June 14, 2012

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLVII No. 48

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we are going to have member statements from the Member

for the District of Mount Pearl North; the Member for the District of Humber

Valley; the Member for the District of Bay of Islands; the Member for the

District of Humber West; the Member for the District of St. John's North; and

the Member for the District of Bonavista South.

The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate a resident of Mount Pearl and

a friend of mine, James Loder, on his recent success on being elected president

of the National Association of Career Colleges. He was recently voted into this

position at NACC's annual convention in Montreal on May 5 of this year. This is

only the second time a Newfoundlander and Labradorian has been elected as

president in the last couple of decades.

The NACC has represented the interests of independent career college

students, faculty, and staff from all provinces and territories since 1896.

James has been involved in the Newfoundland and Labrador education system for

more than twenty years and currently works as a director with Academy Canada

Career College. He also serves on the Provincial Apprenticeship Board, Canadian

Education and Training Accreditation Commission, Newfoundland and Labrador

Construction Association, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of

Career Practitioners. His experience as a career counsellor, instructor,

principal, and manager is impressive.

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

James Loder on his success in being elected president of the National

Association of Career Colleges, and wish him all the best in his efforts to

serve the students, faculty, and staff of independent career colleges across

Canada.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House today to congratulate seventeen-year-old Kyle Payne from

Cormack on his recent appointment to the Para Soccer Canadian Team and the

team's gold-medal victory against Spain in the finals.

Kyle left Canada on June 1 for the first time in his life to begin his unique

journey. The ten-day training trip and the subsequent tournament had the team

spend time in Barcelona and then compete in the six-country International Trophy

of 7-A-Side Football Tournament. The Para-Team Canada was undefeated in the

tournament, defeating Northern Ireland 3-0, Denmark 10-0, Holland 5-1, and

finally, Spain 8-3 in the gold medal game.

Kyle has had to work hard to qualify for this position. His personal

achievements over adversity are a great example of the strength and

determination of our youth when they aspire to achieve. Kyle has mild cerebral

palsy, and has never lost sight of the challenges that come from his condition,

and still plans to pursue his dream of being a professional soccer player. I ask

all members in this House to join me in congratulating Kyle on his appointment

to the Para Soccer Canadian Team, and on the team's gold medal victory on the

international scene.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

recent recipient of Recreation Newfoundland and Labrador's Pitcher Plant Award.

This award recognizes the outstanding efforts and significant contribution of

individuals or groups to recreation in their area.

Richard Park, better known as Richie, retired teacher and former Mayor of

Gillams, is this year's award winner, recognized for his continuing efforts and

contribution to improving recreational activities in the Town of Gillams. It was

a pleasure for me to recommend Mr. Park for this award.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Park has been an active volunteer in his community for over

forty years, having served with the Gillams Recreation Committee since 1972 in

various roles. He has organized and served on the executive of the Gillams

Softball League for many years, as well as organized many other recreational

events in the town.

In addition to his recreational volunteer work, Mr. Park has been a driving

force to ensure that traditions and culture of the Town of Gillams are

preserved; currently he is a member of the Gillams Historical Society. He has

also served in various capacities with the St. James Church in Gillams and is

recognized as a community leader.

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

congratulations to Mr. Park on receiving this award and thank him for his

continued contribution and commitment to the Town of Gillams.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber West.

MR. GRANTER: Mr. Speaker, I stand to congratulate the Corner Brook

Regional High Titans Female U18 Volleyball Team on their many successful

performances this year.

This team has shown that it can compete not only on the provincial level but

on the national level as well. The girls claimed silver in Division 2 at the

Canadian Open Volleyball Championships at the Direct Energy Centre in Toronto

recently. A total of ninety-two teams participated in three divisions.

In round robin play, the Titan girls defeated one of the top teams in the

country for the past several years, Manitoba Junior Bisons. This was a

heavyweight battle with the girls winning two games to one.

After nine gruelling matches, the Titans placed second out of thirty-four

teams and ranked thirty-sixth overall out of ninety-two of the top teams in

Canada. The Titans were defeated by Envolley from Sherbrooke Quebec, two games

to one in a best of three final affair.

