PDF Version

June 2,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 38

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

I'm

speaking today to a ruling that I had promised to bring to the House either

yesterday or today. Yesterday the Minister of Education and Early Childhood

Development rose in the House on a point of order and possible point of

privilege with respect to remarks tweeted from this Chamber by the Member for

Mount Pearl North.

The

minister stated that the Member had tweeted a reference to, and I quote, the

absence of Members of the House of Assembly during the course of our

proceedings. I have reviewed the tweets of the Member and, in fact, the Member

originated a comment while the House was sitting. This message referred to a

minister's absence for a vote.

O'Brien

and Bosc states at page 614: Allusions to the presence or absence of a Member

or Minister in the Chamber are unacceptable. Further on

Chapter 4 of O'Brien

and Bosc: The Speaker has traditionally discouraged Members from signalling the

absence of another Member from the House because 'there are many places that

Members have to be in order to carry out all of the obligations that go with

their office.'

At this

alone has increased dramatically since the decision of Speaker Wiseman in 2012,

which was referred to by the minister.

There

appears to be a move among Canadian and other commonwealth legislatures toward

the view that tweeting by Members from the Chamber during a sitting is not

considered to be a statement made during proceedings. There are exceptions to

subject to discipline.

For

further reading on this, I would refer Members to an

article by Joanne McNair

Procedure. This can be found in the

Canadian Parliamentary Review , volume 37, No. 4, in 2014.

However,

just because a comment is tweeted or retweeted by a Member does not mean that

the comment is not offensive. I remind Members that they are not only bound by

the Standing Orders and precedents of this House and of other parliaments, but

are also bound by their Code of Conduct. In particular, clause 1 of our code

states, Members shall inform themselves of and shall conduct themselves in

accordance with the provisions and spirit of the Standing Orders of the House of

Assembly, the House of Assembly

Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, the Members' Resources and

Allowances Rules, the Elections Act, 1991, the House of Assembly Act and

this Code of Conduct and shall ensure that their conduct does not bring the

integrity of their office or the House of Assembly into disrepute.

Clause 4

states, in part, there will be occasions on which Members will find it

necessary to adopt more stringent norms of conduct in order to protect the

public interest and to enhance public confidence and trust.

Members

are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with higher standards of

ethical practice while holding public office. I call on all Members to respect

the integrity of the office they hold and not violate the principles and intent

of our rules and precedents, even if not violating the actual provisions. As

indicated, we must be held to a higher standard.

There is

no prima facie breach of privilege here, and while I could rule today that the

statements made are out of order, it is more appropriate that I address the

issue of our Standing Orders. Our Standing Orders are very old and were meant to

address parliamentary behaviour and conduct of business in this House at a time

Orders Committee will commence consideration of the Standing Orders and our

practices after the House rises this spring.

Social

media can present a great challenge to procedures followed in this House, so I

ask that foremost amongst the Committee's considerations should be the use of

House in order to ensure that our existing parliamentary practices and

In the

meantime, I ask and expect that all Members conduct themselves with integrity

that befits their office. As was stated by the United Kingdom House of Commons

Committee on Procedure and referred to in the before mentioned

Canadian Parliamentary Review article,

freedom of speech in parliament places a corresponding duty upon every member to

circumvent existing Standing Orders and parliamentary conventions.

I will

say in conclusion that the issue raised provides us with a great opportunity,

our Standing Orders.

Today, I

welcome to the public gallery, Crystal Hill, representing Branch 1 of the Legion

who is the subject of a Member's statement today.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements we

have the Members for the Districts of St. George's Humber, St. John's Centre,

Baie Verte Green Bay, Exploits and Conception Bay South.

The hon.

the Member for St. George's Humber.

MR. REID:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This

past weekend I attended the annual review of the naval cadets in St. George's

and I was very impressed with their displays and demonstrations. I have also

been invited to other cadet reviews in Codroy Valley and Pasadena, but

regrettably was unable to attend because of duties in this House of Assembly.

Mr.

Speaker, cadets take

part in many important community activities and services,

while learning leaderships skills and participating in good citizenship. I would

like to commend the youth who have made the decision to become involved in the

cadets. It is a very important decision which will enhance their opportunities

for success in life.

I would

also commend the parents and other family members who have supported them in

their involvement in cadets. It is fitting to recognize the valuable role which

volunteers play in making cadets such a success. Without their involvement many

of these activities would not be possible.

conclusion, I ask all Members to join with me in recognizing and supporting the

important role that the cadet movement plays in our province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

Royal Canadian Legion and Provincial Command's 46th Dominion Convention is just

around the corner. I am especially proud to acknowledge that our community

Branch 1 will also be: Looking back to see ahead.

Our

Legions provide crucial support and resources to our veterans and those

currently serving our country in ways that are very direct and deeply caring.

The folks at Branch 1 do home visits, advocacy and provide other means of

supports to our veterans.

President John Grenning, his trustees and executive can be proud of what they

make possible. These volunteers are so committed. They have done an incredible

job building and providing community through dances, dinners, bingos, darts and

special events.

They

host a seniors night twice a month, helping overcome isolation and loneliness.

The Ladies Auxiliary led by the extraordinary Pat Harding, roll up their

sleeves, don aprons and blue hairnets and bravely prepare what can only be

described as culinary magic for our veterans and other members.

sincerely encourage everyone to attend their convention events, including dinner

theatre provided by Vera Perlin Players and a barbeque featuring the St. Pat's

Dancers.

Congratulations and bravo to the Branch 1 community.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for the District

of Baie Verte Green Bay.

MR. WARR:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House to recognize an exciting event I will be attending this

weekend in my district. The Baie Verte Area Chamber of Commerce will be hosting

its 29th annual Mining Conference on June 3 and 4.

Mining

has long been one of the economic mainstays of the Baie Verte Peninsula, with

mining activity stretching back to the 1850s.

The

well-established junior mining company Rambler Mining and Metals employs 150

people, Mr. Speaker, in the Baie Verte area. As well, the newer Anaconda gold

mine at Point Rousse on the peninsula has been providing well-paying jobs to

residents of my district.

The

Anaconda mine produces 16,000 ounces of gold per year, and company CEO Dustin

Angelo wants to double that output in the next handful of years. The project

currently employs between 85 and 90 people, and it's a real example of economic

diversification in action.

The

conference this weekend will feature an industry update on activity on the

peninsula, and a presentation of some technical papers. It is sure to be an

exciting opportunity to rub shoulders with key industry players and discuss ways

this dynamic industry can further benefit this region and the province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for the

District of Exploits.

MR. DEAN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to recognize the achievements of David Nichols, a

resident of Grand Falls-Windsor who was just awarded the CY Hoskins Memorial

Award of Merit.

Dave

began his career in 1980 as the complex manager for sporting facilities in

Windsor. He stayed on in that capacity for 11 years, until Windsor amalgamated

with its neighbour Grand Falls in 1991. At that time, Dave took over as the

Director of Parks and Recreation for the newly amalgamated town.

Over the

years, he organized many provincial and national events such as the Newfoundland

and Labrador Winter Games, the Salmon Festival, national softball tournaments

and more.

oversaw many upgrades to the facilities in the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor, to

the present day inventory of 13 fields, six community facilities, six

playgrounds, six parks, four memorial parks, three rest parks, a dog park, a

splash pad and others.

Dave has

volunteered his time on many boards and committees, and has provided

recreational programs and activities to children of all ages.

I ask

all Members to join with me in thanking Dave Nichols for his service, and

congratulating him on his recent award.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, on May 10, I had the opportunity to attend and present both Bronze and

Silver Duke of Edinburgh Awards to 28 deserving young women and men at Frank

Roberts Junior High in Foxtrap.

qualify for an award, participants much undertake a balanced program of

leisure-time activities and meet the prescribed standards in four different area

of self-development, including community service, adventurous journeys, physical

fitness and skill development.

This

group has been involved in many challenging and worthwhile activities under the

direction of committed volunteer leaders. In speaking with participants

individually, they tell stories of personal growth and commitment as they

embarked on the various challenges and opportunities.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to congratulate the Silver recipients: Ryan

Letto, Mitchell Fagan, Alexa Johnson and Jacinda Porter.

Bronze

recipients: Krista Greeley, Luke Strickland, Alexandra Gamble, Nathan Lake,

Lauren Payne, Leah Pomeroy, Mackenzie Searle, Kelsey Smith, Chelsea Bolt, Emma

Jacobs, Sarah Fagan, Katie Currie, Madison Tarrant, Alexandra Benson, Samantha

Bursey, Sara Burry, Chelsie Cake, Matthew Broders, Kristina LeDrew, Miguel

Santos, Kaitlyn Day, Jenna Scott, Karley Morgan and Olivia Cave.

This is

quite an accomplishment and I wish them well in their silver and gold metal

pursuit.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

The Commemoration of the

First World War and the Battle of Beaumont-Hamel

MR.

SPEAKER:

Today f or Honour

100, we have the Member for the District of Terra Nova.

MR. HOLLOWAY: I

will now read into the record the following 40 names of those who have lost

their lives in the First World War in the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, the Royal

Newfoundland Naval Reserve, the Newfoundland Mercantile Marine or the

Newfoundland Forestry Corps. This will be followed by a moment of silence.

