May

17, 2011 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 26

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the Chair would like to welcome some special guests. First, the members

of the Cystic Fibrosis Canada Chapter:

Chapter President, Betty Sheppard; former

National President, Mr. Phil Wall;

Chapter members, Joan Monk, John Bennett, and

Bernadette Nolan.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would also like to welcome three classes of Grade

3 students from St. Matthew's Elementary from the District of St. John's West.

The students are accompanied by their teachers Mme Regular, Mrs. Bishop, Ms Ryan

and a number of chaperones.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard; the hon.

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

District of St. John's North; and the hon. the Member for the District of Mount

Pearl North.

The hon. the Member for the District of the Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Hilda Bellows of Summerside in the beautiful District of Bay of Islands.

Mr. Speaker, April 10-16 has been marked as National Volunteer Week of Canada

and the Canadian 4-H Council announced seven recipients of the 2010

Co-operators/4-H National Volunteer Leader of the Year Award.

Mr. Speaker, Hilda was one of these recipients who have been selected and the

first leader ever to receive this award for Newfoundland and Labrador. She is

presently co-ordinator and project leader for the Summerside Rockets 4-H Club,

the largest and longest running 4-H club in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, Hilda also won the Leader of the Year Award for Newfoundland and

Labrador Provincial Council.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Bellows has provided twenty years of leadership within the

club and plays a very important role in member recruitment and ensuring the 4-H

members are actively involved in the community.

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian 4-H Council recognizes all 8,000 of their

volunteers who help more than 26,000 youth "Learn to Do by Doing".

Mr. Speaker, Hilda Bellows is a great example of a dedicated and committed

4-H leader and I ask all members here today to show our appreciation for the

unselfish time she provides to the children and youth of Summerside and

surrounding communities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, May is Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month and it is a disease that

affects the lungs. It is the most common fatal genetic disease that attacks

children and young adults. It is a disease for which unfortunately now there is

no cure at present and each week in Canada two children are diagnosed with

Cystic Fibrosis and one person dies from the disease.

Cystic Fibrosis Canada is a national health charity with over fifty volunteer

chapters and, especially during the month of May, will be organizing many

activities and events to raise awareness and funds in support of vital Cystic

Fibrosis research and care.

In speaking about Cystic Fibrosis, Mr. Speaker, as a life member of Kinsmen,

I would be remiss if I did not mention the tremendous support that Kinsmen and

Kinettes have given to Cystic Fibrosis Canada. Since 1964, Kin Canada has raised

more than $35 million for Cystic Fibrosis research and treatment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in commending the work of CF Canada

and Kin Canada for their efforts in trying to find a cure for this terrible

disease.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the Mount Pearl Youth Action

Team. This youth group works together for the betterment of all young people in

Mount Pearl. They have been active for several years and they are truly a voice

for youth in our community.

The Mount Pearl Youth Action Team is very busy this week because it is Youth

Week in the City of Mount Pearl. It runs from May 15 to May 21. Some of the

events and activities during Youth Week include the annual focus on youth

awards, several public forums, a youth concert and a youth debate which the

Member for Mount Pearl South and I had the privilege of judging last night and

lots of other fun engaging activities. I encourage all youth to get out and

enjoy the events and activities that will be ongoing during Youth Week.

The Mount Pearl Youth Action Team also gets involved in volunteering in the

community, participating in food drives and helping with the Mount Pearl

Citizens Crime Prevention Committee. They will be partnering this spring with

the City of Mount Pearl to help clean up the Waterford River.

There are lots of good things happening with youth and I feel that it is

important to recognize those who are involved in making a difference in our

community.

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

Mount Pearl Youth Action Team on the work they have been doing and wish them all

the best during Youth Week 2011.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

Minister Responsible for the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to acknowledge the recipients of the 2011 URock Volunteer

Awards. This past Saturday night we had an amazing awards gala where we were

delighted to have our Premier, the hon. Kathy Dunderdale, present the eight

deserving recipients with their awards. Like last year, Mr. Speaker, the 2011

winners blew us away with what they have accomplished and the work they have

done, not only in this Province but around the world.

The URock Volunteer Awards were developed to acknowledge the unique and

creative ways young people are volunteering. Nominations may be made in two

categories: individuals and organizations or non-profits. Individual nominees

must have made outstanding voluntary contributions, be thirty years of age or

under, a current or past resident of Newfoundland and Labrador. Organizations or

non-profit groups must be led by young people and have made an outstanding

contribution.

Mr. Speaker, the work of all these nominees was truly exceptional. Their

stories were remarkable, they all made an impact on their communities, their

Province, their country and the world. They are inspirational and examples of

the kind of positive change that can be made with leadership, dedication,

compassion and hard work.

Mr. Speaker, based on the calibre of all the young people who are nominated,

and especially those who received the award this year, I have every confidence

that the future of volunteer and non-profit sector in this Province is in good

hands.

I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the recipients of the 2011 URock

Volunteer Awards: Bishops College Youth Action Committee of St. John's;

Bridgette Abbott, Musgrave Harbour; Juliette Dupre, St. Lawrence; Jonathon

Earle, Red Bay; Corey Hudson, Norman's Cove-Long Cove; Liam Kelly, Paradise;

Kara Snow, St. Anthony; and Courtney Young, Port Saunders.

Mr. Speaker, each recipient received a custom-designed electric guitar and

were treated to performances from some of the Province's top musical acts. The

talented Jonny Harris hosted the event and the amazing Holy Heart of Mary

Intercultural Choir opened the show. It was a night that they will always

remember.

I would like to thank those who took the time to nominate these outstanding

young people in our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and also those who

came out Saturday night to support them. Mr. Speaker, the URock Volunteer Award

winners are leaders in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and I hope

that by recognizing their amazing work, other young people will be encouraged to

get involved in their communities and non-profit organizations and prove they

too "rock".

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. We also would love

to extend our congratulations to these recipients as well. It is good to see

that they are from all across the Province, from far and wide, here in the

capital city region but, of course, up in Labrador and the Northern Peninsula as

well. That is great to see, and it is great to see that they are being

recognized. When you have youth giving of their time and volunteering for their

communities and the organizations in their communities, it is certainly good to

see that government would indeed acknowledge and recognize them.

These young people who are volunteers today, of course, are going to be the

backbone of our communities in our Province as the years go on. So, we would

certainly like to extend our congratulations to them as well. It is also very

positive when you see young people volunteering. Normally if you get involved in

volunteerism at such a young age, you tend to stay involved in your adult life

as well.

I think we are in very good hands. It was great to see they were acknowledged

and recognized. We would certainly extend our congratulations to them as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I am very happy

to join with him and the Opposition House Leader in congratulating the winners,

but in congratulating all of the youth in the Province who are doing volunteer

work. Obviously, these winners were recognized by the organizations they work

with because they were nominated. It is good that we do pick out those who stand

out, but they are representative of a large group, as pointed out by the

Opposition House Leader, right around the Province. It is good to see that the

eight winners are from everywhere in the Province, Mr. Speaker.

We do not move forward without our young people. Everything that we can do to

encourage them, both in the volunteer sector and every other way, is only good

for our whole society here, the whole community, Newfoundland and Labrador. So,

it is good that the government does take the time to have this event and to

recognize the volunteers. I am sure that, as years go on, we are going to see

these eight young people in many other ways operative in leadership in our

Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to highlight the

provincial government's newly-designed tourism Web site. We needed to update our

Web site to keep up with the new designs and technologies, and to ensure we

continue to meet the demands of visitors to Newfoundland and Labrador.

I am pleased to say NewfoundlandLabrador.com is getting a very positive

response. In fact, at the Canadian e-Tourism Awards, held in March, the site was

named best Web site out of fifteen nominations from across the country including

Banff Lake Louise Tourism, Travel Alberta, Tourism Quebec, and Tourism and Parks

New Brunswick. The Web site received the top score of ten from the judges in all

the required criteria. Carol Alderdice, Chair of the Canadian e-Tourism Awards

Council was quoted as saying, "You deserve it you won this one hands down."

Mr. Speaker, the intention of the tourism Web site is to communicate timely

information about the Province as a vacation destination and to increase the

value of the Web site as a trip-planning tool. The site offers engaging content,

a rich media experience, and motivation to travel off the beaten path in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Over the past number of years, the marketing of our Province has been

absolutely incredible, highlighting the unique aspects of Newfoundland and

Labrador and attracting potential visitors from throughout the world. Whether in

print, on-line, or on television, our efforts have proven successful in making

Newfoundland and Labrador a travel destination of choice.

With this recent acknowledgement from Canadian e-Tourism Awards, it is clear

our innovative marketing efforts continue to pay off.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Actually, I have

had an opportunity to visit the site and indeed refer it to some friends of mine

who are outside planning a trip here and wanted to know what they could see in

the Province. It is a great tool if you are going to be designing where you can

go and what you can see in this Province. That is probably the first thing

anybody who intends to travel does today anyway. You find out where you would

like to go, and then you find out what is happening there and what you can see

while you are there. As a promotional tool, this site is truly second to none in

this Province in showing off our Province.

There is no doubt that in tourism there are some minor concerns, or major, I

guess, in how you look at them. The minister is well aware, of course, that not

only do you design your trip to get here, but what kind of experience are you

going to have once you get here. Issues like Marine Atlantic, the TODS program,

and rental car availability and so on these are all issues that need to be

resolved positively. The minister was quite frank and upfront about this in the

Estimates this past week. It is good to see that he is getting his head around

those things and making sure that these irritants to someone's travel will

indeed be worked on.

We are a world-class destination; it is nice to be sure that when you get

here you have a world-class experience. It is great to see that this is another

promotional tool in doing that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

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

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. It is great

to see that our tourism efforts are continuing to be recognized with awards. I

have not looked at the new Web site yet this year, but I am really encouraged

now to go ahead and do so. I certainly remember our site from last year and,

obviously, it is nothing but better this year, as the award attests.

