I would suggest, that we have in

this Province when it comes to wintertime, when you are going through the

Wreckhouse. So you are not doing this because you are enjoying the drive for at

least six months of the year when you go through the Wreckhouse.

Now, we have had every excuse in the book given in the last five years as to

why this cannot be done. First we were told that it was an equipment issue.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the people of south western Newfoundland have said, do not

let the cost bother you when it comes to the equipment; we will raise the money

in south western Newfoundland to buy the equipment. We will not ask this

government for one penny if they are prepared to allow dialysis to be done in

the Dr. Charles L. LeGrow Health Centre in Port aux Basques. It is that

important to the people of that area. We will pay for the equipment, not a

question.

The issue then was raised: well, we cannot do that because it takes a certain

staff complement in order to operate the equipment. It is not rocket science.

There are lots of people who can be easily trained

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: - in order to operate the dialysis equipment. In

fact, our institution in Port aux Basques is known for having some of the

longest standing nursing practitioners in this Province. We do not have a flow

through. Usually they are there for example, right now we have six young

nurses there who just moved in. They were all born in the area. They all went

away and got their training. They are back there, they are married there, they

are living there. So there is no question that they are going to up and leave

next year. They are there and they intend to stay there for life.

Now, if it is an issue that the government cannot afford to pay for the

training for them, we will look at that too. We are concerned enough and serious

enough about it that if the government is prepared to say you can have the

dialysis, we will raise the money for the equipment. We will pay for the

training costs if we have to for the nurses to operate it. Now I do not know

what further an area can do to say, please let us do this in our area so that we

do not have to drive 500 miles three times a week.

Incidentally, when I was given one of these petitions by a gentleman I said:

Thank you very much; I will present your concerns on your behalf. Unfortunately,

I cannot do that today because he is not with us anymore, that quick. That is

why the numbers vary, and they vary so drastically. He is not with us any more

to speak for himself or hear me speak on his behalf because we did not have the

dialysis that has been asked of this government, of this department, for four to

five years.

Now, fortunately, it is not only myself, I am not the lone soldier on this

initiative. There is a lady in Isle aux Morts by the name of -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Opposition House Leader that his time for speaking is

certainly over lapsed.

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

I will not abuse my time because I have enough petitions here that will keep

me going until 2012 easily. I intend, with the permission of the House, to get

up everyday and speak on this issue so there will not be anybody left in this

Province who is unaware of this issue of dialysis in Western Newfoundland by the

time we are finished.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I believe my hon. colleague must be out for my

record, he is good until 2012.

I present a petition today on behalf of the residents of the Barachois Brook

area. I want to read the prayer of the petition because I think this is the

first time, or there may have been one other time:

WHEREAS the Department of Environment and Conservation issued a certificate

of approval to construct a bioremediation facility for petroleum contaminated

soil in the community of Barachois Brook without any consultation with their

local district council; and

WHEREAS the municipal permit for this facility was only approved in principle

by the Town Council of Stephenville Crossing due to the fact the company

Universal Environmental Services Inc. failed to provide the Stephenville

Crossing Town Council with all necessary information to officiate this permit;

and

WHEREAS the residents of Barachois Brook are extremely concerned about the

long-term health and environmental impacts of this facility in their community;

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

House of Assembly to encourage government to revoke the certificate of approval

for the Universal Environmental Services facility in Barachois Brook.

Mr. Speaker, this petition references where Transport Canada proposed to

remediate I think it was approximately 10,000 tonnes of contaminated soil from

the Stephenville Airport. It remains unclear to those residents, to this very

day, why no environmental assessment was performed. They were able to set up in

Barachois Brook without even, really, any public consultation.

What the residents are saying is that the town should have consulted with the

local service district to advise them of what was happening there. The residents

of Barachois Brook are extremely concerned about the long-term health and

environmental impacts it has on the residents of their community.

Mr. Speaker, the petitions are no only signed by the people who actually live

in Barachois Brook, but they are from Stephenville, Stephenville Crossing and so

on. I am sure we have heard through the media from time to time about the

concerns they had when the contaminated soils were being transported, how the

dust from the trucks was blowing throughout their communities and they had major

concerns not only where the site is but as the contaminated soil travelled

through the various communities en route there.

Mr. Speaker, I present this petition on behalf of those residents and ask

government to consider revoking the certificate of approval with regard to the

facility at Barachois Brook.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I would like to take this opportunity to present a petition on behalf of the

residents of Ramea, Grey River and Francois with respect to the health care

services that are existent - or non-existent would be a better word - in the

community of Ramea in particular that services these coastal communities.

Anyone who is familiar with the geography knows that Ramea is an island.

Ramea can only be accessed when it comes to boat. We are not asking for a

medical centre that has all of the trappings of anaesthesiologists and every

kind of expert specialist that they might want in the world. We are asking for

basic health care that can be provided either at Ramea in a clinic, or when the

coastal clinics are done in Grey River and in Francois.

For a number of years Ramea's medical centre clinic has been designated to

have two nurse practitioners. There is only one. That one nurse practitioner was

called upon to do everything in Ramea, Grey River and down the coast to

Francois.

They are upset beyond what you can imagine. Weekends, for example, there is

absolutely no coverage, no coverage in the Town of Ramea. You have 600 or 700

people and you cannot expect the nurse practitioner who is there to work

twenty-four-seven, 365 days a year. It is just not humanly possible; nor would

anybody expect it of her.

Now, the local authorities in the Calder Centre in Burgeo have tried their

best by supplementing it with an LPN, but some training is required there and it

looks like we might get that done, but that will not solve the problem. The

problem is we still do not have any weekend coverage. So, God forbid, if you

live in Ramea on a weekend and something comes up and you have medical needs

that you need attended to, you had better hope that you are not in the winter or

the ferry is broke down, because you have a serious problem. You are not getting

even the basic treatment.

Now, we live in rural Newfoundland and we realize that if you had a serious

issue of a heart attack, or somebody was in an accident, we realize you would

probably have to go to at least Burgeo, and probably to Corner Brook, to a

larger centre, if you need serious surgical treatment. That is understandable,

and people live with that and they are prepared to continue to accept that, but

there is no excuse in this day and age when you do not get basic medical needs

attended to in this Province.