Lest we forget: Augustus Taylor, Charles F. Taylor, Eric

Francis Taylor, Eugene Fred Taylor, George Taylor, George Hayward Taylor,

Hedley Taylor, Herbert

Taylor, Richard H. Taylor, Selby Taylor, William Bartlett Taylor, Joseph

Teixeisa, Donald Templeman, Francis Thistle, Frederick Gordon Thomas, H. Gordon

Thomas, Walter Thomas, Max Thompson, James Elliot Thomson, James H. Thorne,

Joseph Thorne, Walter Lewis Thorne, Edward J. Tibbet, Henry Tibbo, James Joseph

Tibbo, Edward Tilley, Henry Tilley, Lawrence Tilly, Melvin Titford, Gordon

Tizzard, Andrew Tobin, James J. Tobin, John Thomas Tobin, Patrick Francis Tobin,

Augustus Toms, Ernest Toope, Jose De La Cruz Torres, George Toumishey, Heber

Trask, Thomas Joseph Truscott.

(Moment

of silence.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Please be seated.

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for the Forestry and Agrifoods Agency.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to

recognize the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians working to combat the forest

fires in Alberta.

Our

government is proud to respond to the needs of residents in Fort McMurray

through the deployment of 11 forest firefighters from the Forestry and Agrifoods

Agency. Also deployed are two government employees who are working as members of

Incident Management Teams in Red Lake, Ontario, and Horse River, Alberta.

Mr.

Speaker, the forest firefighters arrived in Alberta this past weekend and were

assigned to an area approximately 40 kilometres outside Fort McMurray. This is a

very high-priority duty as they help make Fort McMurray safe for residents to

return.

These

deployments are made under the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre, Mutual

Aid Resource Sharing Agreement, which enables provinces to share firefighting

resources.

Four

provincial government employees deployed to Alberta and Winnipeg earlier this

month recently returned home. Thirty-one members of the local RCMP who spent a

few weeks in Fort McMurray to help rebuilding efforts in the community have also

returned.

Mr.

Speaker, we will continue to help our friends and family in Fort McMurray in any

way we can.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like

to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement today. We, too,

would like to thank and recognize the firefighters and staff from this province

who travelled across the country to assist our friends in Alberta. I'd also like

to take this opportunity to thank the local RCMP officers who recently returned

home from their time helping the effort in Fort McMurray.

Any time

there is an opportunity to help our neighbours, people in Newfoundland and

Labrador are among the first to put up their hands, and that is something we

should all be very proud of. Moreover, the ties between the people and provinces

in this country are incredibly strong. This is certainly evident when a tragedy

such as this strikes.

I think

we would all agree we are truly blessed to live in such a wonderful, caring and

connected country. In closing, I commend all those involved in rebuilding Fort

McMurray.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advanced copy of his statement. The devastation of

the wildfire and the reality of what Fort McMurray is experiencing have touched

all our hearts. There really are no words to say thank you adequately to our

amazing firefighters, other government employees and the volunteers who work in

dangerous situations to help others, especially in this current situation.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for Fire and Emergency Services Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to

recognize over 340 firefighters and emergency management practitioners who are

participating in the Fire and Emergency Services Training School in Grand

Falls-Windsor. It began May 28 and ends tomorrow, June 3.

Prevention, fire suppression techniques and emergency management planning are

critical to the safety and well-being of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That

is why Fire and Emergency Services Newfoundland and Labrador coordinates a

large-scale provincial Fire and Emergency Services Training School at no cost to

firefighters and emergency management practitioners. The training includes

courses and seminars on topics ranging from basic emergency management to fire

protection.

This

year, the Grand Falls-Winsor Fire Department was selected to host and they have

been an outstanding partner, ensuring the success of the Fire and Emergency

Services Training School.

Mr.

Speaker, emergency responders are our first line of defence when dangerous

situations impact our communities. Proper training is important for the personal

safety of emergency responders as they work to ensure the safety of the

residents. I commend these individuals on taking time from their schedules to

ensure they are able to protect the residents that they serve.

I ask my

colleagues in the House to join me in recognizing the leadership of those

individuals, as well as the staff at Fire and Emergency Services Newfoundland

and Labrador for coordinating another successful Fire and Emergency Services

Training School. It's a tremendous effort that has not gone unnoticed.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the advance copy of his statement this afternoon. We join with

government in recognizing the tremendous women and men involved in our

province's fire services. Training is paramount in the area of fire protection,

and I'm glad to see government continue to provide appropriate opportunities for

individuals to best equip themselves. Prevention, fire suppression techniques

and emergency management planning are, as the minister said, critical to the

safety and well-being of everyone in our province.

I'd also

like to thank the very capable instructors and trainers that provide the vital

service to our front-line responders. You are to be commended. Your efforts and

dedication don't go unnoticed.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Well done to all the

participants in the training school. We all appreciate the value of the training

they are receiving.

I say to

the minister I would be interested in seeing a gender breakdown of participants

in this event, and I again remind the minister that cutting $400,000 from the

department's fire suppression and communications budget could seriously impede

or make more difficult the work of our wonderful emergency responders.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, in December 2008, the United Nations passed a resolution to recognize

June 8 as World Oceans Day. On this day, each year, we celebrate the ocean, its

importance in our lives and how we can protect it.

World

Oceans Day events are held around the globe to create awareness about the

critical role that oceans play in people's lives. This Saturday, June 4, Mr.

Speaker, I am proud to be participating in World Oceans Day at the Marine

Institute. This is a free event that takes place from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. and

includes exhibits, demonstrations and activities for the entire family.

Newfoundland and Labrador, the ocean and the opportunities it provides have

always been at the heart of our economy and our culture. The coastline and the

ocean are intrinsically linked to our history, culture, recreational enjoyment

and prosperity, and we will continue to rely on the resources from our waters

for generations to come.

World

Oceans Day is a perfect opportunity for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to

reflect on what the ocean means to us and how we can help protect it.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. On behalf of the

Official Opposition, we too recognize June 8 as World Oceans Day and encourage

participation in World Oceans Day celebrations this Saturday at the Marine

Institute.

Mr.

Speaker, our ocean has long-lasting traditions and connections to this province,

in our fishery as a method of transportation, and recreation use. As

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we have great respect for our ocean and we

understand the economic growth it puts to our province, but we also understand

the dangers and the many lives that have been lost on our oceans. So no one can

respect the oceans more than Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I too

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. This year's theme is

Healthy Oceans, Healthy Planet. I'm glad the minister mentioned that we must

reflect on what the ocean means and how we can help protect it. That's why we're

concerned about things like oil spills and making sure aquaculture is monitored

properly.

So I

encourage everyone to take advantage of this wonderful event at the Marine

Institute and drop in on Saturday, as the minister invited all of us.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the Minister of Natural Resources: At the conclusion of the April 19 meeting

that you attended with Mr. Martin, what agreement was reached with Mr. Martin?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

appreciate the question.

At the

end of the meeting it was understood that Mr. Martin would be stepping down the

next day, and that we would work in the morning on the communications on such

and that he would be making that announcement in the late morning.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So,

minister: Are you saying that it was your understanding that at the conclusion

of the April 19 meeting that Mr. Martin would be tendering his resignation? Is

that what you're saying?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, thank you again

for the question.

At the

end of the meeting on April 19 it was determined that Mr. Martin would be

stepping down, that he would make the necessary arrangements in the morning.

That we would be doing some media around this issue, that we would be letting

him we would go first, he would go second. That was what was discussed at the

end of the meeting.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So the

Minister of Natural Resources continues and maintains that Mr. Martin

voluntarily resigned, and that was her understanding from the April 19 meeting.

I ask

the Minister of Natural Resources: What does Mr. Martin's executive employment

agreement say about voluntary resignation?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, as we discussed

yesterday, and as I'll continue to say, the contract with Mr. Martin was with

the board of directors. The board of directors signed that agreement or renewed

that agreement in 2009.

clearly rested with the board of directors. The former chair of the board of

directors has indicated that it rested with the board; therefore, it was the

board's responsibility for his contract.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know

the minister had perused and familiarized herself with the document, so I'd hope

she would be able to share that information.

I ask

the Minister of Natural Resources: When you stood next to the Premier on April

20 and you listened to the Premier as he told the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador that Mr. Martin had voluntarily resigned, were you confident that that

information was accurate?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to say

it again, that the contract rests with the board of directors. That is without

dispute. It was signed by the board of directors. The chair of the board of

directors said in that morning's email that he was responsible; the board was

responsible for the contract.

When I

stood next to the Premier on the morning of April 20, Mr. Martin was indicating

and I can read back, as I did a couple of days ago, his statements to the

media. Mr. Speaker, all I can say is I can repeat what Mr. Martin said to the

media that morning. The contract rests with the board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know

the minister received an email early that morning through her government email.

I'll ask

her again: Were you confident that the information the Premier was sharing with

the province was accurate?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I'm confident

that Mr. Martin, when he made his public statements following the Premier's

public statements were, in his words, that he had stepped down, that he was

looking toward his family, that he would be available to the corporation should

it be needed, as I read into the record the other day and he's on the record

now. So I know that Mr. Martin, in his public comments, actually went further

than the Premier did that morning.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll ask

the Minister of Natural Resources: When did you learn that Mr. Martin was fired,

terminated without cause?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I

indicated yesterday, and as the Premier has indicated for the last couple of

weeks, we were notified of the board's decision on the morning late morning,

while we were actually still doing media late morning that he was terminated

without cause. That was the board's decision. That was as it was and, therefore,

no further indication.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take

it she's confirming it was on late morning of April 20, I believe is the date

the minister is indicating.

I will

ask the Minister of Natural Resources this: What does Mr. Martin's executive

employment agreement say about terminations?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Martin's employment agreement rests with the board of Nalcor. The board signed

that agreement. The board is responsible for that agreement. The board is

available to discuss that agreement, but it rests with the board of Nalcor.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you.

Just to

confirm, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources said yesterday she had

read the contract. Is that true, you are familiar with the contract, with the

details of it? So you do know what it says.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, as I said

yesterday, in the course of my duties on March 3, I did ask the former chair of

the board of Nalcor if he would provide a copy of the contract. He provided me a

hard copy on or about March 4. I did peruse the contract.

