PDF Version

May 9, 2013

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLVII No. 18

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we will have members' statements from the Member for

the District of Bonavista South; the Member for the District of Port de Grave;

the Member for the District of Signal Hill Quidi Vidi; the Member for the

District of The Straits White Bay North; the Member for the District of St.

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

The Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLE: Mr. Speaker, hon. colleagues, I rise in this House today to

congratulate the members of the Bonavista-Trinity Minor Hockey Association Under

15 female team, who reside in the District of Bonavista South.

The girls took home the B Division Banner after winning the championship

during a recent tournament that took place in Grand Falls-Windsor over March 24

weekend of this year. With one loss, two wins and a tie, the team made it to the

finals where they beat out Deer Lake with a score of 6-2.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLE: This achievement was the result of hard work, many hours of

practice, and strong leadership from Coaches Dan O'Brien and Jamie Linthorne,

and Manager Angela Cooper.

Members of the team include Rebecca Warren, Lauren O'Driscoll, Stephanie

O'Driscoll, Samantha Linthorne, Katelyn Templeman, Kacie Mouland, Katie

Cullimore, Victoria Strickland, Emily O'Brien, Emily Harris, Samantha Ryan,

Morgan Cooper, and Amy Feehan. I would like to point out that nine of these

players are only twelve and thirteen years old.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating each of these young ladies on

their recent success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to congratulate both the Ascension Collegiate Astros Female Ball

Hockey and Cheerleading Teams on their recent provincial championships.

What a week for this regional high school. First, the Astros Girls Ball

Hockey Team went undefeated to win the Provincial 4A Female Ball Hockey

competition by defeating the Mount Pearl Huskies 4-3 in the final. With only

fifty-three seconds remaining, Captain Chelsea Bradbury scored to give the host

Astros the crown a fitting end for the graduating student. Natalie Keeping

with a pair and Brooke Williamson were the other goal scorers.

Next up was the Cheerleading Team who for the last few years have been

knocking on the door but always falling a few points short of the provincial

crown. Not this year, noted coach, Kerilynn Mercer, "the girls knew they had a

routine worthy of first place, so they pulled up their socks and proved they

deserved to win." Their second performance was flawless; edging St. Kevin's of

the Goulds for the provincial crown. Danielle St. Croix was awarded the $1,000

NLCA Scholarship for her outstanding leading and academic achievement and Rachel

Petten was the team's MVP.

I ask all members to join with me and congratulate these provincial female

champions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am happy to rise in this House today to salute the 100 volunteers who

worked together to make the Holy Heart of Mary Safe Grad such a success this

year.

Offering our high school graduates a safe and fun place to celebrate their

accomplishments is a relatively new tradition that I applaud wholeheartedly, as

my colleague from St. John's North did yesterday.

This year, Holy Heart was transformed with a Dr. Seuss theme. From a jousting

arena to fortune tellers, airbrush tattoos, movies and more, the 283 graduating

students and their guests had a truly unforgettable night.

In the months leading up to the event, more than $5,000 in goods, services,

and cash was donated. A total of thirty-one individuals and companies made

donations to Holy Heart's Safe Grad, including two gold sponsors Orthodontic

Associates and Verico East Coast Mortgage Brokers.

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

committee members: Helen Cleary-Escott, Doris Cowley, Sandra Dobbin, Anna Katic

Duffy, Karen Kennedy, Arthur Leung, Cathy Leung, Lucy McDonald, Brenda Murphy,

Corrine Parrell, Jill Seviour, and Tina Walsh.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate St. Anthony Basin

Resources Inc., better known as SABRI, on another successful year of operating

on the Great Northern Peninsula.

SABRI is a brilliant example of the good things that can happen when

communities have greater control of their resources. It is a pillar of the local

economy and could be a model of change all through the Province. SABRI's annual

general meeting was held last Friday. The crowd in attendance learned how much

local administration of the resource has given back to the communities. This

year alone: $150,000 to the Grenfell Foundation; $100,000 to the St. Anthony

Port Authority; $12,400 in scholarships and bursaries; and almost $50,000 in

youth recreation grants and other community donations.

In addition, SABRI has invested in fishery initiatives and maintains

successful aquaculture operations.

Congratulations to the executive: Wayne Noel, Paul Dunphy, Roy Taylor, Todd

Hedderson, and Dale Colbourne; the directors: Wilfred Aylward, Carl Hedderson,

Sterling Dawe, Dean Patey, Alick Pilgrim, Peter Hughes, Jim Pilgrim, Eric Boyd,

Lester Bessey, and Alvohn Pilgrim; and the administrative staff: Sam Elliott,

Glenda Burden, and Alicia Shears.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating SABRI for demonstrating

so successfully an alternative development model.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House today to commend a constituent of mine who, while

fighting his own fight against cancer, started a fundraising effort to help

everyone else in St. John's in the same situation that he found himself in.

Brian Duggan spent a week in 4NA at the Health Sciences, the inpatient cancer

care ward at the Health Sciences Centre, and, of course, long hours in the

chemotherapy suite at the H. Bliss Murphy Cancer Care Centre.

He has nothing but good to say about the staff, but found the surroundings a

little bit daunting, to say the least, with harsh florescent lighting and

outdated televisions. Brian Duggan appealed to his friends with an online

campaign called Help Make the Chemotherapy Suite a Comforting Place to Receive

Treatment, to, as he put it, "make this place of both suffering and hope a place

where patients receiving some powerful dreadful treatments can do so in an

environment of calm serenity."

His original goal of $3,500 was reached so quickly that he expanded the

appeal to include some warm touches to 4NA.

I ask all hon. members to join me in thanking my constituent and friend,

Brian Duggan, for both his compassion and his strength.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to congratulate Hazelwood Elementary for organizing a Literacy

Day. I was joined today by the Member for Mount Pearl North, the Member for

Kilbride, and the Member for St. John's North as well.

I was honoured to read at Ms Butler's Grade 2 class today as part of their

literacy day celebrations. Myself and the class enjoyed Poindexter Makes a

Friend .

Literacy day is a great reminder that we need to read to our own children and

teach them the importance of good literacy skills. I would like to acknowledge

all of the volunteers who attended the event and thank the school for allowing

us to play a role in today's worthwhile event.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to reference a report released by BMO yesterday that

states, in referencing our economy, that "the recurring theme for Newfoundland

and Labrador is consistent strength."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: The report highlights continued consumer and business

confidence and demonstrates how prudent fiscal management by the provincial

government and investments in equity shares in projects such as Muskrat Falls

and Hebron are benefiting residents of our Province now and into the future.

Mr. Speaker, our government will continue to encourage private sector

investment to stimulate further growth in all regions of our Province, support

our local companies, attract external investors to encourage new business

activity, and provide a competitive tax regime. This report, along with

discussions with economists, has confirmed what we have known for some time

that there has never been a better time to live, work or raise a family in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

BMO noted in its report that construction and capital investment activity

have been key economic drivers in the Province in recent years, and growth is

expected to remain solid this year. Investment in the oil and gas sector is

expected to increase by 83 per cent as construction of the Hebron Project ramps

up.

The report also highlighted that the jobless rate sits near a record low, and

that average weekly earnings growth is also strong, supporting personal incomes

and consumer spending. Newfoundland and Labrador retailers, Mr. Speaker, have

enjoyed some of the strongest growth in Canada over the past year. The report

states that with ongoing projects, the future is definitely bright in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, BMO also noted that projects such as Muskrat

Falls and Hebron are leading to contracts for work, and people are seeing the

benefits of that. It is encouraging to have an independent source confirm the

consistent strength of our economy, and to highlight increased consumer

confidence.

Our government remains focused on the Province's long-term prosperity by

encouraging job creation, strong communities, a vibrant economy and natural

resource development that is of maximum benefit to Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. Through sound fiscal management and responsible decisions, we are

strengthening the business environment, encouraging the development of

innovative industries, and diversifying the economy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement today.

Certainly, as he mentioned there about Hebron and Muskrat Falls, I will say the

final

chapter on Muskrat Falls, of course, has yet to be told as cost overruns

can have a significant financial impact on Muskrat Falls' development. It is

very important as we work through that development that we continue to monitor

the progress there. Then, indeed, once it is completed, we will determine if it

was a good equity investment or not.

I will say that the attraction of equity investors or external investors from

outside is extremely important. We have seen that in particular in Labrador

right now. What is also important is that we make sure we maximize all the

benefits from our resource economy, which does not necessarily mean just

primary, but also secondary processing in our Province.

As you experience an emerging economy or a strong economy, I would say, Mr.

Speaker, there are also many social issues you have to deal with. No matter

where you go in this Province now, in Labrador or if it is in this area, and

throughout the Province, many people living here are experiencing many of the

social problems with affordable housing and we are seeing drug use on the rise.

We must continue to be vigilant about our social programs and make sure we put

the proper programs in place to deal with those social issues.

I was expecting, too, Mr. Speaker, the minister would give reference to the

fact that it was a previous Liberal Administration that signed a lot of those

resource deals that put us in the financial position we are in today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I am afraid all I

have to say, Mr. Speaker, is spin, spin, spin. His statement is a typical

example of how government uses information to suit their own purposes.

As an example, Mr. Speaker, nowhere does BMO's report link

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: government's equity share in Muskrat Falls and Hebron with

the economic trend, though they do mention the projects. Neither does the report

talk about this Province getting into diversification of the economy because

they are not diversifying the economy.

The minister, though, states, "there has never been a better time to live,

work or raise a family in Newfoundland and Labrador."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, that may be true, unless you have been fired

from your job by this government

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: unless you are a student trying to get into an ABE course

to improve your employment chances, unless you are hoping to piece your life

back together through the Family Violence Intervention Court, or unless any

other of the tens of thousands hurt by government's brutal Budget includes you.