I talked about the Southwest Region asking for dialysis in Port aux Basques.

You are looking at an area there of 15,000 people looking for dialysis - not

unreasonable. I am talking now about 600 people who are looking for their basic

needs to be looked after. If we have a problem on a weekend, what do we do? We

cannot get on the boat whenever, willy-nilly, we figure, and just go across the

tickle. It is not just like going across the tickle. We live an island here; we

cannot get in our vehicle and run up the road to get done what we need to get

done.

My purpose of making this petition is and we have dealt with, by the way,

in fairness to the people in Calder, in fairness to the people in Western

Health, we cannot get the services and the personnel that we need. Now we are

calling upon the minister and the department to do something about this, because

we talk about all this retention activity and attraction activity that is going

on in the government. Well, let's see if the minister and the department are

prepared to put some money where their mouth is so that we can have a few

dollars extra. Maybe we might attract a nurse practitioner, maybe we might be

able to do that; but, no, what does government say? We can only use the

attraction if you are from outside the Province and you are coming in. We will

pay you money, but only if you are outside to come in. If you live anywhere and

practice in this Province as a nurse practitioner and you are prepared to go in,

we are not going to give you the bonus.

So why would you have a double standard

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time for speaking has expired.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, from the Order Paper, I will call Order 4, second

reading of a bill,

An Act To Consolidate The Law Respecting Revenue

Administration. (Bill 4)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 4,

An Act To Consolidate

The Law Respecting Revenue Administration, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Consolidate The Law

Respecting Revenue Administration." (Bill 4)

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have three bills, Mr. Speaker; I just want to make sure I have the right

one.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House to debate Bill 4, the Revenue

Administration Act. The purpose of this act is to update and consolidate a

number of tax statutes into a single act, being the Revenue Administration Act.

Previously, each act had its own set of administrative procedures such as filing

requirements, penalties and enforcement. A new consolidated act will ensure that

there is a common set of rules for all taxes while ensuring that the legislation

is modernized and easier to maintain in the future. It will reduce the

administrative burden on taxpayers, and help the Department of Finance to

achieve its goal of reducing red tape by 25 per cent under the Red Tape

Reduction Initiative.

Mr. Speaker, the following tax acts will be repealed and moved into the

Revenue Administration Act. There will be the Gasoline Tax Act; the Health and

Post-Secondary Education Tax Act; the Horse Racing Regulation and Tax Act; the

Insurance Companies Tax Act; the Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act, 2002; the

Retail Sales Tax Act and the Tobacco Tax Act.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we are trying to do as a government, and this

is a common theme that I heard as I travelled throughout the Province on the

pre-Budget consultations, is to reduce the red tape or administrative burden at

all levels of government.

Mr. Speaker, again one of the common themes was that it was too hard to

access certain government information. When you have a case here, Mr. Speaker,

where we have, for example, seven different acts that have similar principles,

then it becomes difficult from a bureaucratic perspective to advise an

individual, either a constituent or a taxpayer, as to how and where they should

find the information sought. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, it just increases the amount

of paperwork required. So what we have tried to do in this particular act is to

consolidate and co-ordinate a number of different pieces of legislation.

I will go through, in a second, what we have tried to do here in terms of

bringing these acts together, and why we have done that. There is essentially a

procedural aspect to this, and although we have made some changes to the various

acts, and I will highlight some of them, what we have attempted to do is to make

it easy for the public and for our own government workers to access these acts

when required.

Mr. Speaker, with the exception of the Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act

which was amended in 2002, the majority of these statutes have not been updated

in a number of years, so what happens, Mr. Speaker, is that there are

inconsistencies among the statutes for similar issues. This results in a

significant burden on both taxpayers and the government.

To use an example, Mr. Speaker, and there was some discussion of this

yesterday, my hon. friends who come from a legal background - the Opposition

House Leader - will be fully aware of the complexity of statutes and the ability

to access the required information.

Mr. Speaker, the statutes in Newfoundland and Labrador - and the Opposition

House Leader may be able to help me out - I cannot remember when the first

statutes of Newfoundland would have been brought in, but The Revised Statutes of

Newfoundland, I know that around the early to mid-1990s there was a

comprehensive effort to modernize our statutes and to rid ourselves of acts that

were antiquated or no longer applicable, and as a government we have continued

that process.

What we have tried to do in the last sitting of the Legislature, we removed -

or repealed is the term that would be utilized - we repealed a number of

statutes that were no longer applicable. Now by doing that, Mr. Speaker, not

only are we removing statutes from the books but we are also reducing the number

of statutes that exist. That serves a very practical purpose, Mr. Speaker. As a

practicing lawyer and as especially, lawyers are all the time looking at

statutes and trying to determine the intent of the Legislature, because that is

what a piece of legislation does; it should outline what the intent of this

Legislature is.

Now, I would oftentimes, as a lawyer, get calls from the average person

saying, well, I read this act, what does it mean, or, I am looking at this

particular Statute, it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me.

One of the keys to writing legislation, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest, is

being able to speak in a language that the average person understands. In other

words, what we try to do, or we should try to do somewhat and I think we

talked about this yesterday is to demystify the legal process. Now, we will

never be able to demystify, for example, the federal Income Tax Act. It is a

very complex piece of legislation and one that is not meant to be easily read by

either lawyers or the average person. Some of these Statutes, Mr. Speaker - for

example, if any of us were to unfortunately be caught speeding or be given a

ticket for parking somewhere we shouldn't park, there should be no reason for

the average person to hire a lawyer to deal with that issue. The average person

should be able to pick up the Highway Traffic Act and look at what is written

there, and understand, these are the consequences of this particular infraction,

that by going twenty kilometres over the speed limit, I receive, if I plead

guilty, a penalty that involves a fine up to a certain amount and I will lose a

certain number of points.

I will use St. John's, for example, Mr. Speaker, because I know tickets are

regularly given out. If the average person is charged with parking somewhere

they shouldn't park, well they should be able to find the applicable Statute

and look at whether or not they have a potential defence. What we have to try to

do, Mr. Speaker, as a government, is modernize legislation, make the legislation

easily readable and understood.