Again,

the contract is with the board of directors of Nalcor. I filed it, as was

required, so I had a copy for the use of the department.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Yes, Minister, we've heard

you say that, but that wasn't the question.

I will

ask the minister: Are you claiming that Mr. Martin wished to resign, but the

Nalcor board of directors did not accept it and fired him instead? Is that what

you're saying?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can't

accept words being put in my mouth, so I won't accept that.

Mr.

Speaker, I will say the board made their deliberations. The board had

information. The board made their deliberations and the board made their

decisions. That is the board of director's responsibility as they are

responsible for the contract.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

certainly don't intend to put words in the minister's mouth, but we're trying to

help her along because it's very difficult and challenging to get answers from

the minister.

I ask

the Minister of Natural Resources: Faced with the obvious contradiction that you

knew existed on April 20, did you immediately contact the chair of the board of

Nalcor to ask why he refused to accept Mr. Martin's voluntary resignation?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, again, I will

say, I did not attend the meeting of the board of directors. I was not invited

to the meeting of the board of directors. I do not know the content of the

discussions with the board of directors, nor do I know the content of the

discussion between Mr. Martin and the board of directors. Therefore, I cannot

comment.

We did

receive the email, as has been discussed over the last couple of weeks, and it

was a decision of the board and it was accepted as same.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So just

to be clear, and I'm going to try and help the minister out, and I apologize if

she thinks I'm putting words in her mouth, but I'm trying to help her out here

to get this information because the people of the province want to know.

So to be

clear, on 20th of April, upon learning that the board of directors for Nalcor

had fired the Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Martin, of the largest Crown

corporation in the province, the minister responsible didn't bother to inquire

why. Is that correct, Madam Minister?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do

accept the hon. Member's apology for trying to put words in my mouth. Let me be

clear again, Mr. Speaker, the contract for the CEO of Nalcor Energy rests with

the board of directors. It was made with the board of directors; they are

responsible for his contract. They signed the contract in 2009.

Mr.

Speaker, I also want to say that in the early morning email, it again says by

the former chair of the board that the responsibility rests with the board of

directors. I'm not quite sure where the confusion lies.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

minister is responsible for natural resources; she is responsible for Nalcor.

Her mandate letter specifically indicates and directs her to be responsible for

Nalcor.

Again to

be clear, Minister, on the 20th of April, upon learning that the board of

directors who reports to the government, you as the minister fired the CEO

of Nalcor, the largest Crown corporation, the minister responsible didn't bother

to inquire why. Is that correct minister?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As you

know, because I've indicated multiple times, the board of directors are

responsible for the contract of Mr. Martin. They did send an email in the

morning reiterating that they are responsible for the contract of Mr. Martin.

They also sent an email while we were in the press that day actually, Mr.

Speaker, at 11:25 a.m. indicating that this was a termination without cause.

The decision came through as that. We did not question that decision. It is a

decision of the board of Nalcor Energy.

The only

time we did not see the severance agreement. We did not review the severance

agreement. We did not receive the severance agreement. Therefore, Mr. Speaker,

as I'm saying to you right now, the decision was made by the board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

I'll ask the minister this: When did you become aware of the financial

consequences of the decision that had been made?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I

have said in this House, the final settlement agreement because we had never

seen it, we had never been party to it, we had not received it we understood

on May 5, and received a copy of that settlement agreement.

Mr.

Speaker, that's when we learned of the extent and remember, this was a

contract that was held by the board of that contract. That's when we became

aware of that contract and that's when we started to take action, because what

the settlement agreement said was that government directed that. Mr. Speaker, we

did not direct the board of directors on that issue.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

minister sat at meetings on April 17 and again on April 19. She received emails

and had correspondence back and forth with the board on the 20th.

So I'll

ask the minister this: How could you sit at a news conference on April 21 and

listen to the Premier speak once again and say that the CEO had resigned when

you knew it was wrong? How could you sit there, Minister, and not do anything?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Allow me

once again to review this. On April 17, the former president and CEO of Nalcor

Energy, Mr. Martin, requested a meeting. We attended that meeting. We listened

to what he had to say. There was a follow-up meeting. We've gone through the

contents, pretty much, of that meeting.

On the

19th, at the end of that meeting, he was stepping down. We agreed that we would

announce that the next morning. We had an email at 8:55 a.m. from the former CEO

of Nalcor Energy saying that they were responsible for the contract. We went

before the cameras at 11 a.m. and the people of this province at 11 a.m., to

tell the story that Mr. Martin was stepping down. At 11:45 Mr. Martin said he

stepping down. He went on to describe it even further.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

appreciate the minister laying it all out again, but my question is about the

news conference on the 21st, the very next day, when she clearly knew there was

a contradiction in existence; yet, the Premier sat next to her and told the

people of the province that Mr. Martin had resigned.

Minister, you knew the difference, why didn't you take some steps to correct the

information, the wrong information that the Premier was providing to the people

of the province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

believe the Member opposite is referring to the press conference where we

announced the new CEO, Mr. Marshall, and we're very pleased to have Mr. Marshall

there riding some of the challenges that we're having with Muskrat Falls.

Mr.

Speaker, this is an $8 billion-plus project. We're very concerned about the cost

and the

schedule of that project. We're working very hard to find out how we can

right that project.

Again,

all I can reiterate is that Mr. Martin himself indicated at 11:45 that he was

stepping down. He went on to say why he was stepping down; family, he was proud

of his work with Nalcor. Mr. Speaker, we have to take him at his word.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We also

know that the minister was quite aware on April 21 when she sat with the Premier

and she knew different. She knew that Mr. Martin was being terminated without

cause. They knew that. They knew that it happened on April 20.

I'll ask

the Premier: Why did it take three weeks before you or anyone in your government

took any action on this matter?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the

minister has clearly outlined many times in this House of Assembly, and so have

I, is that the contract with the former CEO was clearly a contract that was with

Nalcor. As a matter of fact, it was reiterated in the email early in the morning

that the former chair of Nalcor made it quite clear that was a contract that

they felt they were responsible for.

As a

matter of fact, just on March 22, given the events of what happened on April 2,

they were going to deal with the when you look at the email, they were going

to deal with the outgoing bonuses. Even then back on March 22, when I sent the

letter asking them to reconsider this option, they quite clearly said that this

was information this was a decision that would be made by the board. So the

contract with the outgoing CEO was clearly a contract made with the board of

Nalcor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In an

April 20 email released late yesterday afternoon by government, it indicated

that the former chair, Mr. Ken Marshall, confirmed that in the April 19 meeting

an agreement was reached and that the board would be meeting to discuss the

employment contract obligations. That's what the email said.

I ask

the Premier: Did you reach out to Mr. Ken Marshall to discuss this as you

indicated you would in your response to the email?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Marshall, the outgoing CEO and I had a conversation. It was a phone call. On

that call we discussed three or four things; one of which was the fact that they

were going to resign en masse.

The

second thing they were going to discuss was what I just referred to a few

minutes ago, which was about the bonuses that would be paid to the senior

executives at Nalcor. I asked them to reconsider this in light of where the

province was where we are with the finances of this province. I asked them to

reconsider that option. They made it quite clear that they were going to they

would be doing that; thirdly, was the departure of the former CEO of Nalcor.

These were the things that were discussed in that phone call.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

Mr. Ken Marshall's April 20th email of 11:25 a.m. stated that the board of

directors took pause to advise the Premier and Minister of Natural Resources on

their action and pending action.

So I'll

ask the Premier this: Did you reply to this email, and what did you do as a

result of receiving this very significant information?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

that email made it very clear that the board had already made the decision based

on the meeting that they had with, I imagine, the outgoing CEO, Mr. Martin. At

that point, they had terminated without cause the former CEO. The pending action

would have been to put in place a settlement agreement, and this agreement right

here, Mr. Speaker, was not a discussion that we've ever had with this board.

The

board, during their governance model, that they held the contract and they had

made a decision to terminate without cause the former CEO. The pending action

would have been to put in place a settlement agreement. This settlement

agreement was never approved, never discussed. The first I saw of this

settlement agreement was on May 5, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

I'll ask the Premier: On April 20, did you reach out to Mr. Ken Marshall to

discuss the board of directors' pending action?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

pending action of the board, I did not reach out to because the action of the

board they had made their decision. They were going to quit then. Keep in mind

that this was the board, they were going to make this decision, then they were

going to quit.

The

pending action of the board was indeed this settlement agreement. They had made

it quite clear on many occasions that they held this contract. It was a

contract, by the way, that gave that board the authority by the former

administration. That is the contract that they had put in place giving the board

of Nalcor the authority to act with their CEO. That was the decision that they

had made quite some time ago.

So the

board then went on and put in place this settlement agreement with Mr. Marshall,

outlining what has been a very significant package worth some $6 million. This

is not a decision that we were part of. The board did not ask us to approve

that. They did not ask us to authorize that. The first we saw it was on May 5,

then we took action.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

actually what the email says is that they were taking pause from the meeting to

advise of action and pending action of this morning. The rest of the email goes

on to reflect what took place on April 19.

So I'll

ask the Premier: Why didn't you pick up the phone and ask questions about the

contract obligations? Why didn't you simply pick up the phone and talk to the

chair of the board to find out what was happening?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

this was a meeting, according to media reports this week, that started at 11

a.m., dealt with a number of options; and if I remind the former premier here,

we were in the media, so it is very tough to pick up a phone call and say oh, by

the way, can I take pause from the media interview that we are doing. They had

made the decision sometime between 11 o'clock and 11:25 a.m. The meeting started

keep in mind that the former chair of Nalcor said the meeting convened at 11

a.m. that morning and between that and 11:30 a.m., they had made the decision to

terminate without cause.