That is when you find what he is saying is not true, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in this hon. House to highlight an

initiative that engages youth in innovative activities throughout Newfoundland

and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: In December of last year, the provincial government

invited proposals for projects that support and promote youth innovation and

contribute to valuable learning experiences for our Province's students in

Grades K-12 and those enrolled in our past-secondary institutions. These

projects relate to science, technology and engineering and identify

opportunities in a number of strategic sectors, such as digital media, ocean

technology and the green economy.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that we received a significant number

of Youth Innovation Project proposals, all of which reflected our goal of

creating awareness among youth of the tremendous opportunities that exist in our

great Province. I am pleased to announce our government has invested $422,000 in

support of twenty-four projects under this initiative.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: This morning, I had the opportunity to visit Hazelwood

Elementary, one of the schools which will benefit through this initiative.

Students at Hazelwood will be introduced to learning technologies that will

enhance core-curriculum learning for early learners through the use of iPads.

Other schools which will receive finding include: All Hallows Elementary,

Amalgamated Academy, Beachy Cove Elementary, Brother Rice, Carbonear Collegiate,

Fatima Academy, Holy Redeemer, Holy Trinity Elementary, Immaculate Conception,

Mobile Central High, St. Peter's Elementary, Virginia Park Elementary, First

Technology, Stephenville High (with Gonzaga, Ecole St. Anne, Queen Elizabeth

Regional High, Exploits Valley High), Helen Tulk Elementary, New World Island

Academy, St. Joseph's Elementary, Heritage Collegiate, St. Mark's, Peacock

Primary, Humber Elementary, J.J. Curling, St. Anthony and Area Boys and Girls

Club.

Mr. Speaker, since the initial call for proposals in 2009, the provincial

government has invested close to $1.8 million in 104 projects that support youth

innovation.

Mr. Speaker, our youth's ability to find creative solutions, use leading-edge

technologies and produce adaptive solutions is indeed inspiring. Our government

is committed to supporting youth who represent a bring future for Newfoundland

and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I congratulate the

minister on this initiative. It is indeed an excellent initiative. It is a great

move forward. It is one of the ways the Innovation, Business and Rural

Development can benefit our Province. This is the innovation part, and today in

response I would like to talk a little bit about young people and the business

part.

Nearly twenty-five years ago, I had an opportunity to spend a year as a

Junior Achiever's consultant and I would really encourage the minister to

advance the initiative of Junior Achievers through all of the high schools

possible in our Province. Young people need role models. They do not see many

role models in business because they are not exposed to business at an early

age.

I would really encourage the minister to take this initiative with innovation

and move forward with more of a business model and introduce Junior Achievers

through as many high schools as he can in our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. We live in

technological times, and the tech sector certainly provides tremendous returns.

These are very progressive initiatives that were developed by youth and it

highlights their creative ideas to pair with tech. I just want to highlight that

there is still about forty rural schools that do not have broadband access and

we have to move forward to bridge that gap.

It is positive to see the uptake of this program but it does, however,

reflect that the demand outweighs the supply. Are there ways to partner with NATI, JA, WISE, NLOWE, Youth

Ventures, and business to seek outside investments with an aim to double the

amount of projects offered next year ?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Even though bumping as the result of government cuts was supposed to be

completed last week, the President of NAPE said that it will take months before

this bumping is finalized. There are over eighty grievances that have been filed

and that number continues to grow each day, bringing public service in this

Province, the morale in public service to an all-time low.

I ask the Premier: It is obvious that the entire layoff process is a mess, so

what are you going to do to help ease the stress that you have created within

the public service?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously the layoffs have resulted in some confusion in terms of people

losing their jobs. There is a human impact on that, and we are aware of that;

however, again, I am always disheartened at the attacks on our civil servants by

members of the Opposition, whichever party.

We had people, Mr. Speaker, who worked day and night to try to facilitate the

release of Records of Employment, to try to ensure that people receive the money

they receive. Bumping is a result of a collective agreement, Mr. Speaker; it is

there in the collective agreement. It has to be followed. So the fact that the

President of NAPE says something certainly must mean it is true.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I want to clarify something to the minister, really, that we do value

our public employees. We value them a lot, and we know that it is very obvious

that in those recent Budget cuts that the planning did not go in place for what

we are dealing with here today.

Government actually lifted the hiring freeze one week ago, as it was believed

that the bumping process was actually winding down. Now we hear that this

process will be dragged out and will be going on for months. It is obvious that

the government has no plan to deal with the fallout of these drastic cuts and

are not treating its public servants with the respect that they deserve. In the

Budget Speech you promised that the process would be handled professionally and

carefully.

How does allowing it to drag on for months and months and months fulfill this

commitment?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The only disrespect being shown is by the Leader of the Opposition, the way

he continuously criticizes, whether it is members of the Finance Department or

in this case the people who are working hard in the Human Resource Secretariat

to ensure that people are provided with the services they need.

I can interpret the comments as nothing other than an attack on the ability

of these people to do their job, Mr. Speaker. As a minister, what I do is the

policies are there, we say implement the policies.

These people have worked hard from the Clerk on down to ensure that people

are treated with dignity and respect. The lack of respect shown by the Leader of

the Opposition is quite startling, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to leave that alone to the minister

right now. I want to ask him if this situation that I am going to refer to

walking into somebody's office the last minute, handing over the keys. Is that

indeed professionalism? Is that respectful? Is that caring? That is what your

government did, Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister.

Is that respectful and professionalism, I ask the minister?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I have said on numerous occasions, if there is an incident that occurred

that should not have occurred where someone was not treated properly, please

provide us with the details, we will certainly investigate the same. Mr.

Speaker, the individuals who were laid off were, to the best of my knowledge,

tried to be dealt with on an individual basis.

There were discussions, there was money set aside for the Employment

Assistance counsellors to deal with people, Mr. Speaker. People were working

overtime to try to ensure that Records of Employment were provided to people in

time to ensure that they receive their benefits.

Has the process gone perfectly? I cannot say that. What I can say is that the

people who have tried to implement this process, the people who are working hard

to treat their former fellow employees with respect and dignity, Mr. Speaker,

have done the best they can. If there are individual details please provide it

and we will check into it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can assure the minister the process has not gone perfectly. After six years

of broken promises and $140,000 in consultations, yesterday in Estimates of

Advanced Education and Skills, it was revealed that the Strategic Adult Literacy

Plan is now outdated.

I ask the minister: How can you blame the cost and the graduation rates of

ABE at the College of the North Atlantic on the College of the North Atlantic

when you do not even have a blueprint for the Adult Literacy Plan?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the whole premise around developing a literacy plan

government's role was to be a facilitator and a collector of information. The

actual people who are engaged in those discussions and who provide direction and

input into that plan and highlight strategies and priorities for the Province

are the individual practitioners out there in the Province in the communities

throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. Whether they work at the College of the

North Atlantic or in private institutions, or whether in fact they are

individuals employed in other non-profit organizations, they are the people who

we work with on a daily basis.

This plan is not a result of government's work. As a result, the contents of

the plan, whether it is outdated or needs to be revised is not a result of

anything that government has done wrong. It is a collective effort and we will

certainly revise it as we go forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: I would like to ask the minister one thing, I am not sure what

he is planning on revising because just last year on March 29, 2012 the minister

mentioned that within this fiscal year very soon almost you were going to

release the plan.

Where is the plan that you planned on releasing last year? What was that

document?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, we have invested a considerable amount of money in

this Province over the last ten years and, in particular, the last five years to

focus on educating adults throughout the Province. As the member opposite heard

us say on many occasions, the economy in Newfoundland and Labrador has never

been better, but it has also never gone through so many dynamic changes as we

have experienced with the things that are happening here on the Avalon and

throughout the Province.

As a result of that, we are dealing with a very different target population

today than we dealt with even a month ago or a year ago. The Adult Literacy Plan

and any plans that are developed and facilitated by this government have to

reflect the dynamics of the day, Mr. Speaker.

What I said in Estimates is that when we release the Adult Literacy Plan we

will revise the document we currently have and make sure it reflects the

dynamics of the day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Most people who actually develop a strategic plan, they usually have a

target. That is usually the whole idea of putting a strategic plan in place. If

you look at the issues surrounding literacy in this Province, it is not easy to

find a target, Mr. Speaker.

The government has no respect at all for consultation. They did not consult

with school boards closing, the school board amalgamation. They wasted

consultations on the Strategic Adult Literacy Plan and now they are talking

about taking their own consultant, Mr. Noseworthy, his plan, or his report with

a grain of salt. Consultations really are just token words, I say, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Are the words and interests of the public worth anything

to your government when it comes to respecting those issues? Do you take that

into account at all?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, we have demonstrated time and time again our

interest in consulting with the public on this side of the House. I remind the

member it was not so long ago that I stood here from a different capacity

talking about doing consultations on the Poverty Reduction Strategy and the

former Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair stood in her place and condemned

government for wasting money travelling throughout the Province talking to

people.

I remind the member that was the position put forward by the House Leader for

the Official Opposition Party at that point in time. I am not sure if they still

stand by that position or not. When he rises in a few moments he can correct

that, but I can assure the member opposite that all members on this side of the

House are consulting on a regular basis with the public. It was not long ago

that myself, the Minister of Finance, and a number of other colleagues travelled

across the Province consulting on pre-Budget consultations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Well, I will clarify that, I say, Mr. Speaker. Consultations

can be very good. They can actually provide very valuable input into decisions

that you make as a government. It is one thing in listening and doing something

about it; it is another thing including that in the plans you are going to

produce.