Mr. Speaker, for all my lawyer friends out there, I haven't forgotten them,

but I no longer feel an obligation to increase their work burdens by

complicating Statutes. In other words, one of the things I try to do now, or we

try to do as a government, is to take away the legal language that has developed

over the years, and try to remove some of the complicated legal terms and legal

language.

Mr. Speaker, what we have here are three, four, five, six, seven acts that we

are putting into one act. There are a number of amendments which we have

incorporated into this Revenue Administration Act. I will just go through some

of them and then I will highlight some of the changes we are making.

The penalty provisions for fines and imprisonment terms have been changed.

Fines were increased for inflation and minimum imprisonment terms were removed.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you, having come from my background as a lawyer and

then as the Minister of Justice, when I picked up this piece of legislation to

review, there were minimum imprisonment fines. In other words, if you breached

certain of these acts - I cannot remember exactly which one now - then you could

go to jail.

Now, I found something particularly offensive about that, especially in this

day and age when we have a situation where conditional sentences of imprisonment

are available for all kinds of offences. If there is a minimum term of

imprisonment you could not get a conditional sentence of imprisonment. So you

could, theoretically, commit an armed robbery and receive a conditional sentence

of imprisonment, which is house arrest with stringent terms, but if you breach

one of these acts you could go to jail. It is a matter, as a society, of trying

to maintain our priorities.

I am not saying that this is a situation where we were trying to be overly

punitive as a government. What happens is, unless statues are updated, unless

they are examined on a regular basis, then there is always the possibility that

provisions can remain in the statute that are no longer socially acceptable or

no longer applicable.

I think the average person would agree with me that if you can receive a

conditional sentence of imprisonment, theoretically again, for any offence that

has an imprisonment of less than two years, and there is no minimum term of

imprisonment, that you could receive house arrest; yet, you could breach one of

these regulatory acts and go to jail.

The difference between a criminal statute again, I know that some members

of this House would have dealt with this in their previous careers as lawyers -

if you breach a criminal act then there are a couple of requirements. It is not

enough, in terms of the Criminal Code, that you commit the act. You also have

what is called the mens rea or state of mind. In order to be guilty of a

criminal act of wrongdoing under the Criminal Code of Canada you have to have

those combinations. You have to have committed the act and you have to have the

state of mind, so it called a full mens rea offence.

Then we have regulatory offences which can be either strict liability or

absolute liability offences. Now, over the last number of years in Canada we do

not have as many absolute liability offences; because, in an absolute liability

offence, if you committed the act you are guilty. Now, there is something

foreign in Canadian law where the presumption of innocence and the requirement

that the Crown prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt are basic principles.

There is something foreign, and not foreign to Canadian law, where, in the

commission of

an act, you are found guilty automatically. What we have seen

since the mid-1980s, or I guess late 1970s or mid-1980s, is a move with

regulatory offences towards what we refer to as strict liability offences.

In strict liability offences, Mr. Speaker, if you commit the act, well that

is almost prima facie proof of your guilt; however, you are given the

opportunity to for example, there can be a defence of due diligence. If you

show that you took all reasonable steps to avoid commission of the offence then

you will be found not guilty. It is not a matter that you have the same strict

requirements of the Criminal Code, because when we are looking at regulatory

offences they oftentimes come within the powers of the provincial government to

make statutes which regulate the highways, which regulate, in this particular

case, tax regulations, so you are given the opportunity to defend yourself.

For example, Mr. Speaker, if you were charged with not you, Mr. Speaker,

but I am talking about any of us, the average citizen - if you are driving down

the highway and something happens, for example, and you spilled hot coffee in

your lap and you swerved over the line and a police officer were to come along

and say: That is imprudent driving; what you just did there, you endangered the

lives and safety of others.

Mr. Speaker, you could go to court and say: No, I spilled a coffee. Should I

have been drinking the coffee when I was driving? Perhaps not, perhaps so; it

was just a momentary lapse. I am always careful as I drive. I drink my coffee in

a special mug, and I always keep my eyes on the road. Then you could go into

court and say: I did the act, but I had taken all reasonable caution to avoid

that.

A judge may or may not find you guilty, but what I am trying to demonstrate

is that in regulatory or quasi-criminal offences there is not the same burden

placed on the state to prove the offence. The kinds of acts that we are dealing

with here are regulatory offences.

Mr. Speaker, one that jumps out at me and again I will get to this in a

second was the Tobacco Tax Act. A number of years ago, and I remember this,

I think the fines - and I have a note here somewhere which I will refer to

the amount of fines that were imposed on people who were caught smuggling

cigarettes were something like $500,000. Mr. Speaker, I guess perhaps it comes

as a surprise to no one that very few of these fines, if any, were ever paid.

What we look at, as we are looking at the Tobacco Tax Act, it does not make

sense to impose fines that will not ever be collected as opposed to the

possibility of a reasonable fine, one that sends a message, one that says to all

people of society that these are offences that you are going to pay a price for;

but also, Mr. Speaker, it costs a lot of money to investigate and to prosecute

offences so we want to get some of that money back, because generally in

regulatory offences the fines are imposed.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you want the fine to be enough of a deterrent to prevent

that individual and other individuals from committing offences, and again we are

referring to general principles of sentencing called specific deterrence, trying

to deter the individual, and general deterrence, society as a whole being

deterred.

So, in this particular act we updated the act. We had a look at what is

contained in these acts and we said: Well, are we being fair to the public while

still trying to send a message to everyone else as to the kinds of activities

that are prohibited in our society?

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the Revenue Administration Act, we have changed some

of the penalty provisions for fines and imprisonment. Some of the fines were

increased for inflation. I forget one of the acts, Mr. Speaker, but one of the

acts had a fine I think that was something like $25. There was a fine of $25 as

opposed to $200 today. That is just an example, Mr. Speaker, but if you say to

someone, well, you are going to get a - the fine has to make a person think

about whether or not they are going to commit that act.

We are not talking oftentimes, Mr. Speaker, about the average citizen. We are

talking about the person who says, well, I am going to break the law because it

is worth my while. So, what the person does, he or she says, well, if I am only

going to get fined $25 and I can make $1,000, where is the deterrent? What do I

have to lose?