We were

down doing media at that time. Right after that, the former CEO came in and did

his interviews with the media. Mr. Speaker, there was no opportunity there to

reach out to that board. They had made their decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will

ask the Premier this: On April 20, did you know the financial obligations of

what the board were doing?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Absolutely not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

So, Premier, why didn't you

do your job and pick up the phone to find out this very important information?

It was a simple thing to do. You, your staff, one of your ministers they

already knew what was in the contract. The Minister of Natural Resources knew

what was in the contract. The Minister of Finance knew what was in the contract.

Why

didn't you or somebody say to you pick up the phone and find out what's going

on, what is this decision they are making and what's the consequences?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the

day of April 20 when the decision by the former and outgoing board of Nalcor,

there was no direction sought from us they got their information from the

outgoing CEO and there was no direction, no requirement. They had made it quite

clear that the contract was their contract to execute.

They had

made the decision to do what they did. We found out the details on that on May

5, Mr. Speaker. As I said there was media being done at 11 a.m. At no point were

we even asked, where we even considered, authorized, to get involved with the

settlement agreement with the outgoing board of Nalcor. They had made that

decision and when doing that they then quit.

We were

left with a situation on April 20 without a CEO and without a board because they

made those decisions and then quit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will

say to the Premier, it is your responsibility as Premier. You are responsible

for millions of dollars that were being discussed and by noon on April 20, you

knew exactly that was taking place.

I will

ask the Premier: Why didn't you take the time and make the effort to get the

details about a severance package that was critical, of critical importance it

was not consistent with what you had said publically. It was different than what

you had said publicly. Why didn't you pick up the phone and do the job that

people elected you to do?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, at

about 12 o'clock on April 20 what I was faced with, what the minister was faced

with and, indeed, what this province was faced with was Nalcor, a Crown agency

of this government without a CEO, without a board of directors. One of the

largest projects in this country today without leadership from a board, without

leadership from a CEO.

My job

was to do whatever I could to make sure we had leadership in place with Nalcor,

and that's what we immediately turned our attention to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We also

know from the emails released late yesterday afternoon by the government that

the Premier and his ministers were quite aware. They were quite aware that the

board was discussing a mass resignation. He talks about the importance to have

people in play. Why didn't you pick up the phone and call the chair? Why didn't

you pick up the phone and call the board and say, what's happening? We need to

discuss this. We need to maintain control.

Why

didn't you do your job, Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, if

you read the emails there, the decision of the board was they had made their

decision. They were going to execute on the contract, which they were entitled

to do, and then they were going to quit, I say, Mr. Speaker.

That was

a decision of the board. At that point, our attention was turned to getting

control at Nalcor, getting some leadership in place at Nalcor. That was my

primary attention right there.

We have

a major Crown agency that's spending millions and millions of dollars a day, Mr.

Speaker, that's what's at play here. My priority then was to make sure that we

do whatever we could to secure the Crown agency of Nalcor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition for a very quick question.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll ask

the Premier this, because the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are asking

this and they want the Premier to answer: Were you not being honest with the

people of the province or were you being incompetent?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I

can tell you right now, what I turned my attention to was with the information

that I had and I can guarantee you, I did not have this information of the

settlement agreement. So being competent, when we found out what this settlement

agreement was all about on May 5, what we did was take swift action.

We wrote

a letter. The letter was wrote to the board of Nalcor letting them know that

this was not something that was directed by us, this was not something that was

authorized by us. This was done by the outgoing board of Nalcor. Before they

quit, they made this decision.

My job

was to actually get in place a new CEO and get in place a new board of

directors. Mr. Speaker, an interim board of directors to get the Crown agency

back under control, and we were able to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

email dated April 20, 2016, at 11:25 a.m. to the Premier from Nalcor Chair, Ken

Marshall, states clearly that severance would be paid to outgoing Nalcor CEO Ed

Martin. I draw the attention of the House to the key phrase: as per your meeting

with the CEO on April 19, 2016.

I ask

the Premier: How can he reconcile the contents of this email with his continuing

evasion in this House as to when he became aware that severance would be paid to

Mr. Martin?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When you

look at the email of April 20 and the 11:25 a.m. email, what it does not outline

there is anything that is at all remotely close to what this settlement

agreement looks like. The board had made their decision by then. The settlement

agreement then was something that they put in place. We became aware of that

as I said so many times in this House, we became aware of that on May 5. It was

not something that we were part of, it is not something that we authorized.

When we

got the settlement agreement, and included in that it says we were almost a

party to this. We wanted to clarify, and we did that by writing the board of

Nalcor. We were not party to this agreement, I say, Mr. Speaker. It was not

something that we authorized. It is not something that we were part of. As a

matter of fact, we made that known by reaching out to the board early May,

subsequent to receiving this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Mr. Speaker, surely the

Premier understood the significance of that email.

If he

felt at the time that it misrepresented the situation in any way, I ask him:

What steps did he immediately take to put those concerns on the record?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The step

we took was writing the board of Nalcor back in early May when we became aware

of what happened. My understanding, the only person the outgoing board of Nalcor

spoke to about the events that happened with the meeting with Mr. Martin and

with the minister and with the chief of staff was Mr. Martin himself.

The

board did not reach out to us in any way; yet, it was the board that actually

signed the email of 11:25 a.m. The board had never reached out to me, to the

minister, or to any of our staff related to this. They did not reach out and did

not ask us to sign, authorize, or have any say at all in this settlement

agreement. This is something they did. They held the right to execute on that

contract, and that is something they did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

important work of the province has been sidelined by a crisis of public

confidence in the Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources as a result of

their mishandling of this whole matter.

I ask

the Premier: Will he do the right thing and resign?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad

the Leader of the Third Party mentioned about the ongoing work and the important

work that's ongoing in our province right now. There is no doubt we have a major

project up there that's costing millions and millions of dollars. We have things

around our province right now that we need. We need to be taking action on many,

many things to bring improvements to our province. We need to get this project

under control. We are spending, as a province, millions and millions of dollars

on this project.

By the

way, Mr. Speaker, no, I will not resign.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of

Natural Resources, who is responsible for Nalcor, the province's largest Crown

corporation, has shown no evidence that the minister did anything about Mr.

Martin's huge severance package until May 10, nearly three weeks after he left.

I ask

the Minister of Natural Resources: Will she do the right thing and resign?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I find that

question quite offensive actually. We've worked very, very hard to right the

challenges that we have in Muskrat Falls. This is an $8 billion project that EY

has said not a month ago that really the information that was given to the

people of this province in September of last year was not reasonable.

We now

are working very, very hard to get the cost and schedule. We have a serious

problem with Muskrat Falls in general in terms of that cost. Mr. Speaker, I'm

going to continue to work as hard as I have been and trust me, I've been very

hard to make sure that project is on time and is on the best of

schedule we

possibly can get it.

Mr.

Marshall is working hard, the new board of directors are working and we'll all

continue to work hard. This is very important to the people of the province, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The time

for Question Period has expired.

It's

come to my attention that there are two guests of the Member for Terra Nova in

the gallery, Jonathan Rowe and Jesse Avery.

Welcome

to our galleries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, I give notice

that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Schools

Act, 1997, Bill 38.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to

give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend

The Income And Employment Support Act And The Student Financial Assistance Act,

Bill 37.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety and the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give

notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Judicature Act, Bill 39.

Further,

pursuant to Standing Order 11, I give notice that this House do not adjourn at

5:30 p.m. on Monday, June 6.

Further,

pursuant to Standing Order 11, I give notice that this House do not adjourn on

Monday, June 6, at 10 p.m.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

the Deficit Reduction Levy is an extremely regressive surtax, placing a higher

tax burden on low- and middle-income taxpayers; and

WHEREAS

surtaxes are typically levied on the highest income earners only as currently

demonstrated in other provinces, as well as Australia, Norway and other

countries; and

WHEREAS

government states in the 2016 provincial budget that the personal income tax

schedule needs to revised and promises to do so;

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

of Assembly to urge government to ensure that the Deficit Reduction Levy be

eliminated and any replacement measure be based on progressive taxation

principles, and that an independent review of the Newfoundland and Labrador

provincial income tax system begin immediately to make it fairer to

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Well, as

we know, Mr. Speaker, since people signed this petition, government did make

some cosmetic changes to the levy. They themselves have now passed their

Budget 2016 , one of the most stringent austerity budgets ever brought down in

this country, let alone not just in this province.

They

continue to talk about this levy as if it is something that is fair and

equitable. Once again, I raise the issue of, if government requires revenue from

the people in this province, one of the most important ways in which to do that

is through the income tax system. We have an income tax system that can become

much, much fairer and equitable than what currently exists.

I say to

this government, as I've said before when standing in this House, why not

improve our income tax system as this petition asks, do a review of our income

tax schedule, make it more equitable, make sure that those who earn more money

pay appreciably more than those who do not.