For instance, after spending $150,000 on the Noseworthy report for the

Department of Advanced Education and Skills, this government said there was no

promise that those recommendations would be implemented.

I ask the minister: Why are you bothering spending hundreds of thousands of

dollars putting plans and reports in place if you do not plan to use them?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, let me congratulate the member opposite on shifting the Liberal

policy from not believing consultations are important to adopting the view of

this government, that it is important to consult people across the Province. So

I say to the member opposite, congratulations, because your thought process is

more in-line with Conservative philosophy.

I say, very much like the Member for St. Barbe who yesterday gave a speech

outlining the basic principles of moving this Province forward, which mirrored

the Budget Speech that my colleague, the Minister of Finance, gave two or three

weeks ago. So I congratulate him on that.

Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate, consultation is important but people need to

recognize consultation is to hear what people have to say. It is not for people

to tell you what to do. That is where the leadership comes in. You listen to

what people have to say, you factor that into a whole host of other pieces of

information, and then you provide leadership to make a decision.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, the different, I think, from this side of the House and the government

side of the House is when we do listen, we will listen and use, and listen to

what those people are saying. We will implement a lot of what they say into our

strategic plans. That is the difference. Your reports go on a shelf, they stay

there.

The Noseworthy report found that department does not track Adult Basic

Education students to determine if they furthered their education or made an

attachment to the labour market.

I ask the minister: How can you justify making changes to ABE programs when

cost overruns and graduation rates fall directly on the shoulders of this

department?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: I say to the member opposite, Mr. Speaker, there are a

significant number of other differences between this party and that party other

than the one he highlighted. Including the fact that the people of the Province

showed confidence in this Premier and this party enough to elect thirty-six

seats, I believe, in the last general election, based on the platform we laid

before the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, let me also remind the member opposite, that platform was laid

out there based on a set of principles that guide this government. We make

decisions on a daily basis by consulting people and incorporating that into the

data we have collected and on a set of principles.

It is not easy, Mr. Speaker. We recognize it is not easy. It is much easier

to stand and to criticize in this House because you do not have to be held

accountable for the decisions you make, but it takes strong leadership to make

the right decisions for the Province, and that is what we will continue to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, in July, 2012, the Minister of Health

indicated to Cystic Fibrosis Canada that she would consider expansion of newborn

screening to include CF. That was almost a year ago.

So I ask the minister: What concrete steps have you taken over the last year

to consider expanding newborn screening?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, cystic fibrosis is one of the areas that we have been looking at

in terms of our expert reviews and within the Department of Health and Community

Services in terms of reviews and screenings that we will cover. We do cover a

number of screenings, and there are automatic screenings of newborns that do

happen within our health care system. There are screenings that happen for any

referral for any baby who is suspected of cystic fibrosis as well.

In terms of the overall immediate screening of cystic fibrosis for newborns,

that is still under consideration, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, newborn screening for CF is the standard of

care in all fifty states, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and much of the

European Union. Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador are being dubbed hold-out

provinces, and New Brunswick and PEI are expected to follow suit in covering

screening.

I ask the minister, a child born with CF in our Province today will not have

the same chance at a healthy life as a child born virtually anywhere else in the

Western world. How much research do you need?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, just to correct those statistics over there, there are only five

provinces in Canada right now that automatically cover the screening of cystic

fibrosis.

Mr. Speaker, that is certainly not to make light of what we consider to be a

very, very serious condition. We are committed, Mr. Speaker, as we are to all of

the services that we add to our formularies, we are committed to cystic fibrosis

and taking a serious look at that.

As I said in the very first question, Mr. Speaker, any time that a doctor

refers a newborn baby because of symptoms that are presenting, for screening,

that screening immediately happens.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: I have an article, Mr. Speaker, I would like to table for

the minister's benefit. Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan, British

Columbia, Yukon, and parts of Nunavut screen newborns. Nova Scotia just

announced plans. New Brunswick and PEI are on the way. So I will table that for

the minister's benefit.

Mr. Speaker, all newborns are already screened in the Province for other

conditions. Expanding screening to include CF would be a marginal cost for a

one-time capital expense plus co-ordinator position. The savings of delaying

complications and preventing hospitalization would outweigh this preventative

investment.

I ask the minister: Why are you denying our newborns the standard of care

when it is fiscally irresponsible and morally objectionable to do so?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not need to update my notes at all, Mr. Speaker. I clearly know where

things are happening in this country and I clearly meet with people from across

this country on all of these issues.

Mr. Speaker, as with anything that we are going to add to our basket of

services in this Province we make sure that we have done our own investigations.

We are doing that.

I take serious objection to the member opposite indicating that we would deny

a service as important as screening of cystic fibrosis to the newborns of this

Province, Mr. Speaker. That is categorically untrue. If a doctor makes a

referral, that screening happens in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, there is a vessel on the bottom of the ocean

near Change Islands, which is in the District of the Minister of Fisheries, and

it has been leaking oil for weeks and weeks and maybe months.

I ask the Minister of Fisheries: Has he carried out an assessment to

determine the level of risk posed to our fishery by this oil leak in his

district?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, the issue of the oil leak has been around for a

couple of weeks. Through my colleague in the Department of Environment, we have

been fully engaged with the federal government who has responsibility to manage

that whole situation. We understand the Canadian Coast Guard is fully engaged.

There has been an assessment done, Mr. Speaker, both for short-term and

long-term solutions, and we continue to monitor as well.

In addition, I have written the federal Minister of Fisheries and had a reply

to ensure from a fisheries perspective that they continue to monitor this and

certainly request that there be a short-term and a long-term solution to this

situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, writing letters to the feds will not fix this

problem, like it will not fix search and rescue either.

Mr. Speaker, in the minister's own district there are people absolutely

concerned of what will happen to the contamination of our fishery.

I ask the Minister of Fisheries: Can he guarantee that no contaminated

seafood will enter the food chain from this Province and destroy our markets?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I have stood in this House on a number of

occasions and again indicated to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that

the federal government is fully responsible for the offshore. They have deployed

their resources to the full extent in order to take care of the immediate

danger, which is to stop that leak from coming and spewing any type of diesel

fuel or oil into the environment.

Mr. Speaker, all government departments, federal government departments are

involved. On the other side as well, we are monitoring that very, very closely

in cohorts with the Minister of Fisheries. Basically, we are satisfied that full

resources are going there. That the immediate is going to be taken care of, as

well as the long term.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

It has been over two years since government released the last update on

Justice Cameron's sixty recommendations from her 2009 report on the Commission

of Inquiry into Hormone Receptor Testing. The people of the Province have not

heard a word since that update.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: When can

people expect government to finish correcting the flaws in our health care

system that Cameron outlined?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the question as well, because

certainly the findings of the Cameron report were very important to us. We took

very seriously the recommendations that were put forward to us.

Mr. Speaker, I can report that as of now fifty-five of the sixty

recommendations are completed, or substantially complete. We have invested $43

million into those recommendations and we are very happy with the work that has

been done.

Some of the major successes that I would like to outline, and I think these

are important for the people of the Province to hear about: the Health

Professions Act has been proclaimed, laboratory technologists in Newfoundland

and Labrador have been licensed by their governing body, and an electronic

occurrence reporting system has been completed throughout the Province. One of

the major accomplishments

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

I invite the minister, since she has told us that fifty-five out of sixty are

completely or substantially completed, to table the documentation so we can see

which are all the way done and which are still in progress.

One glaring flaw that has not been fixed is Justice Cameron's recommendation

for an electronic medical records system in this Province. This is larger than

Cameron. It is a problem affecting the entire health care system. We are behind

the rest of North America in implementing this basic medical infrastructure. The

lack of an electronic medical records system has a fundamentally detrimental

effect on standards of care and practice in this Province.

I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Why has she let her department lag so far

behind in this area?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To continue on, Mr. Speaker, one of the major accomplishments has to do with

the accreditation of all of our laboratories in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I realize she is getting some help from

somebody from another party over there, but I

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to add some information to her as well around electronic health records.

Mr. Speaker, we are considered a leader in this country, one of the top three

provinces in Canada in terms of electronic health records. Mr. Speaker, these

are the components that we have already implemented in terms of electronic

health records that we are acclaimed for across this country.

The client registry

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Leader of the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I cannot use Question Period to educate the minister to the difference

between what she is talking about and what electronic medical records means in

this Province, Mr. Speaker.

Infoway Canada funds were made available for governments to put electronic

records in place.

I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: How could this

government have missed such a big opportunity to get real electronic medical

records in place?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have led the country in this area. Again, I want to tell you

what we have done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Client registry; the provider registry is in place; advanced

Telehealth, that has enabled the review of diagnostic imaging remotely; the

pharmacy network is in place; the EHR viewer is in place; the first emergency

department connection is in place and is in pilot right now in Western

Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, we have nothing to be ashamed of here. We are working forward

and we are making a difference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

We know that young doctors are coming into the health care system trained in

electronic medical records, only to find the system does not exist in their

workplace.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: How do

outdated medical technologies help with government's ongoing challenge of

recruitment and retention of doctors?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that she would give me an

opportunity to get up and talk about the retention and recruitment of doctors in

Newfoundland and Labrador, but I am certainly happy to do it.

We have the most in our history, Mr. Speaker, 1,115 doctors in Newfoundland

and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Never before have we seen these kinds of numbers in our

Province, Mr. Speaker. The numbers of specialists in this Province have been

unequalled since our last contract particularly.

Mr. Speaker, we are really happy with the recruitment work we are doing. We

are equally happy with the retention work we are doing around our doctors in

Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

School administrators have been issuing job redundancy

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker has recognized the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: job redundancy and employee layoff notices to special

education teachers because teacher allocations for next year have been reduced.