Anything that makes our beautiful Province more accessible to tourists is

good news. I agree with the Opposition House Leader, we have to make sure that

when tourists get here, we have everything here to make their holiday a good

experience. I do encourage the minister to work with the industry to make sure

that there are an adequate number of rental cars available and that they are

affordable as compared to other provinces. I notice lately there are a lot of

Nova Scotia licensed rental cars in the city, so the companies do seem to be

bringing in cars from outside to make sure there are cars here.

Also, Mr. Speaker, with the enormous amount of summer theatre in our

Province, which gets promoted by the minister's department, I encourage

government to continue to invest more money into the Newfoundland and Labrador

Arts Council. I know we have extra money in this year's Budget, but I think we

need even more than that as time goes on. We must ensure that we are producing

professional grade theatre in all of our communities. As we develop the culture

of tourism, we have to put the money there for those in the industry to make

sure they can deliver.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this week a man in Western Newfoundland was sentenced to three

years in prison for molesting and assaulting two small children. The convicted

man had access to these two children because his wife was caring for the

children in their home.

I ask the minister today: In light of this incident, can she outline for me

what provisions may be in place to protect children who are being cared for in

unlicensed family homes?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the protection of our children is the utmost important thing to

this government and to the people of this Province. Mr. Speaker, nobody wants to

see any harm done to our children.

Mr. Speaker, in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services we monitor

and we regulate regulated family child care homes and in-child care settings. As

part of that, there are procedures and policies that need to be met; standards

that need to be met, and we are in there on a monthly basis, Mr. Speaker.

The reality is in this Province, there are unregulated spaces. We always

encourage people to become regulated, not to say that all unregulated spaces are

not safe because there are some that are very much safe, Mr. Speaker. Having

said all that, Mr. Speaker, it is important that as a parent we are very

comfortable and we feel comfortable where we leave our children. There are

certain pertinent questions that we can ask, that I will get to next.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a precedent has been set both nationally and internationally for

informal child care. Many areas are now requiring registration for informal

style child care in their own home. Even in places such as Manitoba today, where

it is not required, they have set up a voluntary license program and this

includes having background checks for the child care provider.

I ask the minister today if she is open to examining that kind of a program

for voluntary licensing which would give parents in this Province an option to

find informal care that provides additional safeguards to protect their

children.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member opposite would know, I think anybody can ask

for a Certificate of Conduct or a police check. Certainly, as parents you want

to make sure that the setting you are leaving your child in is a safe one from a

health perspective, from an educational perspective, in terms of the meals that

are provided. There are certain things parents can do in terms of asking for a

Certificate of Conduct, for not only the person who is providing care for the

child, but anybody who is over sixteen in that home, Mr. Speaker.

There is a balance that we have to strike in terms of regulating homes where

there are more than four children or more than three infants. Mr. Speaker, we

have to strike the right balance for public safety because there are people who

do leave their children with their grandmothers, and I am sure in those settings

they are very comfortable, or a family member, then in that case if they are

comfortable, Mr. Speaker, we do not want to over regulate either.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am somewhat disappointed that the minister would not be open to examining

the program and looking at it for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I asked the Minister of Natural Resources in the

House of Assembly some questions regarding Muskrat Falls. He said that when

Muskrat Falls is built, the annual increase in the cost of electricity from the

project will be less than 1 per cent. However, in a written submission by Nalcor

to the joint review panel, they insist that the increase will be at least 2 per

cent a year, which is what power rates have been going up in the Province, on an

average, for the past six years. That is double, minister, what you said the

costs and increases would be annually, yesterday.

I presume you read the same report, and I ask you why you would have provided

that information to the House?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in this House, we have done

a fair bit of analysis regarding the rates that have occurred over the last ten

years and what the projections are for the coming six to seven years. The best

information that we have available indicates that the rates have been and will

continue to increase as we move forward into the future. After 2017, they are

projected to rise somewhere between 4 per cent and 6 per cent per annum. The

information that we have indicates that with Muskrat Falls, after 2017, rates

will rise less than 1 per cent per year, Mr. Speaker.

If there is any information that has been provided through the environmental

assessment panel that may be able to provide further review by us as a

government, we will certainly take that into consideration, but the information

we have today, Mr. Speaker, indicates that rates will rise by less than 1 per

cent per year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister can check the report; it was a submission to the joint review

panel. It was submitted by Nalcor Energy and it outlines that the rate of

increase would be at about 2 per cent a year.

Premier, neither one of your ministers would tell the people of the Province

yesterday how much Emera Energy is going to make selling Muskrat Falls power to

the Island. According to the Minister of Finance, Nalcor will earn $500 million

a year in profit from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I am asking today: How much will the profit be for Emera Energy, that is

going to own 29 per cent of our transmission sales in the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we will go back to basics again. Emera Energy will own $1.2

billion worth of electricity being generated out of Muskrat Falls, which they

will use in Nova Scotia to replace coal-fired generation. They have made an

additional investment of $600 million into transmission infrastructure here in

the Province for which they will get an 8.38 per cent return regulated return

by the PUB.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has referred to that as a gouging

of ratepayers here in the Province. That 8.38 per cent will be paid either to

Emera, to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, or to Newfoundland Power; that is a

regulated activity, the transmission of power here in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we know now is that Emera Energy not only will Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians have to pay the highest cost for electricity, not only will people

in the Maritimes get it cheaper than we will, but we are also going to have a

private corporation out of Nova Scotia that is going to tack on another

percentage to us for transmission in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday it was reported in the media that Muskrat Falls would

be exempt from scrutiny by the Province's utility board. I ask the Premier

today, if you can explain to us when this exemption was granted and why is it

that you did not allude to it in the House of Assembly?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, first of all let me begin by correcting a statement that the

Leader of the Opposition made in her

preamble. Mr. Speaker, we are not tacking

on an 8.38 per cent to rates in this Province. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

pay that right now. They pay it to whoever owns the transmission, currently

owned in this Province by either Newfoundland Power or Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, Emera is going to make an investment in transmission

infrastructure here and they will get the same rate of return as the other two

utilities. Emera is investing in Newfoundland and Labrador. They have become a

Newfoundland and Labrador company as well, Mr. Speaker, and that is a very good

thing.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the exemption; the exemption legislation for the

Lower Churchill was passed in this House of Assembly by your government in 1999,

exempting Lower Churchill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the Premier that Emera Energy is in

Newfoundland and Labrador today because they are getting free power to take to

Nova Scotia, they are getting 29 per cent ownership in the transmission capacity

of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Premier, if they were not here that 9 per

cent you are saying would be going to Nalcor or going to someone else.

Why don't you tell us what the dollar figure is going to be, what the

take-home pay is going to be, for Emera corporation at the end of the day from

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have to work hard to earn money to pay

double the rates that you are going to charge them for Muskrat Falls?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I try to keep going back to the basics of electricity generation

in this Province. She is comparing apples to oranges, Mr. Speaker. What is

happening in terms of the development of the Lower Churchill does not have

anything to do with transmission infrastructure. Transmission infrastructure has

to be built and paid for by utilities here in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

Currently, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro does so, as does Newfoundland Power.

They, as a result of regulatory oversight by the PUB, are given a rate of

return. For the $600 million investment that Emera will make in transmission

infrastructure building transmission infrastructure to carry our electricity

through this Province they will get an 8.38 per cent return on that investment.

Do the math.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let's get back to the exemption for a minute now. Now that we

have cleared up some of this and we know that Emera is going to make a fine

chunk of change off the people of Newfoundland and Labrador we are going to

pay double the rates, Emera is going to walk away with a profit again let's

talk about the exemption.

On five occasions in the House of Assembly, Premier, you stood and said that

this particular deal on Muskrat Falls would have to go through full scrutiny of

the Public Utilities Board to determine if it was the most cost-effective energy

to be provided to the people of the Province.

Can you tell me today that is still the case and that the Public Utilities

Board will have full scrutiny of this deal to determine if it is the best cost

of electricity for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, but let me also say to that, Mr. Speaker, it was their government that

brought in the legislation that allowed for an exemption. It was their

government that exempted the Lower Churchill proposed project of Premier Grimes

and at least two of the people opposite to have an exemption from regulatory

review.

MS JONES: Wrong again.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Not wrong again.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: An Order in Council signed by

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, an Order in Council exempted the Lower

Churchill. You are wrong again on every account and we can produce it.

Mr. Speaker, not only did they exempt the Lower Churchill, they have exempted

every hydro project that has occurred in this Province since regulation began in

1995; another case of not do what I do, do as I say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are into all the Dundernomics' again today and all of the confusing

statements, Mr. Speaker, and all of the non-answers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Let me say it to you this way: It might have been another

Administration that changed the legislation so that every project could get due

consideration and you know that, Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: You also know that it is up to the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council and it is up to you to decide as to whether Muskrat Falls is exempt from

the Public Utilities Board or not.

Now, you have said on five occasions in the House of Assembly, I have all of

the transcripts here, that it would be required. It would go through a full

Public Utilities Board review and that the information, Mr. Speaker, would be

provided to the public.

I ask the Premier today: Will it go through a full review of the Public

Utilities Board? When will it happen? Will there be public hearings held right

throughout the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, not only in 1999 did they bring in the legislation allowing for

an exemption; in 2000, they produced an Order-in-Council that exempted the Lower

Churchill from review by the PUB, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, their then minister

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Opposition House Leader for his co-operation. Continuing

to interrupt there is clearly against the rules and the regulations of our

Standing Orders.

For the last time today, I refer to the hon. member. It has happened in the

past. It is not going to continue to happen.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, their then Minister of Mines and Energy, and later their Leader

and Premier, talked in the debate about the lowest-cost project not always being

the best option for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, a different point of view

again that you supported in 2000 and changed your tune today.