This

government has talked about the levy being temporary. Well, I hope that the

temporary levy is going to be gotten rid of extremely quickly and that this

government show its understanding of what true fair taxation means. They talk

about bringing down another budget in the fall. Well, I want to see in that

budget in the fall not more austerity, not more cuts, not more decisions that

are going to destroy individuals in this province as well as the economy of this

province, but I want them to show that they really have listened to the

petitioners that we've been representing there in the House, to the thousands of

people who've been turning up in demonstrations, and that the fall will see a

change in the direction they've started.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

the people of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune need to have access to adequate health

care; and

WHEREAS

the local clinics in rural areas are the main source of medical assistance for

our people; and

WHEREAS

the government has reduced funding and closed the Hermitage clinics and

downgraded services;

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

of Assembly to urge government to reinstate the services to health care in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, it's a very sad, sad day in Hermitage today as their clinic doors are

closing. They have been without a doctor for quite some time now, actually. They

have been receiving a visit from a nurse practitioner for two days a week, and

although a severely compromised service, it has been working well for them, and

at least alleviating the seniors from having the burden and expense of trying to

find a way to get to Harbour Breton, which is 45 minutes each way, for something

as simple as bloodwork and something as complex as concern about having a stroke

or sugars dropping, or any kind of physical ailment, Madam Speaker, that would

require them to visit the doctor.

certainly implore that the Minister of Health take it upon himself to encourage

Central Health to revisit the decision they have made with respect to downsizing

of services. We truly hope that this government revisits its approach overall,

because it really seems to be attacking rural Newfoundland and Labrador, pulling

services from rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Health care and education are two

areas in particular, Madam Speaker, where the people all across this province

are equally deserving of adequate health care. Measures such as these certainly

downgrade our health and make it very worrisome to live in rural Newfoundland

and Labrador.

The

other issue that we're experiencing is reduced visitation to our islands and

reduced chopper services another grave concern. We had a very serious

incident, actually, in Franois just two days ago. The chopper they called was

in Gander, and they called another one over on the West Coast, Pasadena, neither

of whom could get there because of the weather. The chopper in Conne River had

to be called, and that chopper is on the chopping block by the Liberal

government. Rural Newfoundland and Labrador deserves better.

Thank

you very much.

MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):

The hon. the

Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Madam

I'm glad

to rise today with this petition and present it to the House.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

changes to bus routes will impact the start-up time of Goulds Elementary; and

WHEREAS

these changes were put in place with no consultation from school councils or

parents;

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

District to reverse the decision regarding busing and start times for this

school.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Madam

Speaker, yesterday I had the opportunity to meet with a concerned parents group

from the region of the Goulds and down through Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove with

children in the Goulds Elementary, and also discussions with parents related to

junior high and the high school in the Goulds region. At that time, certainly

very significant concerns in regard to the changes to busing and what it's going

to mean to the delivery of services to school children for the region and our

youth.

Actually, the petition I have here has somewhere in the range of probably 400 to

500 signatures. They're from people from all over the region outlining the

concerns they have. Those concerns are quite significant, ranging from

everything for having very young children up much earlier in the morning in

terms of daylight and darkness, when they're getting to bus stops, safety of

children at that time in the morning, especially the younger children, those

definitely from K to 6 and what challenges there are in regard to them and being

on that road earlier in the morning; certainly changes and possible changes to

courtesy busing. Some kids now can avail of that right now, but if we're talking

about less buses, that's a challenge. The frustration of the parents is they

can't get any clarity on exactly what that is and what it's going to mean as we

look to the fall and some of the huge challenges that they have.

Daycare,

after-school programs now in the Goulds are now available. Achieva is available.

You look at the numbers, in terms of cost and extra costs that's going to be on

parents because of that. Right now some of the high school kids will take care

of siblings as they get out. With the change, that won't be possible. That

service won't be there.

Then

you've got to look at I had a call from a single mom. The arrangement now

works well. What she needs to look at now is possibly getting access to

additional daycare because there's no one to care for her child. What had

happened with the current

schedule that was allowed.

Another

individual had a high school student that cared for their actual child right now

after school, but right now that's all extra cost. What's happening is that

extra cost has been downloaded to parents and families. While they're suggesting

they're saving over $2 million, all the cost, or a lot of it, is being

downloaded to families and parents.

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I remind

the hon. Member his time for speaking has expired.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

This is a concern. We

certainly call on the Minister of Education to step in and deal with this.

Thank

you.

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

the Deficit Reduction Levy is an extremely regressive surtax placing a higher

tax burden on low- and middle-income taxpayers; and

WHEREAS

surtaxes are typically levied on the highest income earners only, as currently

demonstrated in other provinces, as well as Australia, Norway and other

countries; and

WHEREAS

government states in the 2016 provincial budget that the personal income tax

schedule needs to be revised and promises to do so;

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

of Assembly to urge government to ensure that the Deficit Reduction Levy be

eliminated and any replacement measure be based on progressive taxation

principles and that an independent review of the Newfoundland and Labrador

provincial income tax system begin immediately to make it fairer to

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Madam

Speaker, it's very interesting now when we see what government has done with the

levy. What this petition calls for is the elimination of the levy and to not do

things piecemeal; but, as a matter of fact, to do a thorough examination of our

taxation system to make it progressive, to make it fair, to make it workable.

This is

not about unfairly taxing someone who's rich. It's not about that. It's about

how do we use our resources to the best we possibly can for the betterment of

all the people of the province.

In fact,

what's happened now is that government has somewhat responded to the activism of

the people of the province. Government has somewhat listened, only partially

listened, to what people have been pushing for. People have been pushing for the

elimination of the levy again and looking for an evaluation, a total reworking

of our taxation system.

What

government has done is they're doing taxation now on the fly. They've cancelled

it, except for earners of $50,000 and up. It's kind of a knee-jerk reaction.

Again, what was asked for was a comprehensive approach. That is where this

budget falls short.

In fact,

government should be a stabilizing factor right now in this economic crisis that

we face. They should be able to help us weather the storm. In fact, Madam

Speaker, what has happened is this government has de-stabilized the economy.

They are creating further unemployment which will only make the financial crisis

we are facing even that much more difficult.

We can

see that we have a shrinking population. Government hasn't addressed that. They

have done nothing for population growth strategy. They're doing nothing to bring

in more people to the province. In fact, what they have done

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I remind

the hon. Member her time for speaking has expired.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Madam

Speaker.

I look

forward to standing again to speak to this.

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

the current 2016 budget impacts adversely and directly the education programs at

Beachy Cove Elementary in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's; and

WHEREAS

parents request a delay in the implementation of full-day kindergarten at our

school until at such time

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

the

new five to nine middle school in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's will be open; and

WHEREAS

the student population at Beachy Cove Elementary is growing exponentially and

this growth is sustainable into the future; and

WHEREAS

parents request the reinstatement of the previous teacher allocation formula for

Beachy Cove Elementary for this year and subsequent years to service the growth

in enrolment and be able to provide all students with equal opportunity to enrol

in the French immersion program;

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

of Assembly to urge government to reinstate the previous teacher allocations and

delay the implementation of full-day kindergarten in order to provide the

children of Beachy Cove Elementary the right to a quality education.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Madam

Speaker, yesterday we had a very intensive debate around the impact of

implementing all-day kindergarten and particularly, the impact it would have on

programs and services.

Beachy

Cove Elementary is one of those schools that are directly going to be impacted

by implementing all-day kindergarten and the adverse effect that will have on

other programs and services. While it's been echoed by the parents organization,

the administration that all-day kindergarten is a positive process and one that

will be very beneficial, right now the impact it's going to have is negative to

the students down there.

We had a

discussion around some of the other impacts. One of the questions that has to be

answered somewhere along the way is because Portugal Cove-St. Philip's is a

growing community and it's very engaging. The amenities are growing. So it's

engaging more families to move there from all over this country, from all over

the world but particularly, various parts of Newfoundland and Labrador as they

move into the Northeast Avalon.

One of

the questions, for those students who are already enrolled or will be enrolled

next year in an Intensive Core program, because our Intensive Core program for

French is going to be at its cap, because we've had double the amount of

students who wanted to do the program and through a lottery had to be picked,

for those who would make it and those who wouldn't make it. If we have students

who, halfway through the year, transfer into that school, what happens then

who have been doing Intensive Core French in another school here in the city or

Northeast Avalon, or anywhere in this province. All of a sudden, now, is there a

decision made? Do we now have a lottery where we either kick two out, or the

ones who have been halfway through a program, tell them they have to change to

another program?

So the

thought process here, from discussions I had last night with parents not only in

my own district, but also in other districts I know I had some inquiries from

residents and parents in the Mount Pearl area. So this is another quandary, it's

another example of how there's been no planning here, there's been no

explanation of how things should work and how we move this forward.

So, Mr.

Speaker, I wanted outline again while there have been some discussion yet,

they're still imploring people here to make the right decisions

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

Order, please!

MR. BRAZIL:

and change the all-day

kindergarten process.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I move to

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Environment and Conservation, for leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Industrial Facilities

In The Province, Bill 34, and I further move that the said bill be now read a

first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded by

the hon. the Government House Leader that he shall have leave to introduce a

bill entitled,

An Act To Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Industrial

Facilities In The Province, Bill 34, and that the said bill be now read a first

time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill

34?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation to introduce a bill, An

Act To Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Industrial Facilities In The

Province, carried. (Bill 34)

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Regulate

Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Industrial Facilities In The Province. (Bill 34)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 34 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Education, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To

Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act, Bill 36, and I further move that the

said bill be now a first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded by

the hon. the Government House Leader that he shall have leave to introduce a

bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act, Bill 36, and

that the said bill shall now be a read a first time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill

36?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety and Attorney General to

introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act, carried.

(Bill 36)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Victims Of Crime Services Act. (Bill 36)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 36 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Child, Youth and Family Services.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Health and Community Services, for leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005 And The Tobacco

Control Act, Bill 35. I further move that the said bill be now the first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It has been moved and

seconded by the hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services that she

shall have leave introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Smoke-free

Environment Act, 2005 And The Tobacco Control Act, Bill 35, and that the said

bill be now read the first time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill

35 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

Those against?

Carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Minister of Seniors, Wellness and Social Development to introduce a

bill,

An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005 And The Tobacco

Control Act, carried. (Bill 35)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005 and The Tobacco Control Act. (Bill 35)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 35 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call Order 3,

second reading of Bill 23.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Government House Leader, that Bill 23, the Revenue Administration Act No.