The Minister of Education has repeatedly said that classroom resources for

special education have not been cut.

How does the government square the reality of their special education teacher

cuts with the assurances they have been providing to parents?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, our investment in education has been unprecedented, a 42 per

cent increase in investments since 2003. What the hon. member speaks to is

certainly the collective agreement process in terms of NLTA and dealing with

teacher allocations. In terms of teacher allocations, we have left more teachers

in the system, even over and above the allocation system that is in place.

We continue to invest in education. We are proud of our investment. We are

going to keep doing it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education knows that special

education teachers have been getting redundancy notices and layoff notices all

week this week, yet government continues to cling to these flimsy, outdated

speaking points.

Will the minister finally admit that this government is cutting special

education teachers and saving money at the expense of our most vulnerable,

children?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have continued to invest in special education and various

other positions throughout the education system, millions and millions of

dollars. We will continue to do that.

The hon. member is speaking to collective agreements and issues in terms of

what he is referring to, but as I said, we have continued to invest in education

and certainly continue to do it. We have a strategy for that. From primary,

elementary, high school, and right to post-secondary, the investments we have

made are historic. We are going to continue to make them for the best interest

of youth in our Province so they can take advantage of the opportunities that

are in this great Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday government issued a news release proudly stating, "The Government

of Newfoundland and Labrador continues its commitment to improving energy

efficiency and responding to climate change with the development of a user guide

for building more energy efficient homes." Yet, the minister cut the Residential

Energy Efficiency Program that assists low- to moderate-income homeowners by 50

per cent, even though last year Cabinet promised to extend it for a full year.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Why did he break his promise to the people

and cut this valuable and needed program?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation and the people at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and their

partner agencies are a success story here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Just this past week, Mr. Speaker, the CEO of the Newfoundland

and Labrador Corporation was recognized nationally in Canada as a leader in

affecting and dealing with homelessness in our country and finding dynamic new

ways to provide programs.

The REEP, to which the member opposite refers to, is just one of many

programs that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing has, such as the Provincial Home

Repair Program what she is failing to tell the people, Mr. Speaker, is that

the Provincial Home Repair Program, a program that has been in Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing for thirty-five years, also deals with people improving the

environment in their home, making their homes more energy efficient by other

repairs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, as of this week the recorded message on the phone

line at the Housing Corporation for the REEP says: Thank you for calling. The

2013 REEP is now closed. No new applications are available. Clients accepted

will be notified by mail.

Mr. Speaker, the Budget has not even been passed and already that program is

spent out.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: What is he going to do to help these people

trying to make their homes more energy efficient and who were promised

assistance by this government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the Residential Energy Efficiency Program for the

people of the Province is a program that is available to families who have lower

incomes, families who have incomes of $35,000 and lower in the Province. It has

provided assistance and support now to some 4,000 households throughout

Newfoundland and Labrador, and this year another 500 households will avail of

the REEP in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Also, Mr. Speaker, many will also receive assistance from the Provincial Home

Repair Program, which I just advised, which for many years was set at $4

million. This government tripled that to $12 million, and this year it is still

two-and-a-half times what it was back just a few years ago two-and-a-half

times, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's Centre, for a quick question

without any

preamble, please.

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, what is this minister going to do to help people

who cannot get rent subsidy because of the cutbacks to the Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

quick response.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Rent Supplement Program is a great program. We are providing assistance

and support to 1,700 homes and families in Newfoundland and Labrador and we are

continuing to do that through this Budget, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in answering some of my questions with regard to electronic

medical records, the Minister of Health and Community Services seemed to be

reading directly from documentation and I would request, in doing that, would

she table the documents that she read from. You may need to verify it, but it

looked like there were documents that she was reading from, she was reading

actual statistics from. I would like those tabled.

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

point of order.

MS SULLIVAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was speaking from my own notes; they

were not documents of the department.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is appropriate for ministers, in responding to questions, to refer to

notes and reference things that may be in those notes. If ministers, in

responding to questions, read directly from a document, they are responsible for

tabling those documents. If the minister was referring to her notes and from

where I sit, in my chair, it did not appear that she was reading directly from

any kind of document but referring to her notes.

There is no point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind members that we have had a couple of occasions today when the

Speaker has been on his feet that members have not recognized that and continued

to create some disorder in the House. I remind members that when the Speaker

stands, the House is to be silent so the Speaker can address the Assembly.

Likely, the same thing when the Speaker asks for order, I would ask members to

respect the presiding officers who preside over the affairs of this House and

when asking for order, if members would return the House to order so we can

proceed with the Orders of the Day.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Question for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS students of the Adult Basic Education program at the College of the

North Atlantic do not wish to attend privatized educational facilities; and

WHEREAS College of the North Atlantic has the most accredited ABE program in

Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS students are concerned as to the availability of private institutions

and whether or not they can accommodate additional students;

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

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

this damaging decision to students and reinstate the Adult Basic Education

programming at the College of the North Atlantic.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, the petitions just keep on coming in. There are more petitions

that have come in than we could possibly rise and speak to in what is remaining

of this session of the House and probably the next too. It comes from a concern

from these students.

Petitions have come in from all over this Island, Mr. Speaker. I tend to

focus on the petitions that come in from Labrador because it is rural. I cannot

stress enough the fact that students have been accepted for Adult Basic

Education at the College of the North Atlantic, but they cannot get sponsorship

because of the and I call it mess that this government has created.

Mr. Speaker, the petition that I table today comes from the community of

Nain. One of the discussions I had with one of the students there, in terms of

talking about the position, is that they do not wish to attend private

educational facilities. I think in talking about it, this student is not

expecting privatized educational facilities to go into remote areas in this

Province.

When we look at the issues that affect remote communities, Mr. Speaker, in

terms of crime, of victims of justice delays, we look at it as a second chance

for these students to get out of some of the situations that they have become

part of, some of the not so nice things in society. Education is key in removing

a person from that situation.

They have not done it as a kid. They want this second chance, Mr. Speaker,

that right now this government has taken away from them.

Thank you.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the process of slickwater hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, injects

hazardous chemicals into rock formations to extract oil and is polluting

groundwater and the air across North America; and

potential environmental impacts of shale oil and gas extraction in Canada,

including fracking; and

WHEREAS Quebec, Nova Scotia, and a number of US States have halted fracking,

and others are introducing regulations specific to fracking; and

WHEREAS it is incumbent upon the provincial government to ensure that our

natural environment is protected from harmful industrial processes;

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

House of Assembly to urge government to impose a moratorium on slickwater

fracking until it develops comprehensive regulations and ensures that each

proposed project undergoes a conclusive environmental assessment to determine

whether it is safe for the environment, the integrity of water supplies, and

human health.

And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to present this petition on behalf of the

signatories who are all concerned about our environment, and what is happening

to it, and what can potentially happen in the near future. I also rise in the

House, too, to express not only my concern as regards to this new industry that

is coming in, but as well that there are concerns from other governmental

organizations as regards to where we are heading when it comes to fracking.

I will quote a letter from Environment Canada themselves, who have expressed

concern. They have written to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers

asking about the disclosure of chemicals, and asking these companies to disclose

what these chemicals are. We know even from little pieces like that, from news

stories I am reading around the country, that even groups like Environment

Canada, the federal government is having its own problems when it comes to

fracking.

I read in a story yesterday, in The Western Star how Stephenville is

putting the onus right now on government, for government itself to address the

concerns around fracking and leaving it in government's hands. So, it leaves one

to wonder if the provincial government here is going to actually pay attention

to this or not. We leave it in government's hands to address it.

There are an awful lot of people who are asking the same questions, including

our federal government. It just remains to be seen if our own provincial

government, Mr. Speaker, is asking those same questions and getting answers for

the people who are signing this petition.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure I present this to the House of Assembly

again today and to remind government that there are an awful lot of people who

are waiting for these new regulations to come out, and we will wait for another

little while for government to develop those.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, a petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of

the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS home care allows the elderly and people with disabilities to remain

in the comfort and security of their own homes, home care also allows people to

be discharged from hospital earlier; and

WHEREAS many families find it very difficult to recruit and retain home care

workers for their loved ones; and

WHEREAS the PC Blue Book 2011 as well as the 2012 Speech from the Throne

committed that government would develop a new model of home care and give people

the option of receiving that care from family members; and

WHEREAS government has given no time commitment for when government plans to

implement paying family caregivers;

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

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

implement a new home care model to cover family caregivers.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is from members of a number of different

communities: River of Ponds, Bellburns, Parson's Pond, and Daniel's Harbour. I

know practically all these people. The petitions keep coming. They keep coming

on this issue.

This is an issue, Mr. Speaker, that touches practically everybody. If it does

not touch a person today, it likely will tomorrow. It is absolutely critically

important that we deliver home care on a fair and equitable basis.

The government knows what is fair and equitable because they promised it.

They promised it in 2011. They promised it as something they would roll out to

get votes. They were elected, as the members were congratulating themselves

today saying how the people of Newfoundland and Labrador had elected

thirty-seven of them, well, down to thirty-six now. People had confidence in

them based on certain promises they made, certain representations they made, and

this was one of the promises.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, government knows well this is needed, it is

appropriate, it is reasonable. An allocation has even been made in this year's

Budget. The request is simple: just get on with it and satisfy the promise you

made.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS residents of Newfoundland and Labrador have not been provided with

detailed evidence providing justification for government's decision to remove

Adult Basic Education from the College of the North Atlantic; and

WHEREAS residents of Newfoundland and Labrador are concerned that

government's decision to remove ABE from College of the North Atlantic will lead

to a decline in already low provincial literacy rates; and

WHEREAS residents of Newfoundland and Labrador are concerned that

government's decision will limit access to ABE services in remote regions; and

WHEREAS residents of Newfoundland and Labrador are concerned that

government's decision will result in a decline in the availability of supports

to assist ABE learners; and

WHEREAS government's research shows that educational attainment is the most

important determinant of earnings and sustained attachment to the labour market;

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

House of Assembly to urge government to provide the full details of the

enrolment, graduation, and funding analyses that were carried out to justify the

decision to cut the Adult Basic Education program at College of the North

Atlantic.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, we had a good opportunity to question, I guess I will call him

the substitute Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, the Member for Grand

Bank, the Minister of Justice the other morning. He did his best to explain this

decision and to respond to the questions that we gave. I am more and more

convinced that there were very few analyses done to make this decision.