Whereas, Mr. Speaker, if you have a fine of $1,000 then that is

going to make the person think twice before they commit that act. So we have

tried to adjust the fines.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we have outlined the time period, we have increased the

time period, or we have standardized it, I suppose, is a better way to put it,

Mr. Speaker, we have standardized the time period to apply for a review of the

appeal procedures. It has been ninety days from the date of the notice of

assessment. This, Mr. Speaker, previously ranged from thirty to ninety days, and

again we are trying to make it consistent.

An amount owing to the Crown, Mr. Speaker, not only tax balances, can now be

deducted from refunds. There is an inclusion of a civil remedy for director's

liability for old taxes. Gasoline tax inspectors will be able to issue tickets

for unlawful possession of marked fuel, which is an offence under the act, and

there is the additional fine for contraband offences imposed by the court has

been reduced from an amount equivalent - and I referred to this earlier, Mr.

Speaker - to five times the tax payable to three times the tax payable. Again, I

will try to give a concrete example in a second in relation to that.

Mr. Speaker, the Revenue Administration Act is essentially now made up of ten

parts. There is the general part of the act and then what we have tried to do,

Mr. Speaker, we have a

section that deals with inspection and compliance, and

then parts three, four, five, six, seven, eight and nine all deal with the acts

I have talked about, being the Gasoline Tax, the Health and Post-Secondary

Education Tax, the Horse Racing Tax, the Insurance Companies Tax, the Mining and

Mineral Rights Tax, the Retail Sales Tax and Tobacco Tax, and then part ten, Mr.

Speaker, is regulations, transitional and commencement, dealing with that

would be a standard part of any statute.

Mr. Speaker, some of the other amendments that we have incorporated into the

new Revenue Administration Act include and this sounds a little bit strange,

Mr. Speaker, but we have added a definition of cigar for the Tobacco Tax.

Mr. Speaker, what had happened is that the Tobacco Tax Act imposes tax on a

cigar but a tax is not defined by the act, so there was a

federal-provincial-territorial-national tobacco steering committee which has

conducted a comprehensive study of the difficulties currently being experienced

by various jurisdictions in Canada with respect to the classification of cigar

products for taxation purposes. They have recommended that a uniform definition

be adopted by all provinces, or that the provincial legislation make reference

to the definition of cigar in the Excise Act 2001.

Mr. Speaker, in our current legislation, and I know that this sounds at times

to the average member like, what is going on here?, but what you have to do is

try to foresee potential arguments, potential defences, and address these

issues. As silly as it may seem to the average person, Mr. Speaker, at times

this is what legislation has to do. So a cigar, Mr. Speaker, means, quote: a

roll or tubular construction intended for smoking that consists of (1) a filler

composed of natural tobacco, reconstituted tobacco, or both natural and

reconstituted tobacco; and (2) a wrapper or binder and a wrapper composed of

natural tobacco, reconstituted tobacco, or both natural and reconstituted

tobacco, in which the filter is wrapped, and may include a mouthpiece, tip or

filter.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if the average person out there is wondering, why do we

have a federal-provincial-territorial committee studying this? that is a good

question, but I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if not some lawyer, like I

used to be, would be up arguing in court: Well, you cannot charge my client with

that; there is no definition of cigar. How can you charge my client with not

paying taxes on cigars when we do not know what a cigar is?

Again, Mr. Speaker, these are the kinds of things. I do not mean to minimize

the seriousness of it, but obviously how serious can you take that definition?

Something to the average person that would be self-evident, and in a statute, we

have that definition of cigar.

That is how, Mr. Speaker, you identify problems that arise. Chances are, Mr.

Speaker, somewhere in this great country some lawyer has argued that someone

should not have to pay taxes on that because you have not proven what a cigar

is. I will come to another example in a second, Mr. Speaker.

Also, Mr. Speaker, this act will change the method of calculating interest

charged on outstanding balances from 1.2 per cent compounded per month to prime

plus 4 per cent, and the interest charged on refunds will be changed from 0.7

per cent compounded per month to month.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I just want to put that because the average person out

there may not realize the impact on them of this 1.2 per cent compounded per

month. That amounts to annual rate of 15.39 per cent.

We have all seen, if anyone has ever fallen behind in any kind of taxes, the

interest and penalties, especially with Revenue Canada, that can become quite

prohibitive. What we had was an annual rate of 15.39 per cent. That is much

higher than current interest rates on outstanding loans being charged by major

financial institutions.

Although they are meant to punish, the purpose of interest on a penalty is

meant to be punitive to a certain extent. We want you, as a government, to pay

your fine with your interest. Still, the current rate that was in place, Mr.

Speaker, was too high, and it has not been charged in some time.

Mr. Speaker, some provinces and the federal government charge interest on

outstanding taxes according to a formula in the act, and the calculation of the

rate is specified in the regulations. The federal government adjusts its

interest rate on a quarterly basis. Other provinces prescribe their interest

rates to be average prime rate of the major financial institutions plus 3 per

cent or 4 per cent, and they are also recalculated quarterly.

What we are going to do, Mr. Speaker, again in the act, is to charge all

taxes using the prime rate of government banker plus 4 per cent. This new rate

would be consistent with the federal government. as well as other provinces, and

it is proposed that this rate be recalculated on a semi-annual basis and not

quarterly.

Mr. Speaker, I have gone through some of the changes earlier in terms of the

review of appeal. I will talk about, for a second, though, because this is an

important issue, the set-off owing to the Crown. When I say it is an important

issue, as the Minister of Finance it is important to the Treasury and that is

obviously what I have to be very concerned about in terms of collecting monies

that are owed to our government.

Mr. Speaker, the Mining and Mineral Tax Act, 2002 - excuse me the Mining and

Minerals Right Tax Act, 2002 - has a provision that allows the department to set

off any amount to the Crown from an amount that may become payable to the

taxpayer. The other tax statues, Mr. Speaker, prior to this consolidation, only

allowed the department to deduct an amount owing from a refund that was

requested by the taxpayer. As part of this consolidation, Mr. Speaker, this

provision will now be included in the general

section of the Revenue

Administration Act, thereby extending the general set-off provision for taxes.