6, be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 23,

An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 6, be now read a

second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No.

6. (Bill 23)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is an

honour to stand in the House of Assembly today to speak on this important piece

of legislation. During our consultation process, input from Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians clearly pointed to the option of increasing taxes and fees as a way

to address the unprecedented fiscal situation we were faced with.

The plan

we have put forward as part of Budget 2016

to address the fiscal challenges in the short-, medium- and long-term that is

why we are implementing tax measures to assist with the recovery from our

current fiscal difficulties. Effective today, gasoline tax will temporarily

increase. That tax increase will be reviewed ahead of the fall 2016 supplemental

budget.

Our

government has committed to support the economic and social development of

Labrador and its residents, and to ensure that the unique perspectives of this

region are considered when making government decisions and delivering provincial

government programs and services. That is why effective June 2 there is a

reduction of gas tax of 10 cents per litre provided for gasoline required at

retail sale and used in motor vehicles in the Labrador border zones. This

applies to Labrador West, which includes Lab City and Wabush, the South Coast of

Labrador from the border of the Province of Quebec to and including the

community of Red Bay.

The

purpose of this program is to ensure that gas prices in Labrador remain

competitive with the prices in Quebec. By partially alleviating gas taxes in the

border zones the price of gas will be comparable to both those jurisdictions.

This should remove any price incentive for cross-border shopping and impact on

local retailers.

Wholesalers will collect the reduced tax rate of 23 cents per litre at the time

of the sale of gasoline to retailers in the Labrador border zone areas. This

will reduce regulatory burden on retailers by eliminating the need to apply to

the Department of Finance for a rebate of the tax paid. This will also minimize

cash flow issues that may have arisen from requiring retailers to pay the full

amount and then applying for the rebate afterwards.

Consumers will pay the reduced rate at the pump and the reduced rate will be

factored into the PUB's setting of the maximum pump price for gasoline in those

areas.

As a

government, we have a responsibility to ensure that there is a plan in place to

address the unprecedented fiscal challenges that our province is facing. As our

Premier has said, knee-jerk reactions have created mistakes that unfortunately

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are paying for now. As has been said in this

House many times, in this fiscal year, debt expenses already exceed the

estimates for the entire Department of Education and Early Childhood

Development. It is impossible for us to be satisfied that we will spend more on

debt expenses than we do on educating our children, Mr. Speaker.

Through

the work of the Premier in his role as Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal

Affairs, our government will continue to work collaboratively with the residents

of Labrador to ensure our programs and our services reflect their needs as we

move through our fiscal plan.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

certainly pleased to rise and have a few words to Bill 23, as the minister said,

An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act. It is directly tied to budget

implementation, with reference to the Labrador border zones gas tax rebate,

specifically dealing with that issue.

The bill

itself in terms of an amendment to the legislation specifically looks at the tax

reduction as I said for the Labrador border zones. Basically what the

legislation says: where a person acquires gasoline, other than diesel fuel,

at a retail sale in the town of Labrador City, the town of Wabush or south coast

Labrador extending from the border with the province of Quebec to and including

the community of Red Bay, in respect of the consumption or use of the gasoline

in those areas, it goes on to say the tax payable to the Crown at the time

of the sale under paragraph 51(1)(

e) shall be reduced by $0.10 per litre.

As we do

this this is a modification, obviously, to the current legislation and looks

at the reduction in the tax rate, and look at expanding the area to which the

reduction applies. I just outlined specifically the provision in the act,

section 52, in regard to the area that would apply to.

This

increase would be effective June 2, 2016, the same as the 16.5 cent increase

right across the board that was announced in this budget relating to an increase

in gas. We're certainly hearing and seeing today in regard to the implications

of that and what it means.

regard to this specific bill, some communities in Labrador are close to the

Quebec border an increase in gas tax increases the risk that residents may cross

the border to purchase gasoline. The bill will reduce the gasoline tax in these

areas near the border by about 10 cents a litre. The rebate, I think the

minister talked about, will be calculated at the point of sale.

Areas

included: Labrador West, Labrador City and Wabush, Southern Labrador from the

Quebec border to and including, as I mentioned in the actual bill, the community

of Red Bay. This is significant in regard to assisting with the cost. Certainly

from the point of recognition of that, from time to time we need to look at

various services, delivery of services and programs related to various areas of

the province. Oftentimes we amend or introduce legislation to reflect that based

on the particulars of a various region or various parts of our great province.

So it's

always good to acknowledge that and work collectively in regard to public policy

that identifies any shortfalls. The whole gasoline issue, fuel is significant in

this budget than what it was; certainly recognizing in this particular case what

it's meant to do.

Right

now I understand in Labrador I think in Nain today gasoline is about $1.53 a

litre, so that's significant. As I said, some of the changes made in this budget

in regard to overall gas tax policy are significant for the people of the

province.

I'm glad

to rise and have a few words in regard to this particular bill. I look forward

to hon. Members in the House expressing their understanding of the bill and what

the intent is.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to rise today and have a few words on this bill, Bill 23, which allows for a 10

cent rebate on each litre of gasoline sold in the border towns of Labrador City

and Wabush, and certainly the Labrador Straits.

Mr.

Speaker, nobody wants to see any increase in gasoline, or any other tax that's

applied to any commodity, but the situation we find ourselves in with the

budget, it gives us very little options. One that was chosen in preparing this

budget was the gasoline tax.

I will

say just a couple words on the Labrador West area. As most of you, I would

think, are aware, we are about 27 kilometres from the community of Fermont,

Quebec, which is also a mining town like Labrador City and Wabush. There is a

lot of back and forth between the towns with regard to transactions and sales

transactions for whatever commodity or whatever people want to go for. I guess

governments over the years have recognized that and they've imposed a rebate on

tobacco, for instance it's the one that comes to mind to allow the stores in

Labrador City and Wabush to be competitive with those in Fermont, Quebec where

tobacco taxes are lower.

If we

went ahead and did the full 16.5 cents added to the gas in Labrador West, it

would put those businesses at a very big disadvantage. It would really price

them out of the gasoline market because people would go across the border into

Fermont and purchase, not only gas. Once they're there they are going to

purchase other goods and services that the people in businesses in Labrador West

would offer.

I need

not remind anybody in this House of the economic climate that exists within

Labrador West today. While certainly the iron ore company is at full production,

nevertheless, the iron ore industry remains very unstable and very volatile, and

prices are up and down. As everybody knows in this House, we have lost a

significant employer in Labrador West with the Wabush mines closing in 2014.

We need

not remind anybody that businesses are struggling. It's difficult times. People

are not spending. People don't have the disposable income they had when both

mines were operating and there was some stability and certainly some assurance

in the region that they would continue to operate.

That is

not the case today with the iron ore market the way it is. So we have to ensure

that businesses in the Labrador West region remain competitive and that we

discourage as much cross-border shopping as we possibly can. I'm hopeful, with

this 10 cents that it would put the businesses on a level playing field and they

would remain competitive within the region.

As I

said before, we don't want to see any increases in any tax whatsoever, but the

fact that this government has recognized the need to allow businesses in the

border areas to remain competitive is reassuring and something that I'm pleased

with. I'm sure the people of Labrador City, Wabush and the Labrador Straits

appreciate that. As I said, it's an increase nonetheless, but it's not the

increase that most people are experiencing today.

I just

wanted to have a few words on this just to assure the residents of Labrador City

and Wabush that we will continue to monitor the price of gas in Fermont, Quebec

versus Labrador City and Wabush. We hope that with the 10 cent rebate they will

remain competitive, and certainly no different than they do with the tobacco tax

and other things.

So, Mr.

Speaker, that concludes my remarks on this issue. I just wanted to, as I said,

let the people of Labrador City and Wabush know that this is indeed the case.

There may be some confusion out there still that the 16.5 cents applies right

across the province, but that's not the case in the Labrador City and Wabush

area, and the Labrador Straits area.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker, for the time.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm

pleased this afternoon to rise and speak to Bill 23,

An Act To Amend The Revenue

Administration Act No. 6.

course, one of the main reasons why we're having to pass this bill, which would

allow the taxation on gasoline in the areas of Labrador that intersect with the

Quebec border, allowing them to pay less tax than the new legislation says

should be paid.

First of

all, of course, I don't believe that what the government had in the budget, the

extra 16.5 cent tax, should have been levied at all. It's an extensively high

increase in the price of tax in this province that is going to impact people

especially in rural Newfoundland and Labrador immensely. It's a high tax that is

going to be heavy on everybody's shoulders; however, we have a situation in our

province where part of our province is an island and part of the province is

connected to the Mainland. Whenever one province is on a border with another

province, you do get a situation of competition in costs from one province to

the other.

So even

though our whole province isn't in that situation, even though the whole

province isn't on a border with another province of Canada or even with the

United States as far that goes, Labrador is. I think we all understand the extra

costs, number one, of living in Labrador. We also understand the issue of

competition between cost of gasoline in Quebec and cost of gasoline in Labrador.

We had a

similar discussion on this kind of an issue back in 2013 and 2015 in this House.

At that time, it had to do with tobacco and the cost of tobacco. In 2013, we had

a provision in the province I was around when that provision came in too

that allowed a rebate to retailers in Lab West and in the Straits, wherever the

intersection between Labrador and Quebec occurred. The rebate was to help

retailers in Labrador to be competitive with the retailers in Quebec so that the

people of Labrador wouldn't go across the border to buy their tobacco but would

stay in Labrador to buy their tobacco.