Basically, there is a block grant given to College of the North Atlantic for

programs. They are all listed, and the amounts of money for each program are

listed. I think if someone just closed their eyes and put their finger on the

paper, pointed to a program and looked down, and that is the one they cut, that

is more or less the level of analysis and consultation that went on in this

decision.

One of the things this petition says and there are two petitions I would

like to point out on ABE right now that are being presented in the House of

Assembly. One of the things they point out is the availability of supports to

assist ABE students.

The letter that was written to the Premier in great detail goes over the

differences in the services and the level of service provided by College of the

North Atlantic. Students, faculty and staff at the college are rightly proud of

the comprehensive nature of the services they provide, whether it is mental

health or other health issues and so on.

I will have another opportunity to speak about this again, but they are

rightly proud of that. I urge members opposite to think about that.

Thank you.

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

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

I have a petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled:

WHEREAS hundreds of residents of the South Coast of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador including residents of the communities of Burgeo,

Ramea, Grey River and Franois use Route 480 on a regular basis for work,

medical, educational and social reasons; and

WHEREAS there is no cell phone coverage on Route 480; and

WHEREAS residents and users of Route 480 require cell phone coverage to

ensure their safety and communication abilities; and

WHEREAS the Department of IBRD recently announced significant funding to

improvement broadband services in rural Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the residents and users of Route 480 feel that the Department of IBRD

should also invest in cell phone coverage for rural Newfoundland and Labrador;

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

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

the users of Route 480 in their request to obtain cell phone coverage along

Route 480.

And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that has not been spoken of much, and it is

probably because there is absolutely no strategy behind that in this Province. I

will give the department its due when it is deserved, and it has been when it

comes to broadband coverage. We have seen that. I have no issue with that;

however, in this day and age in 2013 there is no cellphone coverage strategy in

this Province.

It affects a number of members in this House, members from all over the South

Coast, the Government House Leader, and people everywhere. It is something that

I think we really need to work together. We know that there are third parties

that have to be brought into this. We know that the service providers have to be

brought in, but we need to take that step and form a strategy in order to attack

this issue.

I am actually heading down to Burgeo sometime this weekend. When I go down

there, there is a spot that had a significant issue with the road the other day.

I will commend the Department of Transportation and Works for the quick work

that they did to fix that hole; however, it could have been a lot worse than

what it was. Somebody could have gotten hurt, and the fact is they would not be

able to contact anybody. They would have to hope that somebody fell upon them.

We had a situation last year. What I am scared of, Mr. Speaker, is that we

are going to have to wait for a tragedy in order to get something that is as

necessary as it is for 2013, and that is cellphone coverage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS Route 438 (Croque-St. Julien's, Grandois Road) a former woods road,

is nearly thirty kilometres of gravel road; and

WHEREAS the students, workers, and residents must travel this road for all

education, health, business, and other services; and

WHEREAS the Department of Transportation and Works has no immediate plans to

do major upgrading to Route 438 despite the current road conditions being

disgraceful; and

WHEREAS it is the government's obligation to provide basic infrastructure to

all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians;

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

allocate funds in the 2013 provincial roads program to upgrade Route 438.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

It is signed by constituents of mine in Croque and St. Julien's. These are

the residents of these communities. They are not asking that this road be paved,

but they are asking that there be an adequate level of new crushed stone placed

there to make it an acceptable gravel road.

In the Northern Pen this week there is an

article highlighting a major

tree stump that is there that has been covered over rather than removed. I drove

this road on Saturday and there are many other sticks coming through. There is

one area where there is a bit of beach stone basically placed into this area and

it is very rough.

For anybody driving it and doing the sixty kilometres that the highway

states, it is very, very dangerous, there needs to be an adequate level of

crushed stone put into play, as well as it actually being pressed in with a

roller.

These constituents of mine are not asking for much. They are just asking for

the basic service, as what is expected of most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I am urging the House of Assembly to urge government to look at making some

allocation for it is a small sum of money as to what it would take to improve

the quality of life for these constituents.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, if we could go back to Notices of Motion for a

moment.

MR. SPEAKER: You want to revert on the Orders to Notices of Motion?

MR. KING: For one moment, if I may.

MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I give notice under Standing Order 11, that I

shall move that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, May 13, 2013.

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

House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Monday, May 13, 2013.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill

1,

An Act to Amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord

Implementation Newfoundland and Labrador Act, be now read a third time.

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

third time.

The Leader of the Third Party.

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

In third reading, there are a couple of points I would like to make as the

final statement with regard to this bill. I am supporting the bill, but I still

have two concerns that I would like to just put out. I have named them before

and I am naming them now from a bit of a different angle, just to say that I

know that the minister was concerned about the points I raised in second reading

and I did get answers. I did not have any questions to put out during Committee,

but I still have a concern of what I hope government will be looking at.

The first point was the code of practice. The code of practice as it is

stated in what would be

section 201.18 in the act, when it becomes

an act. What

I am concerned about is that in this bill and the act that will be part of the

Atlantic Accord, according to

section 201.18 of what will be the act in the

Accord, "The chief safety officer may, in writing, require an employer to

establish, in respect of a workplace under the employer's control or a work or

activity carried out at any one of those workplaces, a code of practice in

respect of the occupational health and safety".

Then, we have two or three sections dealing with the code of practice. My

question is and I have done some searching on it where does that fit in the

light of our Occupational Health and Safety Act? Because our Occupational Health

and Safety Act,

section 36.(1) says, "The minister may require (

a) all employers

or principal contractors; (

b) a group or class of employers or principal

contractors; or (

c) an employer or principal contractor to establish a code of

practice, or adopt a code of practice specified by the minister."

What I want to point out to the minister is the concern that those two acts

work together. Because in the bill that we are dealing with, for the act that

will go into the Atlantic Accord Act, it gives the responsibility to the chief

safety officer who may, in writing, get a code of practice in place.

I am hoping and I actually have spoken to people within occupational health

and safety and what I am being led to understand is that even though the bill

that we are dealing with does not mention the minister and does not mention the

Occupational Health and Safety Act, that there still will be the oversight by

government of what happens in the bill or the act that we will be going into the

Atlantic Accord.

I do think it is very important that the codes of practice have the oversight

of government and the regulator. Our Occupational Health and Safety Act in

general do have the oversight of government. It is the minister who is

responsible for making sure that if is a code is in place that it is a code that

is signed off by the minister.

I am hoping, as I have been led to believe, that is the case that the

government's oversight will be there because of the Occupational Health and

Safety Act. I do not see anything in the act, in the bill that we are talking

about, what will become the act inside of the Atlantic Accord, I do not see

anything there saying that it supersedes the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

I am assuming that the government oversight will be there.

I wanted to just name it more clearly and the minister may want to point out

that yes, indeed, this is the case. That is the concern that the codes of

practice are extremely important. It means exactly what is going to happen to

make sure the occupational health and safety policies are carried out.

Our practice in the Province is that codes of practice are under the

oversight of the ministry, and I think that is extremely important. We cannot

have, I do not believe, the industry itself being totally in control of the

codes of practice. It does not happen in any of the other industries and I am

assuming it is not going to happen here. It is so important I wanted to bring it

out again, and I am hoping the Minister Responsible for Occupational Health and

Safety may want to speak to it.

The other point I would like to make has to do with again, it was a point I

raised in second reading the right to refuse. It is sort of the same thing. In

the bill we are dealing with, the sections that will be in the act in the

Atlantic Accord begin with sections 201.47, the right to refuse.

Again, I know the practice we have right now for workers is that from the

minute a worker declares to the employer through a supervisor that he or she

thinks something they are being asked to do will be dangerous either to their

health or to their body in some form or other, either because of hazardous

materials or because of the action itself being a dangerous action, they say

they are using their right to refuse to do that piece of work.

That refusal then goes through a process. It either gets agreed to, and very

often that happens and the employee and employer work out what has to be done to

resolve it and it gets resolved, or it goes through a whole process. If the

supervisor says: well, no, I do not think it is dangerous. Then, of course, we

have a whole process.

In our current system, from that very first moment, even if it gets resolved

at the moment or within a day or two, if that happens, it still gets documented

in writing. Again, the bill we are dealing with does not say that. I think it is

absolutely important we understand that in practice that is what happens.

I am hoping the absence of saying that does not mean it is not going to

happen. Just like I hope the absence of the naming of the minister in the codes

of practice does not mean that government is not going to have the overall

oversight with regard to the codes of practice. Because I think these two issues

are so important, and I know changes were not made to the bill, I guess I am

satisfied in the sense that I understand we have broader legislation and broader

practices that will come to bear on this bill. I hope that is the case, Mr.

Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I am glad to hear the Third Party will be supporting this bill.

I think it has been a long time coming, fourteen years now, that they have been

working on this bill. I think it is a very good piece of legislation. I think it

does address the needs in health and safety that we need in the offshore.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to let the general public know and those who

are listening; part of the process of putting this legislation together was

working with the Federation of Labour. Just this morning actually, post to

presenting this in the House, I met with the President of the Federation of

Labour. My senior staff have been working very closely with the Federation of

Labour during this whole process. I met with the President of the Federation of

Labour this morning and she told me, unequivocally, that we have 110 per cent

support from the Federation of Labour on this bill also.