There will be no time limitations, Mr. Speaker, to commence proceedings for

offences under the act. Now, Mr. Speaker, some acts have different time frames

involved and, as the Opposition House Leader would be aware, there is a point

especially in civil law where there are time frames in which you can commence

actions. One that a lot of people would be familiar with is the commencement of

an action after an accident. I think it is six years to commence an action under

contract, a couple of years in certain types of negligence. In criminal law, Mr.

Speaker, for example, there are certain offences that a charge has to be laid

within six months of the occurrence of the offence. So what we are doing here in

this act is that there are no time limitations.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is good and it is bad. It is good in that it allows us

to collect money and to commence proceedings as we see fit; however, one of the

reasons in other acts that there are limitations is that things cannot go on

forever, but in this particular case we have outlined again in the act the

reason - there will be no time limitation.

Mr. Speaker, search and seizure provisions are consolidated under this act. I

think, if I could just go very quickly to

part II of the act deals with

inspection and compliance and it starts at

section 36 of the act.

Now, each act prior to this, Mr. Speaker, would have had a

section dealing

with inspection and compliance. What we have attempted to do here is bring all

of these sections of inspection and compliance within the one act. This becomes

important because when you are dealing with inspection and compliance you are

giving the state abilities to inspect and oftentimes search an individual. What

we tried to do, again, was to juxtapose criminal law with regulatory law. In

criminal law, searches, whether with or without warrant, require reasonable

grounds, but in order for there to be a search of a home, a search of a car,

there is a more stringent standard in criminal law. What the law is protecting

is the right to privacy.

Under

section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, everyone is

protected against unreasonable search and seizure. What happens, Mr. Speaker,

is, as the seriousness of the offence diminishes the right to privacy can also

diminish. An inspector under a regulatory act can be given a greater power and

less stringent requirements of compliance.

In this particular case, Mr. Speaker, the word inspection', I suggest,

will be interpreted as it has been in other acts. I know the Fisheries Act has

the term inspection'. What happens, Mr. Speaker, from an enforcement and

compliance perspective our inspectors have to be able to check vehicles. If you

are going to check, for example, in terms of the records, we have to be able to

look at what is going on to determine if any further acts are required.

Under

section 37 of the act, Mr. Speaker, "An inspector may at all

reasonable times, for a purpose now we have outlined that you can't do it

on an arbitrary basis "related to the administration or enforcement of

this Act or the regulations, except Parts III and IX, inspect or examine the

premises.. that the inspector may consider relevant for the purpose of

determining compliance with the Act."

Essentially, Mr. Speaker, although it is not outlined in that particular

case, I can indicate to you that these are powers we are giving to an inspector

to ensure compliance with the various act, but the inspector can enter premises.

Now, in general, the police cannot enter premises without having reasonable

grounds and, or a search warrant. The reasonable grounds can oftentimes be

subject to scrutiny if there is no search warrant, but there can be times of

urgency. There can be situations where there is flight.

In this particular case, we are giving - and we recognize - the inspector

these powers, but how else can it work? How can the acts work to inspect ways

business is carried on? Any property or books or records, make copies, extracts,

photographs or videos. Now, there is no warrant requirement here because the

inspector may, without a warrant. By using the term may we are saying, now

exercise judgement here. Don't just go off on a tangent without a warrant.

Because we recognize, again, these are regulatory offences as opposed to

offences under criminal code. That without a warrant we do not have the same

degree of privacy that the state has to in order to ensure compliance be given

certain leeway. It still requires though that people act in good faith and on a

reasonable basis.

Section 37.(1)(c) "require the owner or person in charge of a premises

to give the inspector all reasonable assistance..." What we have tried to

do here is put in one act sections that inspection and compliance, which govern

all these acts, and they are there together so that it is not a matter of

looking at each separate act, saying: well, is the wording the same? Do these

acts achieve the desired purpose?

Then, Mr. Speaker, under

section 41.(1) "A Provincial Court judge who is

satisfied by information upon oath or affirmation that there are reasonable

grounds for believing that there is on a premises," "may issue a

warrant authorizing an inspector named in the warrant to enter and search the

premises" So we recognize that there are certain times that warrants

will be required.

The inspectors, Mr. Speaker, enforcement officers are aware, and they are

trained as to when a warrant is not required and when a warrant is required.

Oftentimes, it becomes a question that has to be made, or a decision has to be

made on the spur of the moment. If you are out in the middle of the woods

somewhere than the issue of obtaining a warrant is not quite as simple as if you

were in a situation like in St. John's where there are a number of judges.

That situation, Mr. Speaker, in order to ensure compliance, it is my

understanding again, from my previous experience as a Minister of Justice,

that justice lawyers vet these particular acts to try to ensure, as best we can,

compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but also to ensure that the

government objective is achieved. What we are trying to achieve here is

compliance with a number of regulatory acts.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to go through the sections, they are quite

detailed. They outline when an inspector can act, with or without warrant, when

a warrant should be obtained.

Then we move into, as I have indicated,

Part III is Gasoline Tax.

New provisions have been added in terms of dealing - to recognize the testing

procedure utilized by the Canadian border agency. If I could use an example

there, the RCMP, on our behalf and the Province's behalf, seizes, investigates

and has samples of contraband tested at the Canada Boarder Services Agency lab,

the CBSA lab. There is nothing in the Tobacco Tax Act that references this

testing procedure or the certificate of analysis which is issued to validate

that the substance seized is tobacco. Again, to the average person that may

sound strange. You look at it, you smell it, it looks like tobacco, but the way

the law works, and the way it worked in drug cases, you could see a - the Crown,

for example, if it is marijuana, or cocaine, or pills, there still has to be

proof that the substance alleged is a prohibited substance.

There was nothing in the Tobacco Tax Act, Mr. Speaker, which refers to the

testing process or certificate of analysis. So you use their certificate in the

court prosecution. In this Revenue Administration Act, we have enacted

provisions substantially similar to the excise act which outlines the testing

and verification process. These are what are referred to in law as

technicalities. What we have to try to do is envisage what technicalities can be

argued and remove them, because we do not want people being found not guilty of

offences, be it criminal offences or regulatory offences on the basis of what

the average person would refer to as technicality. I am not referring to, for

example, a failure to identify a person, where eyewitness identification fails.