There

were an awful lot of reasons given for that I totally agreed with, the reason

why that provision existed, because not only if people were going across the

border over to Quebec to buy their tobacco, that meant they would buy other

things over there. They would get gasoline over there and you would see a real

negative impact on the retailers in Labrador. So now what we're looking at is

not tobacco, it is gas.

I would

like to point out that in 2013, the then government of the day, which is now

sitting as Official Opposition, repealed the provision for rebates for the sale

of tobacco in Labrador. We argued against that repealing at the time. We

believed that it would not be a good thing to do, that it would have a very

negative impact on the retail sector in Labrador. The Tory government of the day

in 2013 did go ahead and repeal the provision that allowed for the tobacco

rebate.

Then in

2015, which was the year of our general election, the Tory government decided

this had been a mistake and went back into reinstating the rebate. Again, we

applauded that because we believed there had to be special consideration given

to the fact that Labrador abuts another province and have to deal with

competitive pricing.

Now

we're looking at the issue with regard to the tax on gasoline. I think we have

to use the same principles that we argued both in 2013 and in 2015, and that is

we have to take into consideration the different situation for Labrador than for

retailers on the Island. This is actually something that fits into the whole

concept of equity. We cannot treat both parts of the province the same.

certain situations we there are things that this government has done in this

same budget that I say, well, a bit counterproductive, isn't it? The fact that

the Foodlift Subsidy is gone is very, very disturbing. So on the one hand

they're doing something to help Labradorians, both from the perspective of the

consumer and the retailers, and on the other hand they've got some very negative

things in the budget with regard to Labrador. I want to put that out there.

Having

said that, I totally agree that this new tax should be lower for Labradorians

than it is for people on the Island. I think it's equitable. I think it's

necessary, too, at this moment from the perspective of the economy of Labrador,

especially what's happened in Labrador West with the closure of one mine and

that being in a precarious situation. We still don't know what's going to

happen. With a project being put on hold with the other mine, with the Iron Ore

Company of Canada, things are, from an economic perspective, rather precarious

there for them.

I think

we do have to see the unequal situation of people in Labrador and people on the

Island when it comes to this issue of the lack of competitive pricing with

another province.

Having

said all that, Mr. Speaker, I think that's enough to show the people of the

province why we are supporting this bill and why we think it is the fair and

just thing to do.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a

pleasure once again to stand in this hon. House this time to speak to Bill 23,

An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act. Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to

take a long period of time to speak to this. I think most of the points have

been made but, as I've said in the past, I intend to at least stand on every

bill if nothing else just to indicate where I stand on it, if I'm for or

against. And if I have problems with it, I'll point it out and if I think it's a

good bill, I'll say that as well because I have that accountability to the

people who elected me.

Mr.

Speaker, as we've already talked about here and other Members have talked about

really what this is about is lowering the price of gasoline in Labrador in the

areas which I guess would border Quebec, would be close to Quebec. For obvious

reasons we know now that particularly with the hike that we've seen come into

effect with the gas tax 16 cents and then tax on that is closer to 20 cents

increase in gas. Some people would certainly say that gas is gone through the

roof.

As a

matter of fact, it was interesting, I saw a post I found it kind of humorous.

the gas prices are gone that high in Newfoundland now, I actually saw Ed Martin

at Costco with his jerry cans. I thought that was kind of funny.

Anyway,

Mr. Speaker, what we are proposing here is to just lower the tax in the Labrador

area. It makes a whole lot of sense for business. Obviously if you're living

close to the border and you can go across the border to Quebec to buy your gas,

if there is that big of a price differential, people are going to be inclined to

do that. That is obviously going to have a negative impact on the gas bars and

other businesses in Quebec.

As the

Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi indicated that it is not just about the

gas, it's a case of, if you actually go over there to purchase your gas, maybe

while you are in there now, you're going to purchase your milk and you're going

to purchase your bread and whatever else, and that means that other business

that's not going to Labrador, it would have a detrimental impact.

With

that in mind, I will certainly be supporting this bill.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm just

going to take a couple of minutes and talk on this bill, too. I am supporting

this bill, by the way.

Any time

we increase the gas and we've talked about this in the House of Assembly

before. It's a major concern in Labrador, I would imagine, the same as on the

Island. I understand the reason why we're doing this. I understand from the hon.

Member, today gas is about $1.25, $1.26 a litre, which is fairly high. Even now

in the area today, we saw the lineups yesterday at all the gas stations where

people were just so to fill up because they knew of the major increase today.

We, as a

party, as the Official Opposition, we've been pressing on government to have

some kind of a cap. You're gone up 10 cents a litre now in Labrador. It went up

like 18.5 cents today in around Newfoundland in other areas. It's very

important; the consumers out there are very worried. They took this today and

said, oh my God, it's a huge jump and we saw it yesterday.

What

they'd like to see is that government would come in and say, listen, we know

we're increasing gas. We're trying to get some revenue. Nobody knows where the

price of gas is going to go. Every week lately it seems it's going to increase.

As we get into summer months, we always see a huge increase in gas.

People

are very nervous because right now there's nowhere else in Canada that it's more

expensive to drive than right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We're, by far,

the most expensive place in all of Canada to drive. The price of gas, as it

increases, that's not going to change because we just put such a huge increase

in the price of gas.

So it's

important that government should realize that they should have some kind of a

cap on this. If the price of gas does rise I know a couple of years ago it was

in the $1.40 range, $1.42 range. Who's to say in a couple of months that it's

not increased? Every week it can change.

The

price of oil is increasing. Usually when the price of oil increases I don't

know how they do the calculation to tell you the truth. I really think they

increase it a whole lot faster. When it comes down it seems like it decreases a

whole lot less and when the price of oil goes up, it increases a whole lot more

and a whole lot faster.

While

we're supporting this bill, I'd like to see government think about putting some

kind of a cap. It's gone 10 cents a litre now in Lab West and that area today,

and it's an extra 16.5 cents in the rest of Newfoundland. I'd like the

government really to have a look at this and say we understand, because right

now, again, we're the most expensive place in all of Canada to operate a car.

That's hard on our businesses. It's hard on people on fixed incomes, and any

income really.

I spoke

to someone last night. They were driving a big truck and told me, I don't know

if I can afford to drive this anymore. If it goes any higher, I'm definitely not

going to be able to afford it. I just ask government, while we'll support this

because it's a good thing to do, make sure in Lab West that people do not go

across the border and get their gas and affect the businesses that are in

Labrador. Like one of the Members just mentioned that time, they probably get

their milk and a few little groceries and whatnot, and it would take away from

the local business in the area. So this is important that we make sure we're

competitive on the borders.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I think government should really look at this

and say, okay, we did this increase but this is the max. There should be some

kind of a max level they're going to charge people in Newfoundland and Labrador

for the price of their fuel, because people really can't afford it. People on

fixed incomes, low-income people, high-income people, anyone, it's a huge cost

to everyone. It's a cost to our students, seniors, everyone.

I think

by jumping, like we did today, when you look at the gas going from I saw it

yesterday evening on Torbay Road at $1.08 and this morning it was $1.31. To see

that kind of a jump, that has such a huge impact. For the average person filling

up their car, yesterday they probably got it it cost them anywhere between

probably $12 and $15 more today. If someone fills up their car two or three

times during the month, that's $50 or $60 more a month. That's hard on people.

That's hard on a lot of people who are trying to get by.

Not only

there, Mr. Speaker, it also has an effect on as gas increases, businesses have

to do business. They have to make sure their vehicles they have to be

competitive, and if their gas prices go up, we know who it all gets passed to.

It will be passed on to our groceries, it will be passed on building supplies,

it will be passed on different things, and it really will affect our economy.

So I

just ask government, while it's good to do this in Lab West, please have a look

and see if there's some way you can put a cap so that we're not gouging the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

If the hon. Minister speaks

now she shall close debate.

Seeing

no other speakers, I recognize the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of

Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just

wanted to say a sincere thank you to the Members of the House today who stood up

and spoke to Bill 23,

An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 6.

There

were a couple of comments made during debate that I just thought I'd take an

opportunity to provide some additional information. I know the Member for Cape

St. Francis asked if government had considered a cap as we worked on the gas tax

changes. I wanted to let the Member know that we did. The challenge is that from

a legislative perspective with tax, we couldn't create a legislative mechanism

that would allow a cap to be in place; hence, we have to continue to come back

and make changes.

We do

have mechanisms as a government, and we've talked about this last week, that we

intend to review the gas tax as it is today before the supplemental budget in

the fall and make any changes that are necessary. Officials in my department are

providing me with regular updates. This week in particular, we've had

discussions on every day since last Thursday, and I can certainly present to

the Members of the House the maximum gasoline pump prices set on June 2, 2016.

This will be based on regular unleaded, self-serve motor gasoline. This is a

comparison of where the prices are today and a five-year average.

While

there's no doubt that the increase today is a sharp one for consumers and

residents of this province, and certainly we understand the concerns that people

have. I think it would be important for the House to also understand that we are

half a cent now higher than the highest average over the last five years. We'll

be continuing to monitor that very closely to ensure that we fulfil our

commitment of adjusting the gas tax when we do have the opportunity to do that

based on revenue changes.

Mr.

Speaker, as we've talked about with the gas tax, it was designed to replace the

revenue that was lost by the lower price of oil. Certainly, as I've indicated,

as prices improve we will adjust the tax downward. While I'm pleased with the

overall direction of oil prices as many people in this House have heard

comments that since the budget was presented the price of oil has increased. I

am hopeful that if that trend continues we may be able to reduce the tax sooner

than later, because that was always our plan.