Yes, there will be a review by the PUB. We will have the PUB consider whether

this is the lowest cost option.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The legislation, the Premier knows and she is being cute with words, is only

there so that every project gets consideration. It has nothing to do with your

Muskrat Falls Project. That is your decision. You cannot compare apples and

oranges, I say to you, Premier, and that is exactly what you are doing today.

Now, will you tell the people of the Province how the Public Utilities Board

review is going to be conducted? Will it be public hearings across the Province?

Will intervener status be provided? What is the time frame for having it

completed? Will it be done before the agreement you have signed runs out, or

will the agreement be postponed until the Public Utility Board hearings are

completed?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, not only did they not want the PUB to review the Lower Churchill

Project, they did not tell even the Board of Directors of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro about the details of their deal.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have made information available to the people of this

Province all over the Province, in Labrador and from coast to coast to coast to

coast on the Island. We have given a number of briefings to the members of the

Opposition. We are holding open houses. We put the information up on our Web

sites. Mr. Speaker, we are going to a full arm's-length consultants review on

whether this is the least cost project that will be made available to the people

of the Province mid-summer and, Mr. Speaker, we are asking the PUB the same

question and the process that they will use to determine that, Mr. Speaker, is

still under discussion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We all know that Nalcor has the doors nailed shut and you made sure it

happened, Premier. They are not subject to the Auditor General. They are not

subject to the Freedom of Information. They are not subject to the Public Tender

Act. The only way the public can actually see what is happening with Muskrat

Falls and whether it is the lowest cost provider of energy in the Province is

through a public hearing process and through the Public Utilities Board or a

full audit by the Auditor General.

I ask you today, Premier - it is your game, it is your authority to make the

decision - are you prepared to launch public hearings, provide intervener's

status on Muskrat Falls so that the Public Utilities Board can go out and do a

full review of this project in the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, do not do as we did, do as we say. Mr. Speaker, they did not

want anybody to know about their project. They provided no information to

anybody, Mr. Speaker. We have provided information to everybody, everybody who

has asked. Mr. Speaker, we are going to third party arm's-length consultants to

do a review on whether or not this is the least cost project for meeting energy

needs here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have engaged the PUB to review and

to determine whether that is the case as well and make that information

available to the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker. We have been open, we have

been transparent, and we have been accountable. Something they knew nothing

about when they were trying to develop the Lower Churchill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is nothing open, there is nothing accountable, and there is nothing

transparent, about having a deal that you do not want the Auditor General to

touch, that you do not want to have subject to public tendering, that you do not

want to have out there under freedom of information. There is nothing open and

accountable to that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: I say to you, Premier, open it up. Let the people of the

Province see what this deal is really about. Let them see why you want them to

pay twice as much for electricity in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask you today: Open it up, put it out there, and let the Public Utilities

Board do its job.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know from where she gets her information. Nalcor has

just concluded a series of open houses right across this Province, that have

been attended by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and all of their questions

have been answered. When each of the people who came and participated in those

open houses was leaving, they were asked to do an evaluation on the information

they had received. Ninety-eight per cent of those evaluations say timely and

good information was provided and all of their questions were answered.

Now, I do not know where you are getting your information, but the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador are getting it from Nalcor, Mr. Speaker, and they are

happy with the information that is being provided.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Some years ago this government commissioned one Mr. Bill Marshall to complete

a review of the inland fish and wildlife program; I believe that was in 2005. A

draft copy of the report was submitted, supposedly, to government with a final

report to be imminent; however, various ministers have stated in this House over

the years that the report has not yet been completed. We have heard a lot of

comments in the public and in this House in the past few weeks about what is

happening with the inland fish and wildlife program.

I ask the minister - we have been waiting five years now for this report to

be released - where is it and when can we see it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, transferring the wildlife enforcement division out of the

Department of Natural Resources to the Department of Justice was a natural fit

because it is an enforcement component and naturally fits under the Department

of Justice. The Department of Justice is a tremendous resource for expertise,

support, training and so on. I would say this is an enforcement component and

moving it to the Department of Justice was a proper fit.

Deliberations on that initiative have been ongoing for some time. Yes, during

that negotiation we did receive the recommendations of Justice Marshall. We are

still considering them. There is a lot of sensitive information in there about

human resources. So with regard to releasing the report, Mr. Speaker, we are

still considering the recommendations at this point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Maybe the minister can just give us a straight answer: When did you receive

your report and when is it going to be public? Your government is on record as

saying that any report done will be released within thirty days. Now, we are

five years into this.

When did you get it? What was in it? When are we going to see what was in it,

so we can verify whether the changes you have made when it comes to the wildlife

program are indeed justified?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, we received the report from Justice Marshall

some time in late fall 2010. I am not sure of the exact date. In November or

December, I think it was. I would have to check my notes on that.

With respect to the report, Mr. Speaker, because of the merger of wildlife

and inland fish at this point in time and the transition that is going, we are

still considering the report in that context. We will release the report or the

information from the report in a timely fashion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, last month the government moved thirty-seven fish and wildlife

officers from the Department of Natural Resources to the Department of Justice.

I ask the minister: On whose advice and under what study was that done? What

is the justification for having done such? Was that the Marshall report?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, government is always analyzing and

considering its departments and its duties, and always making arrangements to

better serve the public of Newfoundland and Labrador. Deliberations on the

combination of wildlife and enforcement have been ongoing for some time. It has

been the general discussion between both departments. It had nothing to do

whatsoever with Justice Marshall's report. It is just that Justice Marshall's

report was received during the deliberations.

Mr. Speaker, it is a natural fit to make this merger, and that was the

general consensus of both departments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a very serious public

issue. In fact, it is an issue of public safety.

For instance, the eighty-one conservation officers who are left in Natural

Resources are no longer allowed to deal with nuisance wildlife. That job now

falls solely on the thirty-seven officers who are in Justice. The problem is

that 120 officers had a hard time handling the workload of nuisance wildlife,

but the government just cut that crew to thirty-seven people.

I ask the minister: Given all the problems we have with nuisance wildlife,

especially moose on our highways and roads, why would you cut that staff by 70

per cent?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member is

getting his figures. Thirty-seven positions were transferred from Natural

Resources to Justice and in line with the forty-odd position that we already

had. We have a total, I think, of eighty-eight positions in wildlife and

enforcement. The duties of road kill and dealing with wildlife in that sense

have been transferred and come with those people. The same people who are

looking after the road kill and nuisance animals are still with us and still

doing the same job. The telephone numbers are the same that people can call;

nothing has changed, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

Mr. Speaker, on May 11 the Phase II report from the Voisey's Bay Industrial

Inquiry Commission was released to the public. The previous Administration said

it was committed to ensuring that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

receive maximum benefit of our Province's resources. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker,

that policy has often not extended to the men and women who actually do the

work. Sadly, our workers have suffered at the expense of Vale.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment

will he commit to take steps to ensure that workers in this Province have their

rights protected and can fight from a level playing field when striking against

a powerful multi-national corporation?

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows full well that we have

lots of interest in protecting workers' rights. We bring in different types of

legislation every year here to accomplish just that.

As I said to the member yesterday, it was our government that took the

position of calling for the industrial inquiry because of the concerns that we

have. The member also ought to recognize that it is not government's role to be

in the middle of employer-employee negotiations. The fact of the matter is we

solicited the report because we felt we needed to hear from an independent party

about why exactly negotiations were not moving forward to the degree that they

out to have, in the interest of both parties, and we wanted some recommendations

for consideration as to how we might change things for the future.

We received the report, as I have acknowledged in this House on any number of

occasions, and we are going to be prepared to consider the report, as I have

said very clearly on a number of occasions. I am not prepared to stand here

today and say that we accept nor reject any of the recommendations. We are

taking them under consideration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

I point out to the minister that there is a tripartite committee of

government labour relations and unions to deal with labour relations, so that is

the place where he should be dealing with this report.

Mr. Speaker, much of our oil and mineral resources are today being extracted

and used by foreign multinational companies that are invited into our Province

to share in our resource wealth. We have seen these giant companies using their

considerable resources to wear down the rights of workers in this Province, and

Vale is only one example.

Will government commit itself, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, to protect

the processes and the values of collective bargaining that are being eroded by

these multinational companies?

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite aware of the tripartite committee. We had a

discussion about it in Estimates this morning and the members in this House

would recollect that it was in this sitting of the House that I brought forward

legislation for our government that came as a result of the work of that

tripartite committee. During the presentation of that legislation, Mr. Speaker,

I talked about our government's commitment to work with that committee, to work

in the interest of workers and to make sure that we pay particular attention to

items in legislation that ought to be revised, revisited and adjusted from time

to time, Mr. Speaker. I need not repeat our commitment to that. I understand the

full nature of that.

The purpose of the Voisey's Bay industrial inquiry was to provide an

investigation for us into what had taken part, to seek input from both parties

as to why negotiations had stalled for so long. Why would they not find any

simple resolution, Mr. Speaker, and, more importantly, to offer for

consideration to us recommendations that the independent inquiry felt might

facilitate a better working environment in the future, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

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

All I am saying to the minister is he has the tripartite committee. That is

where the labour relations discussions should happen. They ordered the review,

they have it. Now bring it to the correct table to have the discussion.

Mr. Speaker, the undertaking order for the Voisey's Bay nickel project called

for a broad range of biophysical and socioeconomic monitoring programs to look

at the impacts and benefits agreements and examine the effects in Labrador,

especially on the north coast of the Voisey's Bay mine. Mr. Speaker, it is

disappointing to read in the report that the project has not yet delivered what

these communities expected in terms of higher status jobs and cultural respect

in the workplace.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: What is he doing to ensure that Vale is

following up on these monitoring programs for the benefits of the Innu Nation,

the Nunatsiavut Government, and especially the North Coast of Labrador?