That is not a technicality. That goes to the heart of the criminal justice

system in terms of the Crown proving beyond a reasonable doubt.

What I am talking, though, is that you have a bunch of tobacco in front of

you and because the Crown cannot prove it is tobacco, a judge acquits an

individual. That is a technicality. So, what we try to do, is like the

definition of cigar, it is like the tobacco certificate, is complying with the

requirements of the law.

Now, Mr. Speaker, will we ever reach a point where simply, these kinds of

requirements are removed, and where one would say, well, common sense will tell

you that that is tobacco or that is marijuana? Well, we are not there yet.

Mr. Speaker, I know that at some point there was discussion, for example, in

the criminal code, that in the absence of a challenge, that there could be a

presumption that the prohibited material is what the Crown alleges it to be. So,

in this particular case, though, we are just making our legislation consistent

with the federal excise act.

What I am trying to do today is give our viewers and our listeners a flavour

of the law. A flavour of how the law is interpreted and how we as a government

try to bring in a piece of legislation that balances the rights of the state

against the rights of the individual, but the overriding consideration always

has to be the protection of society. What we are trying to, when there are

regulatory offences there should be less onerous proof imposed upon the Crown

or the state, to use the term.

Mr. Speaker, to give you the next example - again, this is a very technical

act but it is one in which it is necessary to consolidate, because although this

is done to bring all of these acts under one roof, for lack of a better term, we

are also trying to update them.

Mr. Speaker, we have included here an administrative penalty for excess

unverifiable volume losses of gasoline. Now, a gasoline volume loss can occur

for many reasons, such as evaporation, spillage, theft, contamination and

destruction.

The Gasoline Tax Act requires collectors to provide a record of the gasoline

losses to the department, but there is no limitation on the amount of loss. Fuel

that is lost and unaccounted for can result in tax leakage, as the lost fuel may

have been used in a taxable manner. So it is a way in which we lose, as a

government, the Treasury loses revenue. So then to mitigate the risk of tax

leakage, a limit is imposed on the amount of unverifiable losses for gasoline

products and during an audit a penalty equivalent to the amount of taxes is

assessed if the losses exceed a predetermined threshold.

The Ontario Ministry of Finance, Mr. Speaker, reviewed audit files to

determine an unacceptable amount of unverifiable losses. They consulted with

industry and an acceptable amount of loss was agreed upon by both parties. There

are two thresholds, one for gasoline, 0.25 per cent and one for lower distillate

products, such as jet fuel, diesel fuel, coal oil or kerosene at 0.125 per cent.

There is a lower threshold for gas products other than gasoline because they are

less volatile and do not experience the same level of losses as gasoline.

So, Mr. Speaker, what we tried to do here under the gasoline tax is to apply

an administrative penalty for excess unverifiable volume losses of gasoline. In

other words, to protect the Treasury from losses that go beyond a certain amount

in terms of the losses of gasoline.

Mr. Speaker, furnace fuel vendors will be required to comply with parts one

and two of the act, essentially requiring them to keep appropriate books and

records and being subject to audit and inspection procedure by the department.

It seems to me to be good business practice, and again contained within the same

act.

The concept of a board for purposes of administering the Horse Racing Tax has

been removed. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do now how many of our viewers out there would

have been aware of the Horse Racing Tax, but in

Part V of the act it says,

"A person who places a bet shall pay to the minister a tax equal to 11 % of

the amount of money deposited by him or her with the operator when making the

bet. An operator shall collect the amount of the tax by deducting it from the

money deposited with the operator for making a bet, before recording it or

applying it to the making of the bet."

Section 77 states, "The minister may allow operators remuneration for

collecting and forwarding the tax that may be prescribed in the

regulations."

So, Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you, prior to coming into government and

prior to having seen the Revenue Administration Act, I was not aware of the

Horse Racing Tax.

Mr. Speaker, unnecessary provisions from the Retail Sales Tax Act have been

removed to simplify the act, as it now only applies to the private sale of used

vehicles.

The provincial harmonized Retail Sales Tax or the RST with the Goods and

Services Tax occurred on April 1, 1997. Once harmonization occurred, RST applied

only to the sale of insurance premiums and the private sale of used vehicles.

The RST on insurance premiums was eliminated, effective January 1, 2008,

leaving only the private sale of used vehicles being taxed under the Retail

Sales Tax Act. So, what is being done is all unnecessary provisions relating to

RST are being removed and the act is specific now to the private sale of used

vehicles.

Mr. Speaker, the Revenue Administration Act will come into force with royal

assent. The regulations for the various acts will remain in place until a new

consolidated set of regulations have been drafted by Legislative Council in

consultation with the Department of Finance. Changes to the various acts will be

communicated to taxpayers through a news release, as well as updated tax

bulletins.

Mr. Speaker, to try to put this into perspective - again, the best way I can

say to the people of this Province and to the members of this House, is that

what we have tried to do is take all of these acts and put them under one act,

apply all of the inspection and compliance regulations under one act and

hopefully make it easier for the people of this Province to determine for

themselves if and how a statute applies to them. Secondly, to reduce the red

tape requirements and to reduce the number of statutes that we have in our

Province.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to take a couple of minutes now very quickly to

because, again, this was touched upon briefly yesterday. We have

an act here in

front of us today that is approximately seventy-eight pages in length. Now how

does this act come into force? How does this act where does it come from?

Essentially, Mr. Speaker, in this government there is a commitment to red

tape reduction, there is a commitment to trying to make government more

accessible to the general public. So what happens is, for example, either in

Finance more than likely and, again, I see my colleague, the Minister of

Justice, was here at the time - someone would have said: We have all of these

acts out there. Do we really need seven separate acts or can we put them under

the umbrella of one?

Then the minister, or deputy minister, or someone - it would come to the

minister's attention - would say: Yes, that seems like a good idea. Now, what

do we have to do here? How do we go about it?