For

those viewing at home, and for those Members in this House today, it would be

important for me to share that the gas tax will bring in $142.8 million in

revenue. That's about 73 per cent of the total cost of building and maintaining

roads in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

With

reference to Bill 23, from the conversations that happened here in the House

during debate, it certainly appears that the Members in the House will be

supporting this bill, and I appreciate their comments. I appreciate their

feedback and look forward to discussing this when we do move into Committee, Mr.

Speaker.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Is it the pleasure of the

House that the said bill be now read a second time?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 6. (Bill 23)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

second time.

When

shall the said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

Now?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Now.

motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 6, read a

second time, referred to a Committee of the Whole presently, by leave. (Bill 23)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the House

resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 23

MR. SPEAKER:

It has been moved and

seconded that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to debate

Bill 23 and that I do now leave the Chair.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker

left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Dempster):

Order, please!

We are

now considering Bill 23,

An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 6.

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 6. (Bill 23)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon.

the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Madam

Chair.

I just

wanted to ask the minister a couple of questions because she just made a couple

of comments that time. When I mentioned about cap size, she said that the

mechanism couldn't be put in place. Could you explain what mechanism you are

talking about and how that will work?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

To the hon. Member opposite,

I didn't hear your question. The Page was in view, and I'm sorry I didn't

actually hear; my apologies.

MR. K. PARSONS:

When I mentioned about cap

size and you said you were looking at that, and it was something that you looked

at but you talked about a mechanism put in place. What mechanism and how does it

work?

MS. C. BENNETT:

Madam Chair, what I had said

and I apologize

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you.

What I

had said and maybe I wasn't clear and I apologize to the Member opposite for

that. When we looked at implementing the increase in the gas tax, we looked at

whether or not we could create a legislative mechanism that would allow the cap

on the overall gas price to be in place and to have the tax floating.

From a

legislative perspective, under the FAA and other legislative analysis we did, we

couldn't make that happen. So that's one of the reasons why in the budget we

made sure that we made it clear that we were going to look at reviewing the gas

tax every six months to make sure we we're going to do that before the

supplemental budget. In addition to that, in the Department of Finance we've

implemented a process where we are having discussions on a weekly basis as the

gas prices change.

Many

people in our province believe there is a correlation between oil price and gas

price. The reality is that those two have limited interaction. Motor gasoline

and crude oil are in two different markets. The price of crude is only one input

in the calculation of the pump price for gasoline. So, for example, this week on

the Avalon Peninsula the price of crude contributed 30 per cent of the pump

price. Other inputs in the price of gas would include exchange rates, refinery

profit margins, marketing and distribution costs, the PUB-allowed Newfoundland

markups, the PUB Newfoundland and Labrador pricing zone differential, federal

excise tax, provincial gasoline tax and HST.

It is

our intention, as we've discussed in this House, to monitor the situation with

the gas price. We will certainly be taking action when we have revenue options

to be able to take actions. It is our intention to review the gas tax before the

supplemental budget, as I've said, in this House. I hope that answers the

Member's questions.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Madam

Chair.

Yes,

Minister, it does. It's because it's a floating rate that it's a job to put in

the proper okay, I understand that.

Minister, you also said there's no correlation between oil and gas. We all can

see that as the price of oil goes up, it always seems that the price of gas

takes the jump the same week. You also mentioned right now you're looking at a

weekly basis. What prices are you looking at to where the price of gas goes that

you're going to adjust the levels of taxation?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The

intention is to review the prices, take a look at them, make sure that when we

have a revenue opportunity to be able to adjust the gas price, we will. From an

oil price perspective, as I mentioned earlier, there's a long list of items that

make up the gasoline price. When I asked officials the same question the Member

opposite asked, I was told what happens is refinery margins increase at times

when the oil price drops. Unfortunately, we don't control the refinery margins.

That's the reality of the way gas is priced.

I look

forward to finishing up the debate soon.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I know the general public

and we all look at what crude oil is doing. Never before have we seen so many

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians understanding what's happening with crude oil

and look at the news every evening to see if it's gone up or whatever because it

gives an idea of what's going to happen on Thursday.

I was

just wondering if there is a level you have that, if gas goes to $1.50 a litre,

is that the time you're going to step in or is it what revenue we're going to

get from a barrel of oil? Do you have a level at the gas price, or is it where

oil is going to be when you're going to step in and make changes?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As I've

said repeatedly, it is our intention to review the gas tax as implemented as

part of the legislation that this House discussed last week before the

supplemental budget. Certainly, the opportunity of any increased revenue from

any source would provide us an opportunity to accelerate looking at that. We

have to be cognizant of the fact that gas price has an impact on things like

tourism and other things in our province. We'll certainly be taking that under

advisement.

The

Member opposite mentioned the increase in oil. I'm sure, as Members of this

House have heard repeatedly, oil royalties in our province are impacted by

production, the US exchange amount, as well as the price for Brent crude.

We have

implemented, since our government came in, a process for monitoring that. Most

recently that monitoring is coming directly to me on a regular basis. I can

report to the House that we've seen, I think, May 17 was the first date that we

actually hit the combination of the oil price and US exchange that would have

been reflective in our budget. So since May 17, we've seen a slight increase.

I would

be prepared to share this chart with the Member opposite so he can see that for

himself.

Thank

you, Madam Chair.

CHAIR:

Seeing no further speakers,

shall clause 1 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Clause 2?

CHAIR:

Shall clause 2 carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Carried.

motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the

Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as

follows.

CHAIR:

Shall the enacting clause

carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Carried.

motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The Revenue

Administration Act No. 6.

CHAIR:

Shall the

long title carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Carried.

motion, title carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report Bill 23, An

Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 6 carried without amendment?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Carried.

Motion,

that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I move, Madam Chair, that the

Committee rise and report Bill 23.

CHAIR:

It has been moved that the

Committee rise and report Bill 23.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Carried.

motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr.

Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

The hon. the Deputy

Speaker.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of

the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to

report Bill 23 carried without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Chair of the Committee of

the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them

referred and have directed her to report Bill 23 carried without amendment.

When

shall the report be received?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

When

shall the bill be read a third time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call from the

Order Paper, Order 4, second reading of Bill 33.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 33,

An Act To Amend The Highway

Traffic Act No. 2, be now read the second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 33 entitled

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 2, be now read a

second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 2. (Bill

33)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

happy to stand here today and speak to this piece of legislation, which I guess

technically you could say it falls under the Department of Service Newfoundland

and Labrador, but the fact is that my department, the Department of Justice and

Public Safety, has certainly been working on this piece of legislation, given

the fact that it's often dealt with in court rooms across this province.

I don't

think I need to, today, talk about the background of the

Highway Traffic Act . We all know that the purpose of it. It's a

piece of legislation that deals with the rules, the regulations and the

legislation affecting vehicles on our roadways, on the motorways, whether it's

the Trans-Canada Highway or secondary highways of our province.

It's

fairly lengthy. It covers a number of sections, but the part that we're dealing

with here today is actually fairly new to the piece of legislation. Basically,

if you were to look back at the history, we look at the issue, I guess, of

distracted driving or driving with cellular telephones. Again, it's funny

because even that terminology, cellular telephones, is getting outdated now. The

fact is that we're not using telephones now; we're using computers. The fact is

it's a little handheld device, but the capabilities and the abilities that it

has are far different than those that were even contemplated back in 2003 when

this piece of legislation was amended the first time to deal with cellphones.

And certainly it's far more than was contemplated I'm sure when this piece

of legislation was first brought into this House of Assembly.

We all

know that distracted driving is a serious threat to public safety. Again, I'll

go back to 2003. In 2003

section 176.1 of the

Highway Traffic Act came into force,

and that's when the use of cellphones was prohibited while driving. At that

time, the fine was set at a minimum of $45 and the maximum at $180.

I can

remember actually that debate. I didn't follow the House of Assembly that much

then, but I can remember there was a significant public debate going on about

prohibiting this type of activity. Actually, there are a lot of people that were

against this, a lot of thinking well, how can be ban the use of cellphones while

we're driving.

I think

our knowledge and certainly the literature and the studies have grown since that

time, as well as our understanding as motorists about the dangerous aspect of

obviously driving using these or any type of distracted driving. That debate

happened and I think actually we were one of the first provinces to enact a

piece of legislation of this nature. I think now most provinces have followed

suit since that time.

In 2004,

the fine was increased to the present rate. So we haven't had this legislation

changed in this regard since 2004, 12 years ago. At that point, the minimum fine

was at $100, the maximum fine was $400, and it was the accumulation of four

demerit points.

Now,

again the fine levels have stayed the same; they haven't changed since that

time. In 2010, this

section was again amended to prohibit dangerous driving

habits, including the use of electronic devices such as cellphones, Blackberries

and iPhones to send or read text messages, or programming GPS devices while the

vehicle is in motion and can distract drivers from driving safely.

So the

law has been updated to take into effect the different devices that are out now,

but the penalty

section hasn't changed. If you were to look at sometimes our

knowledge and our driving habits, the fact is that drivers in this province

still use their phones and not just for the talking but for the texting, which

seems to be the thing that we are seeing a lot now. Again, I think anybody in

this House, anybody outside, when you're driving, it's only easy to tell when

you look at them and the head is down while their driving, you know the phone is

in the lap and it is being used.

The fact

is from January 1 of last year, 2015, to December 31, 2015, there were 1,352

summary offence tickets issued to operators of vehicles found to be using their

mobile devices. That is a significant number, Mr. Speaker.

The

amendment that we are proposing today is going to change the penalty section.

The penalty section, which would change the

schedule and again, the

legislation itself is small in size. So 176.1 would change and basically what

we're going to do now is make our legislation in terms of the penalties amongst

the toughest in Canada. For a first offence, it will be a $300 to $500 fine, so

there is a minimum and a maximum. For a second offence, it wou