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, I find it frustrating sometimes trying to follow

the line of thinking of some members opposite in their questioning. Yesterday,

the member opposite asked me a question about the report from the Voisey's Bay

inquiry. I said very clearly that I want to take some time to process what is in

the report and to listen to points of view from the public. The member opposite,

Mr. Speaker, criticized me for wanting to hear what the public had to say,

suggesting that consultation time was over and it is time for government to make

a decision.

Now, that was yesterday, Mr. Speaker. Today the member is saying, take the

report from the minister in government and give it to a committee and let them

consult further. So, Mr. Speaker, my question for the member opposite is, what

is it you want from this process? Do you want me to take time to assess the

report like it ought to be done and hear what people have to say, or do you not

want that, Mr. Speaker, because I am hearing very mixed messages across

(inaudible)?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

The Chair is always reluctant to interrupt during Question Period since we

allot a specific time. There has been language used in the last two days in

Question Period by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition which is clearly

unparliamentary when she references a certain type of economics and references a

member's name describing that process.

I ask the hon. member, that in the future if she would be kind enough not to

be using unparliamentary language and reference her questions in a different

way.

MS JONES: What word did I use?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

MS JONES: ( Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition cares to speak with me in a private

setting to explain what I have just brought forward then I would certainly be

glad to meet with her.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Just with respect to that way, in using persons names inappropriately and so

on considered unparliamentary, it is certainly insensitive in doing so. I would

just point out that both members of the House have done that. The Member for

Lake Melville constantly mispronounces the name of Mr. Danny Dumaresque. All I

am saying is, what happens to one should happen to both.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

On both sides of the House, members should be sensitive to the language they

use. Our parliamentary language has been clearly stated here that members who

sit in the House of Assembly should not be referenced by their given names. It

should be either by the executive position that they hold or by the district

that they represent.

Other members may have used that in the past. While we sometimes reference

people who are not here, by their names, the Speaker has problems with that as

well. Is it fair to go and talk about people who sat in this House before, or

others who are not here to defend themselves? It is clearly unparliamentary to

reference people who presently sit in this Assembly while we are carrying on

debate in this Assembly.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Social Services Committee have considered the matters to

them referred and have passed, without amendment, the Estimates of the following

departments: the Department of Municipal Affairs; the Department of Child, Youth

and Family Services; the Department of Justice; the Department of Health and

Community Services; the Department of Education; the Department of Human

Resources, Labour and Employment; and, as well, the Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing Corporation.

As Chair of the Committee, I would like to pass on thank you to the Committee

members for their participation: the Member for The Straits & White Bay North;

the Member for Port de Grave; the Member for Port au Port; the Member for

Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the Member

for Cape St. Francis; the Member for St. John's North; and the Member for St.

Barbe.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit the report.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further reports by standing and select committees?

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

MR. JACKMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table some information that was requested by the Opposition

yesterday around minimum species maintenance requirements.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to table the annual report of the

Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities on operations carried out under the

Automobile Insurance Act for the period April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

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

I would like to enter again, for the ninth time I believe it is, the petition

on behalf of the residents of La Poile. That concerns, of course, the lack of a

washroom facility, restroom facility so that users of the ferry service between

Rose Blanche and La Poile can have some decent, human, normal facilities. Right

now, there is nothing.

The petition, Mr. Speaker which says it all, by the way, the language of

the petition says it all:

WHEREAS the people of La Poile must use the provincial ferry system in order

to travel to and from La Poile; and

WHEREAS the people of La Poile and visitors are required to wait at the Town

of Rose Blanche from time to time for the ferry services; and

WHEREAS there is no restroom, waiting room area at the Town of Rose Blanche

where users of the ferry service may utilize washroom facilities; and

WHEREAS citizens of all ages including men, women, children, seniors,

disabled persons all require washroom facilities as a basic human need in the

course of their travels and particularly while awaiting the transit systems; and

WHEREAS it is an abuse of human dignity as well as health and safety

regulations to allow such degrading and dehumanizing circumstances to continue;

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

House of Assembly to urge government to immediately construct and operate a

waiting room/restroom facility at the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou such

that all users of the provincial ferry service which operates out of La Poile

may be able to utilize such waiting area/washroom facilities.

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty basic. If you use a public transit system, you

expect to have the basic provisions, i.e. a washroom. If you go to Rose Blanche,

whether you are a resident of La Poile, anybody else in this Province, someone

involved in the fishery going down to do fish inspections, or a tourist who is

visiting here and going down the coast, if you need to use the washroom while

you are waiting for the ferry, tough luck. There is nowhere for you to go.

Someone suggested it is pretty graphic to be up in the House of Assembly

talking about this. Well, it is more than graphic when you are subjected to such

horrors during your travel, literally. If it is summertime, wintertime, or

whatever, if you get short took while you are trying to wait for the ferry, too

bad. That is the attitude we have had.

I have had several conversations with the minister about this. I believe we

are one of the few if not the only public transit system left in the Province

that does not have it. He has assured me he is going to take a look at this and

see what can be done. I pray, as it says in the petition, everybody in La Poile

prays, and everybody who uses the service prays that the minister can find it

within his budget to come up with some funding to get rid of this problem that

should never, ever exist in this day and age, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to present a petition today on behalf of women in the Province who

are calling upon the government to reduce the age for breast screening in

Newfoundland and Labrador from age fifty to age forty.

WHEREAS breast cancer is the most common cancer among Newfoundland and

Labrador women, excluding non-melanoma skin cancer, with approximately 370 women

to be diagnosed with breast cancer in Newfoundland and Labrador this year; and

WHEREAS we have one of the highest mortality rates from breast cancer and

breast cancer in young women tends to be more aggressive; and

WHEREAS the benchmark for Newfoundland and Labrador's organized breast

screening program is age fifty; and

WHEREAS women aged forty to forty-nine are not eligible to participate in

Newfoundland and Labrador's organized breast screening program, while women aged

forty to forty-nine are eligible in the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta,

Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Northwest Territories, and the Yukon; and

WHEREAS there is empirical evidence that routine mammography screening of

women in their forties can reduce mortality from breast cancer by at least 24

per cent, but Newfoundland and Labrador still does not allow women in that age

group to self refer into their breast screening program;

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

House of Assembly to urge government to allow women aged forty to forty-nine to

be eligible for breast screening to begin at age forty and that all women be

able to self refer through Newfoundland and Labrador's screening programs.

Mr. Speaker, this is a really important issue and it is an issue that has

been debated, discussed and researched across Canada for the last number of

years. In fact, Mr. Speaker, on a regular basis more and more provinces in the

country are falling in-line with the new benchmarks for breast screening. The

latest has been the Province of Ontario, which announced just in the last couple

of weeks that they would indeed reduce the age of breast screening in their

Province from age fifty to age thirty. They are even taking it a step further.

Mr. Speaker, all of the reports that I have read, and one of the latest

reports was published this past fall and it was published by a renowned

scientist out of the Toronto General Hospital by the name of Dr. Yaffe. Dr.

Yaffe specifically studied breast screening and what reducing the mortality

rates of women who were screened early right across Canada, and made specific

recommendations to the Ontario government.

Mr. Speaker, this is a critical issue. This year, in our Province more than

370 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer. Mr. Speaker, we still have one

of the highest mortality rates due to breast cancer of any other province in the

country. It is unfair that the government not consider this openly, they not

look at what is being done in all of the other jurisdictions of Canada and do,

Mr. Speaker, what is in the best interest of women in this particular Province.

Right now, the best interest of women is to ensure that they have access to

breast screening. No woman, Mr. Speaker, should have to go to a doctor and be

turned away because there is no history of breast cancer in their family, or

because they did not find something. It should be an option, it should be part

of our self-health program and this is what the women in this Province are

asking the government to do at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I am pleased at this time to enter a petition on behalf of the residents of

Cape Ray. This is the third or fourth time and it is amazing because when you do

it, it seems people even who do not live in Cape Ray all of a sudden they are

aware of the problem, but once they know now it is of public knowledge of course

the petitions keep coming because they want the issue to stay in the forefront

until it does indeed get resolved. I am more than pleased to present that

concern on their behalf.

The petition in this case, Mr. Speaker, reads:

WHEREAS the Department of Transportation and Works of the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador is responsible for the funding and maintenance of

roads in the community of Cape Ray, in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador; and

WHEREAS the roads at Cape Ray are in deplorable condition, including the road

leading from the community to the J.T. Cheeseman Provincial Park; and

WHEREAS the citizens of Cape Ray demand that the roads be upgraded;

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

House of Assembly to urge government to provide sufficient funding to complete

the necessary repairs to the roads at Cape Ray

And as in duty bound your Petitioners will ever pray.

Well, Mr. Speaker, hopefully they will not have to pray too long because the

road has certainly been left in a deplorable condition for too long. We tried

successively now, too long being the last three or four years and it is amazing

that this road is being used by the Department of Transportation and Works. It

connects the community of Cape Ray to the provincial park which is, as I say, a

provincial park operated, paid for, maintained by this Province. The Department

of Transportation and Works uses the road as do the residents. They have the

equipment in the area. It is only a short road, by the way, we are not talking

here Trans-Canada Highway standards; you are talking basically a bit of gravel

and so on and yet they cannot find it in their budgets to get this done.

Well hopefully, Mr. Speaker, the concerns of the citizens have been brought

to this House and to the minister's attention sufficiently so that now somebody

will give some directions and approval to get this done. It is not a big cost

but it certainly is a very important part of the transit system out in that

area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Labrador

with regard to the Trans-Labrador Highway.

WHEREAS the Trans-Labrador Highway is a vital transportation lifeline for the

Labrador communities, providing access, generating economic activity and

allowing residents to obtain health care and other public services; and

WHEREAS Route 510 and connecting branch roads of the Trans-Labrador Highway

are unpaved, in deplorable condition and are no longer suitable and safe for the

traffic volumes that travel this route; and

WHEREAS Labrador can not afford to wait years or decades for upgrading and

paving of their essential transportation route;

WHEREUPON the petitioners call upon the House of Assembly to urge the

government to provide additional funding for much needed improvements to Route

510 and connecting branch roads of the Trans-Labrador Highway.