What happened? Officials within, first, the Finance Department, would then

look at the sections of the act and say, well, we should increase this penalty

or decrease this penalty, or we should add this

section here. The inspection and

compliance provisions would have an especially legal component, so a lawyer or

lawyers in the Department of Justice would ensure that there is a consistency

across the statutes in terms of the inspection and compliance, as I indicated

earlier, to ensure that there is compliance with the Charter of Freedoms, again

having regard to the various types of principles: whether or not the degree

of privacy, the type of the act, whether it is a regulatory or criminal offence,

the seriousness of the offences and the seriousness of the penalties. Then they

would get together and it would go to Legislative Council

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that amazed me as Minister of Justice - and I

am sure that my colleague, the now Minister of Justice, would say the same

thing, and I know the Opposition House Leader would also be aware of this

you see all this legislation come forward and you think there must be a

section

up there, there must be this room up in the Department of Justice, where there

are just people writing statutes. Essentially, there are a number of people.

There is one gentleman who has been doing this for over thirty years now; he has

been writing statutes. What happens is, when we go to him to review a statute,

to draft the statute, it is absolutely amazing to watch; because, as lawyers,

the writing of a legal letter can take so much time, the

interpretation of a

statute,

whereas this particular individual - and I will not mention his name

for fear of embarrassing him, he serves a crucial role in the Department of

Justice and in government as a whole because he is the individual - along with,

I think there might be a couple of other people working with him - he is the

individual who drafts all of the statutes.

In this particular case, after we in Finance and in Justice and everyone have

done their work, they go to this gentleman and he will then look at it all and

bring it all together. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, having spent a number of

years, as have some of my colleagues here in the House, interpreting statutes

and looking for loopholes in statutes, as a defence lawyer especially, it is

amazing to watch this gentleman at work. Unfortunately, though, unless he is

going to stay with us for another ten or fifteen years, I think he could

probably retire. He is one of the people, Mr. Speaker, a cog in the wheel of

government, who serves a crucial role, and that is probably no one really

knows the kind of work and the importance of the work and the nature of the work

he does. That happens, Mr. Speaker, with every piece of statute.

I happened to be at the Finance Ministers' meeting in Saskatoon, I think it

was, around December 17 when the AbitibiBowater legislation was brought in, but

I think that might have been something that was done in a very short period of

time. Again, this same group of people or individual in the Department of

Justice are always there, ready to put together the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, there would be Finance officials, lawyers, then, as I have

indicated in this particular case, and I know my predecessor, the current

Minister of Justice, would have also been involved, and we would have all looked

at it. I remember, as I have indicated, one thing that jumped out at me was how

I do not particularly like that. So, the minister and everyone play a role.

Then, Mr. Speaker, it works its way through the various committees that it

has to go through. Again, I am just trying to give an example to the people of

this Province as to how a piece of legislation comes into place.

It goes in this particular piece of legislation because there would have been

more of an economic component than a social policy component. It would have, I

think, if I remember correctly, gone to Treasury Board for examination, and the

Treasury Board Committee of Cabinet would look at it, and eventually it might

have gone to Economic Policy, I cannot remember outright, and then it would work

its way through Cabinet. Eventually, Mr. Speaker, it finds its way into the

House.

Then, when it comes before the House, it is not simply passed. There is

debate, there is discussion, there is notice given, and what happens is that

both Opposition parties are given the opportunity to speak, and members of the

government are given an opportunity to speak.

What we try to do at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, is to come up with the

best piece of legislation we can, but recognizing that there are always lawyers

out there and the average individual, Mr. Speaker. It is not only lawyers.

There are individuals out there themselves who can look and say: This is not

fair. What has happened to me is not right. There is something I should be able

to do about this. They may not be able to logically analyze and engage in a

discussion or dissertation of legal principles, but they will say, that is not

right, and they will win their case.

Now, one incident jumps out at me. I think it might have been the first

sitting of the House last year. There was some piece of legislation that I had

brought in, Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Justice, and the Opposition House Leader

identified a flaw. I can't remember the piece of legislation, but as a result

of the debate there was something missing. I don't know if there was a

timeframe or if we had forgotten to put a certain timeframe in. It was raised by

the Opposition House Leader, we went back to discuss it among ourselves with

legislative counsel and made the change right there. That is the purpose,

hopefully, and I am looking forward to what the Opposition will have to say in

relation to this act. It is, in many respects, a dry piece of legislation, but

there are very serious consequences to the average person in terms of the

imposition of fines, and the regulation of their activity, Mr. Speaker, which is

always very important. There may be something that they will find, an anomaly in

the act, an inconsistence, something that needs to be fixed up.

Mr. Speaker, let me say to you, that despite the skills of our lawyers in

Justice and our legislative counsel and despite the best efforts of everyone

involved, what happens is that there will always be let me use the term for

lack of a better one a loophole. What our role is, as a loophole and you

will see this often times in criminal law in the Supreme Court of Canada the

Legislature brings in a piece of legislation. The intent of the Legislature is

outlined or read into the legislation. There is a certain mischief that we are

trying to prevent.

If a court were to rule against us and say, well, this particular piece of

legislation is unconstitutional, your inspection goes too far, and it goes all

the way and the Supreme Court of Newfoundland Trail Division or Court of Appeal

says, we don't like this legislation. It is what we refer to as

unconstitutional. Mr. Speaker, what we do, as a Legislature, if we deem fit, we

change the legislation. That is our role.

The courts can make a ruling but the courts are not elected officials. The

elected officials in this House, the forty-eight of us who are in this House, we

represent the people of this Province. Each time we speak as a whole, we are

saying, this is the will of the people. That is why as politicians, as you are

well aware, Mr. Speaker, if there is a situation where my personal opinion

disagrees with the majority of my constituents then my role there is to speak

for the constituents. The same thing when it comes to a piece of legislation. A

court finds that the legislation is unconstitutional or there is something that

a court does not like about that legislation, then as a Legislature we have

every right to come back into this House, take into account what the court said

and answer their queries.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, simply if a court were to say: well,

section 42

of that act is unconstitutional. It is not a matter of us saying: well, okay, we

agree with that. We are going to take that out. We can try to adapt it. We can

try to modify it. We can try to make it constitutional. That is what happens so

often with how law is made. It is an interaction between the Legislature and the

judiciary and coming back to the Legislature. However, there is a point where

the legislative will is what counts. Judges are appointed to interpret law, to

apply law, but also they are expected to be objective and are objective in their

assessment.

I know, Mr. Speaker, there are times that the law becomes very contentious.