We actually discussed a couple of the items that the Leader of the NDP has

addressed here today. So, I certainly have no problem commenting on these two

items. I spoke privately with the Leader of the Third Party on this also.

The CSO in the new legislation have the authority that they may require an

employer to establish a code of practice in respect to OHS. What we wanted to do

there I guess there was some debate as to whether you say "we may" or "we

shall". Now I am not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination, so I am not

going to get into the legal terms of it.

If you use the word "shall" then it is automatic that it has to be done,

whereas with the word "may" there is discretion there. It gives the CSO the

discretion to say perhaps we do need a code of practice here. That is what we

wanted to make sure that we were doing with that one.

The point concerning reporting back to the minister is that now once this

bill goes through, the C-NLOPB then does have to report directly to the Minister

Responsible for Occupational Health and Safety. Therefore, the CSO also would

report to that minister. I think adequately, that would answer the concern that

you had there and hopefully alleviate any concern you had.

Concerning the second point the member brought up about the right to refuse

work, this is one that a lot of the work that has gone into putting this piece

of work together has mirrored the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations

that we have on land, but we needed it to be specific to the offshore. On the

land portion of our Province with occupational health and safety, we have

occupational health and safety committees and everything is documented.

Anything that happens with the occupational health and safety committee is

documented. If there is a right to refuse and there is a dispute within that

refusal, then it goes to the committee, and therefore is documented. This is no

different.

With the offshore accord, we do not call it an occupational health and safety

committee, but we call it a workplace committee. The same premise works for the

workplace committee offshore as it did onshore. So that if there is a refusal of

work the same rules will apply, they are almost identical, that it is documented

there.

I know earlier in the week when we were debating the bill there was some talk

and concern that it should be documented automatically. That is the whole

purpose of having the committee in place, that the documentation is there and

then recorded. I think in that case also, it should alleviate any concern you

have.

First and foremost with this bill is the health and safety of the workers,

the employers and the employees. That is what we are trying to do here.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that

Bill 1 be read a third time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador

Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act. (Bill 1)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that

the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador

Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act", read a third

time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 1)

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

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Business and

Rural Development, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee of the

Whole to consider Bill 4,

An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 2.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that the House resolve itself

into Committee of the Whole and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Verge): Order, please!

The Committee of the Whole will be debating Bill 4.

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 2. (Bill 4)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The Opposition House Leader.

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

I just wanted to ask a few questions about this. This piece of legislation is

something that generated a fair bit of conversation back and forth earlier in

the second reading. Again, it is not something that prior to receiving the

legislation and studying it and looking at it that I was very familiar with.

I am just looking at some of the stuff as I see it here. We are talking about

the communities that are involved in the Labrador Border Zone and basically how

far away is Quebec. That is the issue here; it is about going back and forth.

When we talk about Lab West here, it is a thirty-minute drive to go from Lab

City to Fermont and a thirty-six minute drive to go from Wabush to Fermont. If

you look at Southern Labrador from the Quebec border to the community of Red

Bay, it is a seven-minute drive from L'Anse au Clair to Blanc Sablon and then a

thirteen-minute drive from Forteau to Blanc Sablon.

One of the things we have talked about the past, and I guess this is the

reason it was there in the first place and I am asking this as an attempt to

be educated actually it seemed like we have this rebate there in order to

protect these businesses there in the past. I think that was there obviously

through PC governments and through Liberal governments. We all know about the

cross-border shopping and the fact that people and I am one of them who live

in a smaller town. A lot of people leave the smaller town and when they go to

the big city for one thing, they go for a number of things.

I am just wondering: Is this something that the minister has any concern

about? I am sure there were consultations done, but what is the feeling going

forward? Are they going to suffer with the taking away of this rebate? Again, I

know that the minister has looked in and obviously the Minister of Service NL,

being a long-time resident of Labrador, may have some discussion on this as

well.

I just wanted to put that out there now and ask those questions.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When this rebate was brought in, it was brought in, in 1984, and it was

brought in at that time to ensure competitiveness. We had a number of stores I

do not know how many stores would have been in Lab West or Southern Labrador

area at the time, but the issue was to ensure that people were not going across

the Quebec border buying cheaper cigarettes and bringing them back.

The way to protect against that was to offer a rebate which was essentially

equal to the difference and would allow for that competitiveness. It did remain

on the books for years; in fact, I think it was in 1997 or 1998 that legislation

was brought in. To avoid changing the legislation each time, the tax reduction

in the Tobacco Tax Act was repealed and it was replaced by the Labrador Border

Zones Rebate Regulations.

These regulations granted the Minister of Finance the authority to establish

a quota. The quota at that time was 110,000 cartons for Labrador West and 16,000

cartons for Southern Labrador, so thereby trying to limit the availability of

tax-produced product.

What has happened over the years that this has remained in place, during our

review this year or the core mandate review, we looked at the question of is

this necessary. Each department was looking at its own programs, looking at what

was going on in great detail, and then the question became was it necessary.

There were a number of factors which led to the repealing of this

legislation. First, it applies not only a specific area of the Province, but a

specific area of Labrador. It does not even apply to Labrador as a whole. So as

pointed out by the Member for Burgeo La Poile, it is communities which are

close to the Labrador-Quebec border, being Fermont and then in Southern

Labrador.

We had it apply to a number of stores in Labrador West and a number of stores

in Southern Labrador. We can see no justification, why one particular group

should benefit from a rebate that we felt was no longer necessary. That was the

first issue, that it was not uniformly applied in either Labrador or even the

Province as a whole. That was the first issue.

The second issue then was that no other province has a similar rebate

program. I referred to in debate the other day the issue in Nova Scotia being

close to part of New Brunswick and then New Brunswick being close to the United

States. They do not have the program in place. Saskatchewan actually had similar

regulations and had repealed them. No other part of the Province other than this

one area, no other province had similar regulations, and we decided at this

point there is no justification for this. The estimate in terms of savings is

approximately $3.4 million. That is what we have been paying out in the rebate.

In the rebate in 2012-2013 fiscal years it was $3.4 million.

When you look at fairness and competitiveness what was necessary in 1984 and

was even necessary in 1998, we felt, was no longer necessary today. If you look

at the issues of competitiveness, we again felt that this was not necessary in

terms of the price increases in tobacco.

We will talk about that shortly with another amendment to the Revenue

Administration Act. The increases in cigarettes in our Province certainly did

not mirror the increase in some of the other provinces.

As for the specific effect on these stores in the area, the Labrador West

area, I know that the Minister for Service Newfoundland and Labrador has had

discussions and he might be able to elaborate on his discussions with these

particular stores and businesses. Although the department had consulted, I

understand that the minister has had contact directly.

Do you want to ask another question, or the Minister of SNL to talk about the

effect in Labrador?

CHAIR: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As we are in Committee right now, Mr. Chair, just a few questions I guess.

As you know, it is not unusual as you go around the Province, in many

situations you will see things that are done for unique situations and unique

circumstances. This is how we see this, in particular, in the Labrador border

zone when it comes to tobacco.

We are not here as an MHA, or as Leader of the Official Opposition,

supporting smoking, not at all. As a matter of fact, as I said in the past, we

would like to see a smoking cessation program in effect across the Province.

I do have a question, however, on the savings of the $3.4 million. As I

understand it, the savings is based on the sale of tobacco products, cigarettes,

pouched tobacco, tub tobacco, or whatever it is. It is really about the sale of

tobacco products. If, for instance, by taking away the incentive, this quota or

this rebate, to make the purchase within the Labrador zone area, we can only

save the money if the purchases would remain there. We pay out based on a sale.

I suspect that is the way it is working.

If the purchases are then taken and made outside of the Labrador zone area,

if indeed they do go to Quebec, which is a concern here, then we get purchases

of other products in the Province of Quebec. It would mean we will lose taxes on

other items, for instance, if it is gasoline or whatever the purchases are. I

would just like some clarification on how the quota is set and why it is set at

$3.4 million. I understand there were 110,000 however it worked, 110,000

cartons or packages or something that were sold in Labrador West, and 16,000 in

The Straits area.

So, just some clarification on how the quota is set. Why it is set at $3.4

million, and if indeed the sales are not made in that area, what the impact

would be.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would just like to give a little bit of background. I ran out of time when

I spoke on this bill in the regular debate.

I want to go back to 1984. In 1984 you could sit in any restaurant in

Newfoundland and Labrador, or in Canada, you could sit in a public mall, you

could sit in a hospital waiting room, you could sit in a doctor's office, you

could sit in a patient's hospital room and light up a cigarette, no problem at

all. Smoking was an accepted social thing by society in 1984. That has changed

since.

Since 1984, this government has realized we have to change with it. You no

longer can go into a hospital room and light up a cigarette. You no longer can

walk into a principal's office and light up a cigarette. You can no longer sit

with a patient in a hospital and light up a cigarette. I would be shocked if

anybody sitting in this House would argue that those are not good changes. With

those changes, changes needed to be made to the acts and the regulations

concerning smoking.

In 1984, there was a quota set of 110,000. As I said, it was an accepted

practice in 1984, almost anywhere, to light up. That has changed. Today, the

restrictions on smoking are much more stringent. In 1984, it was thought that we

were losing, and it was all about economics. The cost of tobacco in Quebec

compared to the cost of tobacco in Labrador was significantly different. So that

change was made. I was one of the entrepreneurs in Labrador West at the time who

said we need to be more competitive here. That was why we fought for this tax

rebate.