Mr. Speaker, you cannot imagine how frustrating it is for the people who live

in this part of our Province, the people who every day are using the

Trans-Labrador Highway to commute from community to community to bring all the

goods and services into Labrador from the Island portion of the Province. Mr.

Speaker, they have to use that particular highway connection. For many of the

truckers that I have talked to, it has been nothing only an extreme nightmare.

An absolute nightmare. They constantly have to replace parts and do repairs on

their trucks in trying to truck goods and freight into Southern Labrador, and

into Central Labrador, in particular. It has been an absolute nightmare for

them.

In fact, this morning I even talked to a reporter in Labrador who was telling

me that only a couple of weeks ago they made the drive from Blanc-Sablon up to

Goose Bay. It took them fourteen hours on that drive. There were sections of

road they could not go any more than twenty kilometres per hour; on most

sections of the road. The road was just so bad that that was how long it took.

Mr. Speaker, this is a six hour drive. It is a six to seven hour drive for most

people on a normal road, and it is taking fourteen hours in some cases for

people, which is absolutely ridiculous. People are asking the government to do

something, and they are asking them to do something immediately. They need to

put some crushed stone on that road. They need to get the road graded up

properly. We are getting into one of our peak travel periods in Labrador right

now.

Mr. Speaker, last year, I think it was like 100,000 people who used the

Apollo on the Strait of Belle Isle; that was more than who used the

Ericson on the Gulf of St. Lawrence. This is the kind of traffic that is coming

in and out of Labrador. You have to take very seriously the fact that people

need to have a standard of road that they can drive on, that is safe, that is

acceptable to the kind of transport they need to use it for. It is not a road,

Mr. Speaker, so that people can just drive around at their leisure. We are not

talking Sunday drivers here. We are talking about people who commute from

community to community to go to work. For example, if you look at the shrimp

plant in Charlottetown in one community; all the communities around that area

commute there by road to go to work. They have to drive over that every single

day, every day, and every night to get home.

The ambulance services in the area, most people who are taken out by

ambulance are taken to the Labrador Straits. They have to take patients over

that road in that ambulance. Is it right that they should have to be petitioning

the House of Assembly every day to get someone to pay attention to what their

need is, to what their concern is, and to address the issue? Unfortunately, but

it seems to be the case.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call from the Order Paper, under Second Reading of Bills, 5,

second reading of Bill 29.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act".

(Bill 29)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 29, some amendments to the

Fisheries Inspection Act, Mr. Speaker.

Just a little bit of a brief background on that. The Fish Inspection Act was

introduced in 1954 and there have been several amendments to it since then. In

1990, there was a new act created and there has been some substantial redrafting

of the act since then. Of course, the purpose of the act is to ensure that

seafood is handled and processed in a safe, clean environment.

We have certainly moved away from the days when fish were brought in I

suppose, in trap skiffs and were walked around in and flung up on the wharves

with pitchforks and everything else. We have moved into a day where quality of

food is paramount, not only from a consumer perspective but from a price seeking

perspective as well. I do not think, I know it, that while there will always be

challenges, the harvesters and processors have recognized that and they have

instituted many measures to ensure we have the best quality of seafood that we

can leaving this Province; also from a socioeconomic perspective, Mr. Speaker,

to the point that we want to maximize employment around the resources. If there

is anything that we have heard in the fishing industry for years is that so much

of our product goes out and we have not maximized the amount of employment on

land in our Province. These were reasons around bringing in the Fish Inspection

Act.

The act sets out inspection and enforcement. The act requires that it be

reviewed every five years. In 2004, it underwent a major review and revision,

and in 2005 and 2006 the act was again amended. Then in 2007 and 2008, new

regulations were added to ensure compliance with departmental policies and

regulations. These included fish inspection, administrative regulations, fish

inspection operation regulations, in-Province retail fish establishment

regulations, and fish inspection ticket offences regulations, all in the

interest of strengthening the industry. As things arise, then we make amendments

to the act.

The latest review has been completed and the required amendments are

identified in this bill. These amendments will enable the department to address

specific deficiencies or oversights that have been identified in the review.

These amendments will enhance the programs and services developed from this act

that are designed to maintain seafood quality. These amendments will clarify

legislative language and provide greater certainty of the enforceability of the

department's legislations.

The amendments include: updating

definitions to provide greater legislative

clarity; designating an inspector as a peace officer; addressing the

circumstances of a person falsely representing him or herself as an inspector;

requiring photo identification. The fifth one is allowing inspectors to remove

documents for examination and reproduction; permitting other inspectors or

persons to accompany the inspector named in the warrant during the execution of

a warrant; holding the proceeds of a sale and disposition of things seized in

trust; and finally, addressing the circumstances of the provision of misleading

information.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in 2010, the Auditor General reviewed the department's

activities under this legislation, and in particular the inspection program. The

AG outlined a number of areas in the program that required additional attention

and the enhancement of approaches to improve the effectiveness of the program.

The department is addressing those areas, and these legislative amendments will

assist in this.

For example, the majority of the amendments deal with enforcement powers of

Fisheries and Aquaculture inspectors. This will bring the department in line

with other departments, such as conservation officers. This will provide the

department a greater capability to effectively deliver the program.

The department has concentrated significant financial and human resources to

this program. It is having the desired effect for maintaining and improving the

quality of seafood and the reputation of Newfoundland and Labrador as a

high-quality seafood producing destination. The effect of this goes directly to

the bottom line, by increasing the value of seafood and returns to the industry

and the Province.

Mr. Speaker, in 2003, Eric Dunne in his report stated: "The overall objective

[of a regulatory framework] is to ensure that adequate deterrents are created or

a satisfactory level of compliance is achieved." In reference to the proposed

changes, the Fish Inspection Act is designed to accomplish this and having

regular reviews and making amendments ensures the act is current and continuing

to achieve its objective.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the comments that are made by the

people opposite and if there are questions, I will certainly attempt to answer

them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a privilege to stand and speak to this piece of legislation as it

relates to the amendments of Bill 29,

An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act.

Just to give an overview of our

interpretation of the act, it is, as the

minister suggested, basically a housekeeping exercise with respect to the Fish

Inspection Act of 1997. Compelled, basically, by a stipulation that the

legislation is to be reviewed every five years, and the minister outlined the

years in which review has been done, and adjustments and tweaks and so on to the

legislation have taken place. It also addresses some inconsistencies in the act

that need to be cleaned up, if you will, as well, and certainly gives clarity to

the powers, in terms of the day-to-day duties of the inspectors, and empowers

them probably to a much greater extent, and to a certain extent for sure.

The main points I would like to touch on - and again, just for the sake if we

have a misunderstanding, I am sure the minister can refer to it when he speaks

to it again. In

section 5 of the amendments, in

section 8.1, the bill clarifies

powers of fish inspectors and designates them as peace officers. Mr. Speaker,

this change in designation basically makes it consistent with any other officer

who is acting in this capacity. For example, our wildlife officers and an

officer under the Occupational Health and Safety Division, I believe their

titles are now peace officers. The significance of that, of course, is that a

peace officer is a defined entity under the Criminal Code. So, inspectors will

now have a similar status, in any offence, as a fisheries inspection officer who

is now defined under that code.

It also enables the inspectors who are inspecting facilities to remove - if

photocopying is not available, for example if there is documentation they want

to take with them, ordinarily they did not have the authority under the act to

remove that information and those documents. This act now allows them to do

that, they are able to take materials off the premises.

From an inspection point of view, I would think that if you are in doing an

audit and there is something there that is of concern to you, then certainly you

want to be able to secure those documents, to quarantine them I guess, if you

will, so that you can take them and do your proper investigation. Sometimes it

may not be possible to photocopy them because of the size of the documents and

the bindings and other things, but in this case they would be able to do that.

section 7 and

section 9.(2), the bill also permits an inspector who is

named in a warrant to be accompanied by another inspector, especially when

carrying out a search under a warrant in a premises where they can search for

and where they can seize anything that will provide evidence with respect to the

contravention of the Fish Inspection Act. I am sure that is an important change

as well, the fact that they can have a second person there, someone to accompany

them in that situation. That really just provides for extra protection and

enforcement and just ensures that the whole process unfolds in a proper manner.

Mr. Speaker,

section 9(3)(

b) of that

section as well removes the seize of all

fish and replaces it with, "seize fish or marine plants, or containers or

cartons of them, at, in or on the place". Again, really, it is just proper

wording, nothing too significant.

section 8 of the amendments, this

section ensures that the proceeds of a

sale, as the minister referred to, goes into a special non-interest bearing fund

which is established in the Consolidated Revenue Fund, as I understand it, by

the Comptroller General of Finance. This would be when there is no correct

resolution to the inspection and to the situation the product has taken. Rather

than losing the product, rather than having the quality of the product

jeopardized to the point where there is no real value to it, then the intent is

to be able to sell it until there is an outcome in the case.

Previously, there was no mechanism that spelled out that particular process

and whatever was sold basically came back to the Crown. So in this case there is

a special fund set up, Mr. Speaker. It also protects not only the value of the

property that has been seized but, obviously, it also protects the property of

the person who has been convicted as well. That is important in that whole

process, so it is something that is good to see.

section 9 of the amendments, 12.1, the previous act was silent on someone

who was impersonating an inspector. This was amended to ensure that it now

becomes an offence if you impersonate an official inspector. I do not think that

there has been any case of that in the Province; I may be wrong, but my research

tells me there was not. In this case if you are found guilty of an offence of

impersonating an inspector, the person will be liable to pay a fine not

exceeding $500. Of course if that person became in default of the payments, they

would sent to jail for a period of not exceeding six months. Again, it is a

protection there. Probably, in other jurisdictions, it might be something that

people are concerned about, but I am not sure that we really have an issue

outstanding with people impersonating a fish inspector, but should one decide to

go into that line of work, so to speak, then obviously there are laws and so on

there to cover that particular type of crime.