Now I do not expect that this act, for example, is one that will become too

contentious. People might not agree with it. I mean, people do not like getting

speeding tickets or traffic tickets or parking tickets but that is the way the

law works. We all accept that is the way it has to be. However, if something

happens to me as an individual or as a member of society that I do not think was

right or I do not think was fair then I have that opportunity to challenge that

in a court. It is important again, that it be the court process that is

followed.

Essentially, Mr. Speaker, what I have tried to do here is to take an example

of how a piece of legislation comes into existence. It can come into existence

as a result of a change in public policy. It can come into existence as a result

of a change in societal attitude. What was accepted thirty years ago may not be

accepted today. So as a Legislature we may look at something that was brought in

thirty years ago and say, no, that is not the way that is going to be today.

That is not what our constituents, being the people of this Province, want. So

we change the law.

That can start out, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, with an idea of an

MHA, a bureaucratic official, a lawyer, working its way up into a piece of

legislation, or it can be, as in this case, where we are looking at legislation

that is in existence and we are modernizing it. We are recognizing that society

has changed, and with society changing we have the obligation to update the

legislation. In this particular case we are also trying to address the issue of

the need to coordinate, be consistent and reduce red tape.

So, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, for example, that during my pre-budget

consultations the HAPSET tax - I am trying to remember now, that was the payroll

tax, it is commonly referred to people disagreed with it. They wanted us, as

a government, to look at removing that, but we felt that we had done enough at

this point. However, there is nothing to prevent us from coming in, even though

the legislation, if it is passed and if it is brought into force, there is

nothing to prevent us from amending that legislation at some point if, again, it

is the will of the people as expressed through the Legislature. There is nothing

to prevent us from saying: okay, we will change that if that is the way you want

it to be.

Oftentimes, Mr. Speaker, and all members of this House are aware, we will get

letters from the average person, saying: Well, I think you should look at that

piece of legislation. I do not know if that makes sense anymore. We may, when we

look at it, decide yes, that person is right. Again, that is how the average

person can play a role in the making of laws.

Now, that law can be amended then. After it comes in there can be a

particular unfairness that results. The law can be amended. As we will see, as

we saw in the last sitting of the House, laws can be repealed. The point I am

trying to make is that law is not static. It can change. It can change based on

the change in societal attitudes and morals. It can change in the need for the

law to modernize, the need for it to be consistent across this country, because

the federal government is given the powers to legislate in areas of federal

jurisdiction under

section 91 of the Constitution Act, or the BNA Act of 1867.

The provincial government is given powers to make laws, like we are doing

here under

section 92, or the provincial heads of power. So there are times when

those divisions are well accepted and easily seen but there are others where

they become complicated. I will use the example, I think it is under 91.(27) of

the Constitution Act deals with criminal law, and criminal law is a federal

jurisdiction. So that it is only the federal government can make criminal laws,

we have the Criminal Code. Then, however, as a provincial government we decide:

well, we want a piece of legislation that will deal with I think an example

is proceeds of crime that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on last week. The

Supreme Court of Canada ruled that, well, the Province can also play a role

here. So we are essentially entrenching, the argument would be on federal

jurisdiction but there are times where they can exist concurrently.

As we look at these acts we also have to be aware - even though we are

bringing them all under one act here - that we cannot encroach on federal

jurisdiction. Again, I wish it was as easily at times to recognize as I am

putting it here now but it is not.

These are the factors, Mr. Speaker, that come into account. What we have

tried to do here, and as we will continue to try to do as a government, is to

modernize our legislation, to change our legislation or amend it when necessary

and to repeal it if there are certain acts on the books that serve no further

purpose.

I am trying to remember some of the acts that we repealed before Christmas. I

know there were a number of them. I know there is one tomorrow, I think, that we

will be repealing because it is

AN HON. MEMBER: The Pickersgill Fellowship Act.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, I think it was the Pickersgill Fellowship Act was one

of them.

So, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity this afternoon. As I have

indicated, the process of making legislation is not one that is static; it is

one that is evolving. I look forward to the comments from the members opposite

and I will certainly be listening with interest.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne): The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words with respect to Bill 4, An

Act To Consolidate The Law Respecting Revenue Administration.

Quite a complex piece of work, eighty pages in length, very, very complex. It

is supposed to simplify certain issues, but in and of itself it is a very

complex piece of legislation and deals, of course, with taxes. They all say

there are two things that are unavoidable, death and taxes. They say we all have

them coming and you have to pay the piper when the call comes. Of course, God

knows, we have had our trials and tribulations in the Province when it comes to

taxes in the last four or five years.

This is the Administration that started out, of course, taxing everything

from birth to death and everything in between. You will all recall the famous

Budget of 2004 in April when the government taxed even death certificates. So

you pay a tax on a birth certificate, or a fee for a birth certificate, and you

pay a fee for a death certificate and you pay the fee for everything in between,

and I mean everything. The word on the street was, the only thing this

government didn't tax was the free on the bingo card, and that is about it.

The only thing they did not tax was the free on the bingo card. They did tax the

bingos now, mind you. They did get a share of the revenues from the bingos, so

that didn't go unheard of.

In fact, the one that became very, very humorous, too, was the tax on polar

bears, if you had to get a polar bear licence in the Province. Now, I do not

think they are hunted down around Ramea and places like that. I think there

might have been something like six or seven polar bear licences issued in the

Province in the run of a year, and the government of the day saw fit to put a

tax, a fee, an increased fee, on a polar bear. So, if go out to shoot a polar,

at one time it would cost you $10. They even taxed the poor polar bear fee up to

$12 to try to scrape a dollar out of the people. We have no fears about where

this government is prepared to go when it comes to collecting the taxes.

Now, we did not have as good luck in some cases when it came to collecting

the taxes. I am going to refer to a situation from my district, actually, when

you talk about taxes. The minister talked about the ability to recover fines and

fees, and things that are imposed under various pieces of legislation. The one I

am referring to, of course, happened in Port aux Basques. We ended up, after,

with a piece of legislation as a result of it, and regulations as a result of

it. That is where the funeral home operator out there ripped off the trust

account to the tune of about $600,000-plus. What he was doing, of course, he

took everybody's prepaid funeral mon