The tax rebate, in answer to the member's question on the other side

concerning the quota, was based on population at the time. The population at the

time deemed that on the South Coast of Labrador, coming from L'Anse au Clair up

to Red Bay, which is the area affected on the South Coast of Labrador, there

were 16,000 cartons per year in their quota. In Western Labrador, based on the

population of the day, they said 110,000 cartons.

What I want to make clear here is the consumer goes in and buys a package of

cigarettes. They are getting the rebate immediately. The distributor for the

cigarettes had to fill out a form every month saying how many cartons of

cigarettes they had distributed in the district. They sent in the form and a

month later I think there was a thirty-day turnover the Department of

Finance reimbursed them the rebate.

For the customer, they were getting it right at the counter. The distributor

had to wait sixty days. Thirty days to file it and then thirty days waiting for

the money. It was the distributor who was getting the cheque. For the consumer

there was no extra work, which was great. Then when it came to the Department of

Finance, all of that work had to be done also. I think there is as hidden cost

or a hidden savings here in administration also.

The other point that we have to make, the quota of 110,000 cartons and this

was one of the points that I specified to the Member for the Bay of Islands,

there was a quota of 110,000 cartons. That is based from July 1 to June 30,

which gives you your full fiscal year.

On March 27, 2013, when the Department of Finance realized here is where we

are going to try to go with this, there was 154,000 cartons to that date that

had already been distributed in Labrador West. If you do the math it is not

difficult 154,000 minus 110,000, you are 44,000 cartons already over your

quota. The twenty-two distributors or retailers in Labrador West were then told

effective midnight, you have already exceeded your quota, so any rebate that you

will be eligible for you have already used. You are already over your quota.

That is why when I made the comment I dealt with this already in my district;

I have already talked to the retailers. There is one distributor in Labrador

West. I have already met with that distributor and pardon the pun this ship

has sailed. They are realizing we are promoting health, we are promoting

wellness. We are making an economic decision that, in 1984 up until now, this

may have been a decision that was argued a good decision.

We are now looking and saying we need to make changes. The change that we are

making we think is a good change. They are looking, since March 27, at

innovative ways that they can now continue and keep the business they have.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly thank the Member for Labrador West for clearing up and making

those commentaries, as well as the Minister of Finance. I do have a couple of

other questions though, knowing what the quotas previously were. Looking at the

straight line savings that government has made, it seems very simplistic on the

Department of Finance to say $3.4 million in savings, making a comparative

analysis with Quebec, and that they have increased their rates.

Well, the proposal in Newfoundland and Labrador is also to increase our

tobacco rates, and the variance is still there. There is still a variance and a

difference, and if there are cheaper prices across borders and such a short

distance, there is going to be a loss in sales; so making a simplistic thing

saying, well, we removed the rebate and we are going to save $3.4 million of

taxpayers' money.

I would ask the Minister of Finance if there was any analysis done on looking

at the corporate taxation, small business tax, and labour costs? Was there any

type of risk analysis or risk management assessment done beyond just the

simplistic $3.4 million in savings?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do not think there is anything very simplistic about this. This is very

simple. We paid $3.4 million in rebates last year; we will not be paying it this

year. Could there be a loss in taxes? Sure. Could there be an increase in taxes?

Sure.

With $3.4 million, you do not need to engage in all of these risk analyses

and corporate taxes. It is simple. We decided we are no longer going to support

this rebate; therefore we decided to eliminate it. The savings are the $3.4

million we paid out in rebate to these retailers.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Would the Minister of Finance clarify the variances that

will be paid with this new legislation in effect, and the Quebec legislation,

with the increases of what our tobacco sales will be, what the price

differential will be for a carton of cigarettes between Quebec and the new

Labrador rates for LabWest, and the Labrador Straits, so that it is on the

record, and the actual price differential with the new legislation?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Quebec government in 2012 increased the price of tobacco by two cents per

cigarette, so that resulted in an increase in the price of tobacco. The

difference here is not actually in the taxes that are being paid. The provincial

tobacco tax in Quebec is lower than what we pay in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Then what you have is the difference in the HST/GST. There is a significant

difference in terms of what they pay in Quebec for their cigarettes there. That

is where I think the majority or the biggest difference is.

So the difference in a carton of cigarettes in Quebec right now and I know

there are different costs of tobacco. I do not smoke myself, but I know

different cartons of cigarettes cost different prices. On a very simple basis,

we have a pre-tax price of approximately $29.24. Your federal excise tax is

approximately $17. There is a provincial tobacco tax which is about $13 higher

in Newfoundland and Labrador than Quebec. The HST/GST, and I am not quite sure

what they pay in Quebec, but our tax is $10.95; theirs is $3.60. The significant

differences are in the provincial tobacco tax and the HST.

If a carton of cigarettes costs whatever it costs, it will be approximately

$20 cheaper in Quebec. I would have to find one of the hon. members here who

smoke to tell the difference in terms of the cost of a carton of cigarettes, but

the numbers I am using here show a carton of cigarettes at $95. That sounds

expensive to me, down to $75 in Quebec. I think you can actually buy cartons of

cigarettes for $70 or $72, depending on the cost.

The member is correct. It will be cheaper in Quebec, but it is mainly now as

a result of the lower provincial tobacco tax and the HST or GST, whatever they

are paying in Quebec.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chair, I am trying to figure out how much this all works

out for a carton of cigarettes because the numbers do not really seem to work

very well. The minister claims it will be a savings of $3.4 million. Another

minister says he calls it a quota. I think a quota is something that is

desirable, but I think this maybe is a limit. It is 100,000 and just the simple

math alone says that is $34 a carton differential.

Can the Minister of Finance confirm that actually the Province is subsidizing

cigarettes to the tune of $34 a carton right now?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. KENNEDY: The Province is subsidizing a carton of cigarettes. It is

$20, I think. No matter what the difference in the cost of a carton of

cigarettes will be, it will be approximately $20 difference in terms of if you

buy it in Quebec still today.

The way it worked out, there had been in Labrador West and Southern Labrador

two different quotas. In 2011-2012, for example, even though the quota was

110,000 and there are thirty-three businesses, the quota does not apply equally.

That is the quota for the area in Labrador West.

In 2011-2012, there were actually 145,000 cartons of cigarettes claimed,

145,982. On the South Coast of Labrador, the claimed amount was actually less

than the quota. This was historically, and it would make sense from the lower

population. The quota of 16,000 on Southern Labrador in 2011-2012 had reached

15,401 cartons of cigarettes and in 2010-2011, 12,102.

What I am referring to is the number, and I understand there could be lower

taxes come in, but the actual rebates we have paid out as a government, and I

will use the last couple of years for example. In 2010-2011, there was

$3,027,441 paid in rebates, given back to the retailers. In 2011-2012, because

we honoured the amount they were over and because it was very difficult to put a

system in place where twenty-two retailers just submit claims, the actual cost

paid out in the rebate was $3,652,910. So that is the number.

Is it simple in terms of the calculations? Could it vary? We know there are

several million dollars that can be saved. We also know that is not the only

reason; it is the fact that it does not apply consistently throughout the

Province. It does not even apply consistently throughout Labrador. It was

determined the rebate was no longer required for competitiveness purposes.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chair, when people buy cigarettes, typically the

cigarettes are used as a loss leader sometimes for various retailers. They keep

the cost they sell cigarettes at as low a price as they can because they know

this will attract people who smoke and who buy cigarettes, and then there will

be additional sales being made to those people. Typically, a person who buys

cigarettes will also buy lottery tickets and will also buy beer.

AN HON. MEMBER: Gas.

MR. BENNETT: They may or may not buy gasoline, but not necessarily at a

convenience store. They buy other items. The big concern here, I think, with

retailers is if they lose the competitive advantage to nearby Quebec-based

retailers, then they will lose all the other sales.

I would like to know if the Department of Finance has calculated what would

be any revenue loss from taxes for other items people would have bought if they

now go to Quebec to buy their cigarettes.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I was in business for thirty-five years in Labrador West, in the

restaurant business, and I did not get any tax rebates for the food that I sold

in my restaurants. I had to be innovative enough to come up with ways that I

could attract the customers in Labrador West, as well as the customers in

Fermont, Quebec, to come to my establishments. I had to come up with those

innovative ways. Government did not give me a tax rebate.

Mr. Chair, the member across the way mentioned beer. If you talk to a

retailer, beer is a loss leader. Lottery tickets are a loss leader. A retailer

does not make money on lottery tickets. A retailer does not make money on beer.

A retailer does not make money on cigarettes. There are all loss leaders. They

are all innovative ways that retailers came up with to get customers inside

their doors. I would hope, and I certainly have enough confidence in the

retailers in Labrador West that they would be innovative enough to come up with

other ways to get retailers in through their doors.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It seems to me that when you look at things like lottery tickets, when you

look at things like beer, and you look at tobacco products, they are all

regulated by the Province. If they are loss leaders for businesses, they are

certainly not loss leaders for the government. They are making quite a

significant amount of money if we look at the profits of the Liquor Corporation

and what is going to be proposed in tobacco tax for the Province this year.

I have a question around the fact that if government is saving $3.4 million

annually from thirty-three retailers, that is eqivilant on average of about

$100,000 in a subsidy, in a rebate, basically, to these retailers, as well as

looking at the margins in tobacco sales, as well as the multiplier effect of

other products. It seems quite significant to a gas station or to a corner store

to lose $100,000 in a rebate, on average, to their business.

Was there a break down? Was there information supplied to the Department of

Finance in terms of corporation revenue tax put forward their statements,

basically looking at sales and how this is overall going to impact their bottom

line? If you look at corporations, especially small retailers, the margins in

groceries and retail can be very low, a margin of about 2 per cent or 3 per

cent. Taking away, on average $100,000 out of all of these businesses is going

to have a significant impact.