It is also an offence to provide misleading information, as it would be in

many walks of life, certainly an inspection. The information that you are

gathering at the time of inspection, whether it is going to the books, whether

it is looking at the fish that has been caught and so on, it certainly is

important that the information that is being given to the inspector is proper

information, that is it accurate and obviously that is true. This legislation

substitutes the word false with the words false and misleading. Sometimes I

guess it is a play on words, but sometimes things are just misleading more so

than false. It is the intent of the conversation or the way it is said, the way

it is presented and so on, so this covers that as well.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of other sections there,

section 13.(1), this part of

the act prevents a person from processing fish that is unfit for human

consumption. Previously, the act stated that it just prohibited a person from

marketing the fish. There was no law that said they could not process it. Now, I

am not sure why you would process it if you were not going to market it,

nevertheless I guess it was a loophole in the act that allowed someone to

possibly participate in that type of a process if they wanted to. This

section

now says that if it is not fit for human consumption not only can you not market

it but you also cannot process it. Again, a significant small change, but I

believe it is an important change in terms of ensuring the quality of our fish

market, of our products and so on in our Province.

One other section,

section 6.(1)(

a) of the act previously specified that an

inspector or an officer designated by the minister could enter an establishment

or a vehicle used for the transportation or storage of fish or marine plants;

the words "fish landing station" were added in this new amendment to clarify

that means the wharf and the facility, obviously, in which the firm is

operating. These are two separate inspection sites. What takes place on the

wharf is not necessarily the same obviously as what takes place in a facility.

Previously, the Act was silent when it came to the actual fish landing site and

that, again, has brought clarity and change to the Act to cover that for us as

well.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the Fish Inspection Act is very important to the

fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador. The enforcement of it, the regulation of

it, and just the assurance that it is being properly regulated certainly is

important for our Province. It regulates the fish inspection procedures, it

regulates appropriate fish inspection protocol and these are essential to

ensuring that the quality of seafood is maximized.

We want a good product. We want to be able to offer the market the best

seafood product it can buy. In today's market, like any other product, we are

competing against other countries around the world. We are competing against

other products as people change their menus and so on; there are other options

available in terms of food that were not available probably twenty years ago.

Mr. Speaker, it is very, very important that when we offer our seafood products

around the world at the different shows that we go to and other things that we

can be assured that we bring the best quality to bear on that particular

process. Certainly, fish inspection plays a wide role in that particular case.

There appears to be, Mr. Speaker, nothing controversial about the proposed

changes. It is more housekeeping than anything else probably. They merely

clarify and capture the powers of fish inspectors and so on.

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to refer to the minister's comments in

terms of he mentioned the AG's report. We know that the Auditor General, in

his review of 2010, was very critical when it came to the Department of

Fisheries and fish inspection. It is one thing to have

an act that tells us

where we should be going but it is another thing to really see it put in

practice, to see the deficiencies of it and so on, and see areas where we are

not doing very well.

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General said that we are just not doing enough,

basically, to ensure that fish quality and food safety is preserved in terms of

fish products that are landed, produced, and exported from our Province. That is

a very serious accusation. It is not an accusation, it is a fact.

To know that we are not in compliance in terms of the processes in our

Province, in terms of fish inspection, in issues of quality assurance, in issues

of sanitation requirements, in issues of how we store our product, in issues of

how we handle it, in issues of how we transport it from one site to another and

take it to market. When we see the Auditor General coming down with evidence

that these processes are not adequate and are not being followed according to

the act, which is there to guide and protect that whole industry, then, Mr.

Speaker, certainly for myself I have grave concerns about that.

I would just like to highlight some of those things because I think they are

very important as they relate to this act here this afternoon that we have

before us in terms of the amendment. We see in the Auditor General's report, for

example, that there are 425 identified landing sites with 115 plants involved. I

realize in terms of our geography that is a challenge for sure to be able to

ensure that proper inspections are taking place at 425 landing sites around this

Province. Some of them may be close and some of them may be far away from the

regional offices of DFA and so on.

In 2009, I believe the number was around 3,500 or so. In 2010, the numbers

are a little bit higher, somewhere around 3,700. What the Auditor General

pointed out, Mr. Speaker, is that 48 per cent of the 3,500 or so inspections in

2009 he deemed as not actually being inspections at all. One thing that is

significant is noting that there were 717 inspections that took place at these

sixteen sites.

We have 425 landing sites, we have 3,500 inspections, and about 20 per cent

of those are done at sixteen sites in particular.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne): Order, please!

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure whether that would be because of the number of landings that

are there. When we look at the numbers in that sense, it would suggest that

probably these are the easier ones to get to. In that case, that would certainly

be of concern for us as well.

What is more important, perhaps, to note is that 48 per cent approximately of

the total inspections that took place were failed inspections for different

reasons. For example, there were times when you went to do inspections there

were no fish. So I am not sure about the communication procedures and processes

in place. When we look at almost half of the inspections that our department and

our people attempted to do, then there were no inspections taking place then

certainly it would cause concern.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note, we talk about our fishery, we have

talked about it a lot in this sitting of the House, all concerned that our

industry is doing well and concerned about the issues that are out there. Mr.

Speaker, there were 70,000 vessel landings of fish last year as noted in the

AG's report; 70,000 landings of fish in this Province. I would suggest that is a

pretty big part of our economy when you consider the spin-off from that, the

employment that it generates and so on, Mr. Speaker. To have 70,000 landings of

fish in Newfoundland and Labrador certainly is quite impressive. The total

weight or the total catch involved, Mr. Speaker, was just under 200 million

kilograms of fish involved. Mr. Speaker, the fishery in Newfoundland and

Labrador, for the one who might think otherwise, is certainly important to our

economy. There is just so much there.

Mr. Speaker, the concerns that the AG put forth, many things he kind of

summarized for us in terms of inadequate planning and scheduling of the

inspections in terms of going out to places where there were no fish, there were

no landings, this kind of thing. No annual inspections or work plans. The AG

said that inspection took place more on cod, for example, then on the high risk

species like shrimp and crab. It said that 42 per cent of the inspections failed

because basically there was really no direction as to where the people were

supposed to be going.

I could go on and I am sure the minister is quite aware of the Auditor

General's report and his comments as he spoke to it is that the department is

working on correcting those items. I certainly understand and respect the fact

that you cannot correct everything overnight and I am sure that the minister has

good intentions in following through on these recommendations. I would look

forward with interest to the AG's Report next year and seeing certainly an

improvement in the whole fish inspection process and the findings that have

taken place from one year to the next.

Mr. Speaker, obviously one of the items that received the least attention as

far as the Auditor General was concerned was the fact that there was only one

inspection from the seal pelt part of our fishery last year. Some 67,000 seal

pelts were taken in 2010 compared to less than 40,000 this year, as we know

but there was only one inspection that took place of all of these pelts. I would

suggest, as we are trying to rebuild an industry, an industry that served us

well for so many years, certainly we want to be a little more in tune with what

is taking place, and from an inspection point of view wanting to see what is

there for sure.

Mr. Speaker, those are my comments on this particular piece of legislation.

Again, I would suggest that fish inspection is very, very important to us in our

Province, to the industry, and these changes, I am sure, as they come in place,

will be changes that will move us forward.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

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

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 29,

An Act To Amend The

Fish Inspection Act. It is certainly something that is very important, to have a

Fish Inspection Act, which is a good act and

an act that has been continually

amended, which is a good sign that we are on top of issues. The amendments today

are especially important. They are important because they deal with maintaining

good quality of seafood and fish in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

Quality is a really important issue. If we are going to be producing, no

matter what it is we are producing whether it is seafood, whether it is

agricultural goods, whatever it is, quality is important because we are in a

global market, we are dealing with products from around the world when we are

out there trying to sell our product. It is very important that we can ensure

that the product we are producing is of top-notch quality. Both so that we can

sell it, and secondly, so that we can be sure that what we are sending out into

the market is going to be good for people, it is going to be healthy, it is not

going to in any way endanger them.

We do know, Mr. Speaker, from the wider food industry, there are many times

that products get out there into the public that are not good, are tainted, are

contaminated, and you have to have recalls done. So, the more we can make sure

that does not happen to us with regard to our seafood and fish, the better it is

both for our reputation and for the sales of our product, Mr. Speaker. The last

thing we want to have happen is to someday hear that we have a batch of crab out

there, or a batch of shrimp or whatever that has to be recalled because of

contamination. It is the last thing that we would want to happen. So far, as far

as I understand, Mr. Speaker, we have a good record but we want to maintain that

good record. It seems to me that is what this bill is all about, the bill that

we are dealing with today. I am not going to go through every part of it. The

minister explained it and my colleague for The Straits & White Bay North has

gone through it in quite an amount of detail, but there are some things that I

want to reference that I am glad to see.

First of all, of course, I am glad to see that not only do we have inspection

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: - but that the new bill, Mr. Speaker, is recommending changes

that will make sure that we have effective enforceability of our act. It is no

sense having inspectors out there who do not have the power and authority to do

their inspection and to act on what they find. Of course, that is what this bill

does. The first step of designating the fish inspectors as peace officers gives

them a power that they have never had before. It puts them into the legal arm of

government, Mr. Speaker, and they have the ability to not only inspect but to

make sure that what they find is brought into the criminal system. The fact that

they have the powers of search and seizure is extremely important because if

they find something, they need to be able to take what they find in order to

have proof of what they have discovered. If they find a contaminated product, it

is not enough for them to go out and say we have found it, they have to show

that they found it. The search and seizure allows for that to happen, Mr.

Speaker. Then, that product and the evidence can be brought by the inspection

officer straight into the legal system as the person or persons are charged with

the criminal act.