Corner Brook schools including Presentation, G.C. Rowe, and Corner Brook

Regional High have been producing great volleyball teams for many, many years

now. The volleyball community can say that they along with other provincial

teams can compete at the national level. This is indeed a great accomplishment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in the House and congratulate

students and coaches of Leary's Brook Junior High Grade 9 boy's basketball team.

This valiant team of good sports played in many tournaments this year, as people

from the school have told me, and they lost many of their games.

The team is a testament to perseverance, however. The boys kept practicing,

developing their team play and skills, not letting a few setbacks get them down.

By the end of the basketball season this year, Leary's Brook Junior High hosted

the Grade 9 C Provincials, and their hard work and optimism paid off. The team

won every single one of their games in their final tournament, defeating a

skilled and much-discussed opposing team in the championship game.

On the school's Web page, there is a photo of the boys holding up their

championship banner, and, Mr. Speaker, their smiles say it all.

I ask all hon. members of the House to join me in congratulating the players

and coaches of the little team that could the Leary's Brook Junior High Grade

9 boy's basketball team.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. LITTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize and congratulate the Discovery Geopark Project

Steering Committee on their presentation, which received the highest reviews, at

the recent national convention of the Geological and Mineralogical Associations

of Canada, in St. John's.

Formed in 2005 by residents in and around the District of Bonavista South,

the committee's goal is to establish itself as North America's second Geopark.

The group is compiling a site selection list, prioritizing the sites they would

like to highlight and develop, covering a large geographical region on the

Bonavista Peninsula. Some of the top sites are Tickle Cove, King's Cove,

Bonavista and Port Union.

More than 800 people attended the conference, including a number of renowned

geologists from around the world. Following the conference, a group of

twenty-one earth scientists travelled to the district, visiting many of the

proposed sites. As one scientist said, "With each stop, I'm becoming more and

more amazed of what this area has to offer".

Honourable colleagues, please join me in congratulating this Grassroots

Steering Committee on the continuous work and dedication they contribute to our

Province, as a result of which will once again place Newfoundland and Labrador

on the international stage as a leader in tourism.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate

the Gateway Status of Women Council on the completion of renovations to their

facility in Port aux Basques. These renovations provide the space to ensure that

clients' needs are met in a professional and welcoming environment.

Yesterday, Gateway held an open house to celebrate their new space and I

would like to take this opportunity to commend them on their hard work and wish

them continued success as they address the needs of women in their community.

I am also pleased to have the opportunity to applaud all Status of Women

Councils throughout Newfoundland and Labrador on the important work they do each

and every day to ensure the social and economic advancement of women in our

Province. These councils provide services, education and leadership on status of

women issues and are a strong voice for women in their regions.

Mr. Speaker, as a government, we share in this commitment. Since 2004, our

government has more than doubled its funding to the Status of Women Councils

throughout the Province. Budget 2012 announced a 5 per cent increase in funding

for the Women's Centres in Newfoundland and Labrador, seeing each of the eight

Women's Centres now receiving $127,625 annually, up from $55,000 in 2004. The

provincial government now provides annual operational funding of over $1 million

to the Status of Women Councils in the Province. As a result of this increased

funding, women in the Province will continue to have access to services and

programs related to their social and economic well-being.

Once again, congratulations to the Gateway Status of Women Council, the Board

of Directors, Executive Director Susanne Ingram, staff, volunteers and many

supporters.

This is a celebration of the Women's Centres and all those who work together

to advance the status of women in our Province. I look forward to our continued

collaboration to ensure equality, equity and inclusion for all women in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

I am very proud to stand here today and recognize the Gateway Status of Women

Council in Port aux Basques - my home district - for everything that they have

done to advance the cause of women, not only in the Southwest Coast area but in

the entire Province.

I have had the opportunity to see where they used to operate and see the

renovations they have done on this new centre. It is certainly a tremendous

upgrade. It allows them to be better able to do the job that they do.

The services that Susanne, Vinie, Sherry, Christine, and the entire board

provide for the women, children, and families in my area is just amazing to see,

whether it be providing employment services to ensure these females have an

opportunity to access employment or whether it be helping women and families

through times of trouble and hard periods in their lives. The amount of work

they do is simply phenomenal, and I commend them for continuing to do that.