I have to say looking at if there was no analysis done; this is something

that should have been done. Maybe the minister should look at transitioning a

program to help businesses allow them to be innovative. I ask why they did not

look at the break down of how $100,000 removed from every small business is

going to have an impact.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

Unfortunately, the premise of that question is not supported by fact. What we

know is that there are thirty-three retailers. There is nothing to indicate that

it is spread out equally. In fact, we know it is not because of the income tax

returns that are filed, but we can only get so much into that. Also, as my

colleague the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador has pointed out, we

are dealing with a distributor.

What we have is a situation whereby there is a rebate provided overall. It is

not a question of who is making what; it is not a subsidy to a particular

business. It was based on ensuring competitiveness in a trans-border situation

that started almost thirty years ago and then was brought into legislation in

The Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador has talked about this

situation of bringing people in, and innovative ways to do business. I had

actually met with the Atlantic Canada grocery stores association I do not know

if they are grocery stores a couple of weeks ago. They had talked about the

situation with beer.

It is my understanding the way that it would work on a dozen beer is that the

brewery makes a certain amount of money, it might have been $13, $14. I cannot

remember exactly, I am going by memory now. The Liquor Corporation made

approximately $5.10 or $5.20. The retailer only received $1.50 and they had

certain concerns that it was not enough money for them to be receiving. That was

not a rebate to them because they are selling the beer, but they are also then

taking the bottles back. They are required to take the bottles back.

What is interesting, and this was not specifically related to Labrador. The

situation with these smaller stores is not related to Labrador, this is

throughout the Province. While they were talking to me about the beer situation,

they were also discussing gas; they were discussing the situation as it resulted

in relation to tobacco.

Essentially they were saying we have a business to run. The complaints

received were that we should be getting more money back for what we are doing.

In other words, we are performing a service for the money we are getting.

In this particular case, there is no service being performed. There is

nothing being performed other than it was determined thirty years ago we will

give you a rebate to ensure competitiveness. It is one of these things that have

remained on the books. For us, this year, it was something we looked at and said

this is not something that in today's environment is needed. It is not something

that in today's environment we can justify, giving a rebate to a number of

stores.

It is not evenly set out. It is giving a rebate to a number of stores in a

very prosperous area in Labrador West, especially in this day and age, Mr.

Chair. I would suggest that there are probably a lot of people coming from

Fermont to shop in Labrador West these days and are probably buying their

cigarettes in Labrador West.

The way we looked at it is there is no uniformity, even in Labrador. No other

province has this. I am actually quite surprised that the opposition on both

sides opposed this bill. It seems to me just to be such a good bill to ensure

consistency across the Province, ensures savings for the Province. There is no

indication, as my colleague the Minister of Services Newfoundland and Labrador

has indicated, there would be any detrimental effect on these retail stores.

I am surprised that they oppose this bill when we are trying to ensure that

all the people throughout this Province, all the retail stores are treated

favourably. It is surprising.

CHAIR: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is not about opposing the reduction in smoking or what would happen. What

we were going back to and the reason why we are asking questions about it I

will refer to the comments made by the Member for Labrador West. As you know, I

spent considerable years in the retail business as well. I can remember back

around 2000, we started a program to actually remove tobacco from pharmacies.

I was fortunate enough to chair the voluntary removal of tobacco from

pharmacies. I was proud to do that because we did that as a profession. It was

not without disruption in business, I will say to the Member for Labrador West.

He made reference to certain loss leaders that various convenience stores or

outlets would use, if it was beer - we did not sell beer or lottery - if it was

tobacco. His very comment actually near the end of it said that they used those

so-called loss leaders or discounted commodities within the retail outlets to do

what? To attract people to their businesses, they do that.

So why would you want to, I ask the minister, to attract people to your

business? What is the premise of that? You want to attract people to your

business so they would buy things and they would buy other things. That is the

reason why this was put in place in the first place, as I look at the history of

it.

That is what we are asking questions about here now. If in fact you are sure

- you live in that area. We have been hearing feedback from people that are

saying quite the opposite, that this will have a negative impact. We want to

make sure that you have done your analysis.

Please do not use this as a smoking cessation program. If you are committed

to that, take the $3.4 million that you are going to save right now from this

program and put it directly into a smoking cessation program so that everybody

in the Province, including Labrador, can see the benefit of that.

I say to the minister, back in 1984 you could also smoke on an airplane.

Indeed, there have been significant changes made around smoking, good changes.

Not to say this is going to do anything about reducing smoking. If you are

seriously committed to do that, take your money, put it into a serious and

significant smoking cessation program, I say.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chair, in listening to the comments from the Member for

Labrador West, I can appreciate that he says he spent thirty-five years in the

restaurant business, and I accept him at his word, however, in that case he will

accept that margins in restaurants are probably a well run restaurant will

maybe have $1 for every $3 for food costs,

whereas if somebody sells beer they

will probably get $1 on a case. If they sell cigarettes they get maybe ten or

fifteen cents on a pack. If they sell milk they may only get a quarter. The

items they sell will be of very, very thin margins, so they need all the volume

they can get.

Mr. Chair, I am advised by people from Southern Labrador that just with tubs

of tobacco alone, right now the cost is around $64 a tub. When this bill is

passed, as inevitably it will be, it will cost $110. The cost will go up from

$64 to $110. Clearly, somebody will want to drive from L'Anse au Clair just a

few miles over across to Blanc Sablon for that purchase, if they are going to

save as much as $45 on one item. Then they will gas up their vehicle when they

there, they will probably buy milk. They will probably buy all sorts of other

products.

You may have a restaurant with a 60 per cent or 70 per cent margin on the

items that they sell. A small business cannot afford to lose those types of

sales. The more customers they lose, the more difficult it will be for

businesses, particularly in the South Coast of Labrador.

The South Coast of Labrador does not do as well at this point as Labrador

West does. It is one of the most booming areas in the Province, so they have

that sort of comparison. Then to saddle the people in the communities from

L'Anse au Clair, Forteau, L'Anse-au-Loup, Pinware, right on up through to Red

Bay is simply unfair to these businesses. Now having had this rebate available

has simply neutralized the cost differential, so they will be more at the mercy

of retailers from the Province of Quebec.

I ask the Minister of Finance, has he considered how much revenue will be

lost by people who now shop outside of the Province, who would have shopped

within the Province if this rebate was available?

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is very interesting to see whether this discussion would go differently if

in fact it was not tobacco specifically that we were talking about, whether it

was something else that was taxed differently in both provinces.

I understand the complexity of this discussion, because we all would like to

see fewer and fewer of our people smoking. We would all like to see less and

less spent on tobacco. We would all like to see less of the financial impacts on

our health system because of the use of tobacco, and we certainly do not want to

be in the business of promoting tobacco use, that is for sure. So, it is a bit

of a complex situation. It is not a clear, black and white, clean kind of thing.

I too have been, and continue to be, a small business owner, and I know how

precarious that can be. Those of us who have been retailers know how precarious

that can be. We all know if a competitor has an unfair advantage or an edge,

what that can mean to sales in a small business. We also know what it can mean

to whether or not a small business can survive. We all know, also, how important

these small businesses are in our communities. We know they are not the big box

stores, but in fact they are the small businesses that actually provide services

to our community.

I know government is always concerned about any policy changes, what the

adverse effects might be on citizens or services in the Province, what the

unintended consequences might be. I cannot help but think of times, for

instance, when farmers who were growing tobacco were given subsidies or

reparation to convert their crops to something else, or when other government

policies for instance, expropriation of land for the good of the wider public,

then people are compensated for how those kinds of policies might affect them.

I am just wondering, I know there has been a concern by some of the retailers

and by some of the mayors about consultation with them in terms of how this

policy may in fact affect those small businesses and their ability to provide

services to their communities. I wonder if in fact I am concerned about what

might be a lack of consultation.

I am also wondering has there been any thought to giving some kind of a

transitional period so that it will not have such a strong, immediate, negative

impact? I am also wondering if there has been any exploration of any alternative

way of somehow addressing this that might be different than what has been done

over the past few years; something that does not negate the competitive edge

that can be a deal breaker for many stores that provides services in the

communities.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chair, the Member for Labrador West, obviously, if he

lasted for thirty-five years it was probably a very good restaurant and probably

well-patronized by many people. I suspect many of those people actually came

from Fermont. Those people would probably take an easy drive down from Fermont.

They may well have been inclined to do some of their shopping in Labrador West

when they would come to his restaurant.

What would be the extra incentive now if we force up the price of tobacco

products so that these people have less of an incentive to come to businesses in

Labrador West? Has the Department of Finance made any sort of an estimate as to

how much revenue this is going to cost?

What the Minister of Finance is saying for a revenue loss is a gross figure.

If he says 100,000 was the so-called quota, and if last year we paid out based

on 140,000 or so, and if that works out to around $20 a carton, then what the

Minister of Finance is showing is that the gross value is the amount the

government expects to save.

Mr. Chair, that is indicative of the planning of this government. This

government takes numbers that suits itself. They say we are going to save $20 a

carton, multiply that by 140,000 cartons, we are going to save $3.4 million,

without ever taking into consideration what goes on the other side of the

balance sheet. What were the inputs? What were the losses and the costs incurred

in order to affect that sort of saving? Clearly, this is a gross figure and it

needs to be netted out with the amount that the government will otherwise lose.

Certain amounts of revenue will be lost from individuals in this Province.

There will be taxes that will not be paid by people who will not make purchases

here because they will make those same purchases in the Province of Quebec. I

ask the Minister of Finance: What is the net value that is going to be derived

from this? Not the $3.4 millio