It is extremely important that we have this legislation in order to make sure

that our inspections and the system of inspection is effective. Effective is not

just being able to do the searching, not just being able to seize but also to be

able to bring the issue into the criminal system and to make sure that the rules

are enforced.

The other thing about this act that is extremely important, Mr. Speaker, it

does not have to do so much with the inspection officers but does have to do

with what happens to those who get caught. I think it is important that people

who have been caught, people who have broken the law, who have a product that is

not a safe product, once they are found guilty, have to pay for the infraction.

Under this new bill, under

section 8.(5) we find that, "Where a person is

convicted of an offence under this Act or the regulations or of a violation of a

condition of a licence issued under this Act or the regulations, the judge by

whom he or she is convicted may, in addition to a penalty imposed under this

Act, (

a) order that the (

i) fish or marine plants, or containers or cartons of

them, by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, be

forfeited to the Crown and disposed of as the minister directs".

I will not go through all of the bill, what happens is that the product goes

to the Crown and then the Crown takes care of the disposing; also any costs that

are incurred, as the Crown does that, have to be paid by the person who has been

found guilty. The money that comes because of that then goes into the

Consolidated Revenue Fund of government. This is extremely important, Mr.

Speaker, that not only are they penalized but that the product is taken

completely away from them, going to the Crown and being disposed of. So, there

is no chance that the product at any point can get used before or after the

person or persons are found guilty.

Mr. Speaker, it is an important bill. One of the things that it relates to

and I want to mention as I stand this afternoon is to once again talk about the

importance of the marketing of our product. This is an issue that I have brought

up a number of times on the floor of the House and want to use this opportunity

to do it again, because marketing is what we need. We have a good product; we

know that we have good fish. Any of us who eat the fish and the seafood from our

waters knows what a wonderful product we have

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A certain level of discussion is to be expected, I believe, in the House as

members carry out their duties. I would ask members to keep the volume to a

minimal, or to bring those discussions outside the House.

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

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

I am talking about the need for marketing and that having a good product

means that we have something to be really proud of. We are proud of our product,

but this bill allows us to be even prouder of our product and make sure that as

we move forward with putting a marketing arm in place I keep saying this to

the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture that he says he is committed to a

marketing arm. Once again I am saying to him: I am calling on you to make sure

that a marketing arm gets put in place, as was recommended by the MOU process;

that, as we move forward in getting a marketing arm in place, we know that we

have something we can be really proud of and have no fear in marketing, Mr.

Speaker.

The need for the marketing arm has been demonstrated. It was demonstrated

through the MOU process. It is being called upon. The government did try at one

point to get it. I think the way in which they tried to do it failed. I do have

a great hope now, and I said this to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture

at Estimates last week, that because the MOU process recommended the marketing

arm, the will is there now with all sides, with all parties and with all

stakeholders, to make sure that we put a marketing arm in place. If we are going

to operate on the level of the companies and the stakeholders in the EU, the

United States, and the rest of Canada especially the EU, Mr. Speaker we have

to make sure that we are out there aggressively marketing our product. The

stronger we can make legislation, like the Fish Inspection Act, the more we can

with assurance go out there and market our product.

I encourage this minister to please become more aggressive with regard to

getting a marketing arm in place, just as we have marketed our Province. The

Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation stood today in the House and spoke

strongly about how wonderful it is, and I agree with him, that we got awards for

our Web site that is now the new Web site, updated again, that is on-line with

regard to marketing our Province under tourism. We need the same aggression and

we need the same resources going into marketing our fishery, Mr. Speaker.

I do challenge the government. I have said already in the House, and I am

saying it again while we are still under the aegis of the Budget being

discussed, that this government is speaking with its dollars. We have in the

Budget for this year $64.7 million for Tourism, Culture and Recreation, and only

$44.6 million to Fisheries and Aquaculture. To me, this is a sign that the

government does not have faith in this fishery as an economic base in this

Province. This is something that I am challenging them on, Mr. Speaker. We need

to know that this government has faith in this fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: The very fact is, Mr. Speaker, we find in the line item in

the Budget to deal with quality assurance that the government has made a big

drop in revenue with regard to putting money into quality assurance. It is not

enough to have better inspection. It is not enough to give power to the

inspectors. We also want to make sure that where they are ensuring that there is

not something for them to find, that money does go into quality assurance. We

also have to put money into the marketing, which we are not doing.

We obviously have the expertise to market. We have learned how to market this

Province, and there is no doubt that is working. Well, just imagine if part of

marketing the Province was also marketing the fishery as part of tourism and

culture as well, marketing the fact that we have these wonderful fishing

communities, Mr. Speaker, marketing that we still do have that culture there. It

is not just pictures on our wall. That we do have people still fishing. The

boats may be different but they are still there doing the work. This is the work

that we have to do, Mr. Speaker, this is the work this government has to do.

What we have here today in Bill 29 is a really good piece of getting

wonderful, quality product, Mr. Speaker, making sure that we continue to have

quality products. Also, it gives us assurance that we have something that we can

stand proudly on the global stage and say it is there, it is something you will

enjoy, and we are giving you reasons to want to buy our product.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to approve this bill; I will

be voting for it obviously. I thank the minister for bringing these amendments

to the floor.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture speaks

now he will close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We get to the collegiality of the House and then it happens, Mr. Speaker. We

spoke about this piece of legislation, and I was fine with all the comments and

I do not want to get into the politics of it, Mr. Speaker, but I just cannot let

the comment go.

The Leader of the NDP somehow alluded to, that we do not make a commitment to

the fishery. I have to shake my head, Mr. Speaker. I have to shake my head,

because I try not to get into these types of debates but you are driven there

sometimes. Just to speak to that, since we have been in government, Mr. Speaker,

the budget of this department has increased fivefold.

Mr. Speaker, the budget for the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture is

more than the other three Atlantic Provinces combined. For the life of me, I

cannot see how anybody can get up and say that we, as a government, are not

committed to the fisheries. That is kind of like saying that people in the

Province are not committed to the fishery. This Province

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Stay and listen to him.

MR. JACKMAN: I hear a voice behind me, Mr. Speaker. I hear a voice behind

me.

Mr. Speaker, this Province, while the oil and the resources are there, no one

will ever be able to detach the water and the fish from the blood that runs

through the veins of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They never will, never,

never will.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: The biggest challenge we have in this Province, Mr. Speaker,

is that at some point industry will come together and do what needs to be done

to make this fishery right, or the forces of business and everything else will

lead that way and we will just follow along. What we need to do in this

Province, we need to take the leadership. I have said this over and over again;

government cannot do it by themselves.

Now, the aquaculture industry in this Province is one example where industry

and government have worked together. That sector of our department is growing in

leaps and bounds. Look to the Coast of Bays region, look to where it will be in

the future, but it is because industry and government are working together. I

look for the day when the wild fishery will see the same type of co-operation

and leadership from the industry. Government is there to support and facilitate

that. So, for the Leader of the NDP to get up and be critical of government as

to its role and our commitment to the fishery is just unbelievable, and I have

to shake my head from time to time, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, back to the legislation, some of the questions that were proposed. I

would like to inform that we do have thirty-three inspectors in the Province.

The number of landing ports in this Province is an issue; there is no doubt

about it.

In response to both parties, I have written both the ASP and the FFAW, and

this is one of the points that I have asked them to consider. Is there a way in

this Province, that we can reduce the number of landing sites? Because, Mr.

Speaker, you could double the number of inspectors, and with the number of

landing sites that we have in the Province edging up toward 500, to get the

number of inspectors to all these sites, you know what that entails and the

distance that is covered throughout the Province. . Consider, for example, cod.

At point A, you could have one fisherman in that community that day who lands

500 pounds of cod. An inspector might have to travel three hours to get to that

particular point and arrive there and hear that another three hours away we have

another individual who has gone fishing and lands that cod. So getting those

inspectors around to all of these sites is a challenge, there is no doubt about

it. The department works as hard as it can to get to these sites.

The other species, crab and shrimp, the volume that gets landed, in

particular crab in a tight season, if I could say that, and these two species

where issues can arise; that is one of the two areas that we concentrate the

number of inspections and thus we have people on-site pretty regularly there.

To the Member for The Straits & White Bay North who raised the issue around

seal inspection, I have information from staff that there was in fact more than

one inspection done. It was a database issue whereby inspections were logged but

did not get entered and we are reviewing that particular system.

Mr. Speaker, to conclude, this legislation, as the Member for The Straits &

White Bay North indicated, is really housekeeping, but it is the basis of the

act that is important. I went to Brussels a little while ago and to realize that

we produce 0.1 per cent of the seafood globally tells you where we are in that

larger picture and the importance of making sure that we do provide the best

quality product that we can.

We are no longer of the day where we are confined to just Newfoundland and

Labrador. I contend and I will say this, and it is a very sensitive area, the

issues that arise and the disputes that arise every spring in this Province are

now spread throughout the world via Internet. The news that gets reported as to

the dispute that we recently had and thank God it is settled around lobster

and those that arise, the minute they hit the airwaves they are gone into the

global media and into the global seafood market. I contend that it does create

problems and it damages our industry. I go back to the point where we finally,

somewhere along the way, have to get industry to work together and work with

government so that we avoid those types of situations.

I conclude by saying, Mr. Speaker, that the staff at the Department of

Fisheries and Aquaculture is very committed to this, to the issues that were

raised by the AG. We continually work to provide the best quality product that

we can and that is what strengthening this legislation is about.

Thank you to all of those who participated in the debate and thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 29,

An Act To

Amend The Fish Inspection Act, 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 Fish Inspection Act. (Bill 29)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time.

When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act", read a second

time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 29)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call from the Order Paper, Order 3, Second Reading of Bill

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration

Act". (Bill 21)

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

Board.

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, that Bill 21,

An Act To

Amend The Revenue Administration Act be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 21,

An Act To Amend The

Revenue Administration Act be now read a second time.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This particular bill, Mr. Speaker, is

An Act To Amend The Revenue

Administration Act, and the part of the act that we are dealing with is the

mining taxes and the mineral rights taxes

section of the Revenue Administration

Act.

Hon. Members may recall that at one time the tax legislation of the Province

was in different pieces of legislation. The gasoline tax had its own

legislation. The payroll tax, which is really known as the Health and

Post-Secondary Education Tax Act, had its own legislation. The gasoline tax had

its own legislation and a number of years ago it was decided that all of the

taxes that are administered by the Province would be combined or consolidated in

one piece of legislation, having the same rules, the same enforcement

provisions, the same appeal provisions. That was passed in this particular

House.

The other taxes of the Province, our personal income taxes and our corporate

income taxes and the HST are administered for the Province by the Government of

Canada, by the Canada Revenue Agency which administers those taxes and collects

those taxes and then remits them to the Province. We are seeking approval today

to amend the Revenue Administration Act to make several technical changes

relating to the mining tax.

I have said earlier in this House that the mining industry is certainly

sizzling. Certainly up in Labrador West, certainly up in Happy Valley-Goose Bay,

and certainly on the Baie Verte Peninsula. We are seeing rejuvenation after the

recession, a tremendous demand coming out of the emerging economies like China,

Brazil, and India for commodities such as our oil and such as our minerals; a

tremendous demand.

I just noticed in the Estimates that mining taxes and royalties for the year

2010-2011 were $225 million, and for this year, 2011-2012, the mining taxes and

royalties are forecast to be about $350 million. We have certainly come a long

way. I do not have the actual figures for what was in the Budget forecast for

2010-2011, but if memory serves me I think it was less than $100 million because

of the low demand caused by the recession.

There has been a major rejuvenation, a major comeback. The economy is

sizzling. The mining industry is sizzling. There is lots exploration going on.

As a result of that, as a result of increasing demands coming from China,

Brazil, India and places like that we are seeing revenues, a revenue increase as

well. That is what happens when the economy is doing well. When the economy is

doing well the fiscal capacity of the Province improves because revenues start

coming in, people are working, they are paying more taxes, businesses make

money, they pay more taxes and the treasury of the Province benefits.

I have said here before that some tremendous debates have taken place in this

Legislature; debates about the repatriation of the assets of Abitibi to the

people of this Province, debates about the Upper Churchill, debates about the

Lower Churchill, tremendously interesting debates. This will not be one of them,

I do not believe, because it is basically technical amendments.

I would ask Joe and Martha to go and get a cup of tea at this point in time,

Joe Chesterfield. This might be a good time to get a cup of tea.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MARSHALL: For people who are interested I can tell you that the

mining and mineral rights tax legislation is a generic tax. That means it

applies to all mining operations that exist in the Province except for those

projects that had a previous agreement.

Honourable members should be aware that sometimes for major projects a

specific agreement is entered into between the developer and the government.

These are one-off agreements. Eventually government gets around to preparing

generic legislation or generic regulations that will apply to all people and all

other developers in the future. We have seen that in the oil and gas industry

and we have seen it in the mining industry.

There are a number of companies up in Labrador West - I think Javelin may be

one of them and Wabush Mines may be another - that has their own agreement

relating to taxes. Then the legislation was brought in, in this House, to impose

a generic tax that will apply to all mining operations in the Province, other

than those that have their own private agreements. Consequently, the amendments

we are talking about today will apply to all mine operators under this act,

other than companies such as IOCC, Wabush Mines, and others that happen to be

governed by separate legislation.

Now, we call this Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act. While they are referred

to as taxes, in reality we are talking about royalties here, the royalties on

mineral resources similar to the royalties that are paid by the oil companies to

the government for the oil that comes out of the ground. Whether it is oil or

whether it is minerals, they both provide a share of the economic rent as it

relates to the Province's ownership of the resource. Economic rent essentially

is the return gain from an economic resource above the factors of production.

What it means is that a company that operates in this Province will pay

income taxes just like any other company, any mining company or any oil and gas

company. In addition, because they are taking out of the ground an asset that is

owned by the people of this Province, they have to pay another tax known as a

royalty, which is usually a percentage of the value of what they take out of the

ground. In terms of the oil industry, it is a percentage of the value of a

barrel of oil; in the mining industry, it is the value of the minerals coming

out at the opening of the mine.

For mineral resources, we are attempting to extract a royalty based on the

value of minerals at the pit's mouth that is in excess of the cost of

production. Now, this tax or this royalty is not designed to take a share of the

profits from value-added activity such as processing that might take place.

Consequently, the act does allow deductions for processing activities and

provides incentives for processing and smelting in the Province in order to work

back to get the value of the minerals coming out at the pit's mouth. Like

offshore royalties, mining taxes are in addition to income tax and are a

deductible expense of the calculation of income tax. So, the mining taxes or

royalties are paid in addition to the income tax, as I said previously.

The term mining and mineral rights tax, there are two different types of

events from which we are extracting Crown royalties or a tax. The first

component is a tax on the mining operations in the Province. There is an

effective 16 per cent tax on a mine operator; however, that tax is reduced if

the mine operator pays what is called a non-Crown royalty, such as a net smelter

royalty, to another person. I understand that the person who may discover the

mineral, they usually assign it to a larger exploration company, or a junior

mining company, and will receive, in return, something called a net smelter

royalty. Now, this non-Crown royalty gives rise to the second component of the

tax, which is the mineral rights tax. The mineral rights tax is imposed at the

rate of 20 per cent on the recipient of a non-Crown royalty. This will ensure

the government gets its share of the economic grant that is generated by the

royalty holder.

So, this is the general thrust of the legislation in simplified terms,

perhaps oversimplified terms. We do attempt to impose government's royalty based

on the value of the mineral at the pit's mouth but, in practice, seldom is the

product actually sold at the pit's mouth. The product is often further processed

by the mine operator, but it can also be processed by another corporation that

is not operating at arms length from the operator and I will say more about

that later.

The Revenue Administration Act received Royal Assent in 2009. As I said, all

of our provincially administered taxes were consolidated under this act, with

common

definitions and with common administrative and enforcement procedures.

Part VII of the Revenue Administration Act imposes the mining and mineral rights

tax substantially as it had existed in the legislation of 2002. One of the items

in the bill that is before the House today will fix a minor error created in the

transition from the old act to the new act when the act was consolidated in

2009, while other items in the amendment address technical issues identified

since the coming into force of the 2002 legislation. I will address these items

as they appear in the amendment.

Now, the first clause is clause 1. In this clause we are seeking simply to

amend the definition of an operator for the purposes of mining tax. An operator

is currently defined in the act as a person who has the right to extract

minerals, carries on a mining operation on or under the lands within the

Province. So that is a person who has the right to extract the minerals. That

means that person probably has a licence or a lease from the government and has

the legal right to take the minerals out of the land. Now, there may be

situations, of course, in the Province where somebody is extracting minerals

from the land who does not have the right to do so, that person may not have a

licence and they may not have a lease. In those situations under the current

legislation, the Province does not have the legal authority to impose a tax. The

change that we are requesting would simply allow government to impose a mining

tax on all mining operations in the Province, whether or not that person holds a

proper mining lease to extract the minerals. This will ensure that the Province

will receive the revenue from all mining operations that are carried on within

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The second amendment, or the second clause I should say, set out in clause 2

of the legislation, is a very important one and it is with respect to something

called contemporaneous documentation. The amendment that government is seeking

is to require that operators that are dealing with non-arms length persons,

which would include persons or companies that are related or associated such as

a parent company, a subsidiary company or a sister company as I said, you

could have the minerals sold at the pit's mouth to a company that the mining

operator is not dealing with at arms length. We are requiring that that person

prepare and provide to the Department of Finance documentation that supports the

prices they are using for intercompany transactions. This documentation would

have to be prepared at the time the negotiation of price takes place. That is

contemporaneously and not at a future date when it is required to be submitted

to the department for review.

The federal Income Tax Act of Canada contains requirements for Canadian

corporations to keep contemporaneous documentation for transactions with foreign

affiliates; however, there is nothing in the Income Tax Act that requires that

this type of contemporaneous documentation be prepared for interprovincial

transactions. The purpose of the amendment in clause 2 of the bill is going to

build on the information requirements that are already contained in the federal

act. This amendment will assist in ensuring that non-arms length intercompany

transactions are recorded at fair market value so that, in turn, the company

will pay its fair share of mining taxes to the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the next clause is clause 3.(1), mining taxes paid cannot be

deducted when determining the amount of the mining taxes payable; however, other

taxes that are imposed under the Revenue Administration Act, for example the gas

tax, or the health and post-secondary education tax, or the retail sales tax,

they are intended to be deductible expenses in determining mining tax liability.

The Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act specifically excluded, and I quote, a "tax

imposed under this Act" in the calculation of net income, specifically

precluding the deduction of mining tax or mineral rights tax as a deduction for

mining tax. During the consolidation of the Revenue Administration Act, this

provision was carried over with no change. The result gave an unintended effect

that all taxes levied by the Revenue Administration Act being non-deductible

when determining mining taxes payable. This was clearly not the intent. Taxes

such as gasoline tax, as long as they were incurred in mining operations are an

allowable deduction in the calculation of a net income. Unfortunately, this was

missed when the legislation was reviewed back in 2002 and this amendment seeks

to correct this unintended error as contained in the act by specifying a tax

imposed under this part. In other words, mining tax is not deductible. It is

also proposed to amend the act retroactive to May 28, 2009, to limit the

application of this

section to mining taxes calculating net income.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to

section 3.(2), an amendment will also be made to

specifically exclude research and development expenses when determining net

income. Allowable expenses include all expenses directly attributable to and

reasonably incurred in mining operations and in the processing and smelting.

Although research and development are certainly important to the m