I am very happy to say that I was pleased to hear the increase in funding by

this government towards the Status of Women Councils in this Province. That is a

great thing and we need to ensure that funding stays there and, if anything,

only goes up. It is so important to continue that cause in this Province. I

would say the functions that the centre provides out in Port aux Basques and the

events they put off, including the Bread and Roses Dinner in March, a sold-out

event, which raises money to go towards the programs they provide.

I am very happy to stand here today and I look forward to standing here to

speak about their cause in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of her

statement. Congratulations to the Gateway Status of Women Council. As a former

Co-ordinator of the St. John's Status of Women Council, I am aware of the

incredibly important work that the Status of Women Councils does province-wide.

For years, on miniscule budgets, they have provided vital services to women

and children when no one else did. These centres of committed feminist activism

are responsible for pushing governments to change laws and polices, to develop

appropriate services, and to commit to the women of this Province.

Government has increased funding. This is as it should be. As the Status of

Women Councils continue to take on the lion's share of women's rights, it is

imperative and only just that governments continue to support these crucial

organizations. There is still much work to do.

Thank you to all of those feminists who work so hard with expertise,

dedication, passion, and determination. Thank you, sisters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to inform hon. members

that employers are well into the process of hiring students for summer job

positions throughout the Province. These job opportunities are provided through

a number of programs offered by the Department of Advanced Education and Skills.

Mr. Speaker, organizations throughout the Province are currently posting job

positions and interviewing candidates to find students for the positions they

have available.

Student employment experiences play an important role in a young person's

life as they prepare for future careers and opportunities. It is often a young

person's first exposure to the labour market and a great way to establish

positive, lifelong work habits that teach the value of earning a living. These

jobs enable young people to acquire life and time-management skills and

ultimately contribute to the economic success of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This government recognizes the importance of student employment. Students can

take advantage of the employment opportunities throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador as a result of over $6.6 million provided by the provincial government

for employment programs. This funding will benefit nearly 3,000 youth across the

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, these student jobs span a wide and diverse range

of sectors including tourism, culture and heritage, sports and recreation,

environmental sustainability, health and medical, marketing and economic

development. These jobs are helping young people with costs of education, while

providing work experience in a chosen field and teaching important life skills.

With the expectation that the Province will see as many as 70,000 job

openings in the next ten years, this government is directly supporting student

employment and is focused on creating opportunities, providing skills training,

delivering affordable and accessible education, and building a prosperous future

for our young people.

For many, this Province has always been a preferred place to live and work,

and now improving economic circumstances are providing young people with greater

opportunities to settle in our Province and make a life here.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage students to seek out one of our student job

opportunities. There are many resources available to find out about these

opportunities, including JobsinNL.ca, visiting one of our Career Work Centres,

or calling the Labour Market and Career Information Hotline.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo La Poile.

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

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. Ensuring students

obtain work experience through their studies is an important learning mechanism

for them. Enabling them to step out from the world of academia to have real

world experience in the working world is a crucial one, as the transition from

graduation to work will be less an adjustment down the road. These host

organizations for these student employees are benefiting considerably, not just

by having this extra workforce but by having the enthusiasm the students bring

to this employment.

As the minister indicated, students are going to work in a wide variety of

sectors in this Province, including tourism, which is so important to this

entire Province and to my little corner of this Province. Hopefully,

consideration was given to the Parks Canada sites in the Province, given that we

have had these cuts from the federal government. We all know that we need to do

everything we can to ensure that these sectors are given all the resources that

they need to do the job properly as we market ourselves to the world.

As the labour market outlook, and as the minister has just attested, we have

a number of job openings coming up in this Province which are expected to

continue to 2020. Hopefully this $6.6 million that we are investing will give

these students valuable work experience, but will go a long way to ensure that

these needs are met down the road.

So again, I congratulate the government on ensuring that our students in this

Province are getting this opportunity and I wish these students the best of luck

as they commence this summer employment.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. KIRBY: Thanks to the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

Summer employment programs are essential for high school and post-secondary

students. Now more than ever, students rely on government's initiative to help

create summer employment so that they can earn money for their education and

gain the skills and experience they need. Student employment across Canada is

now at an all-time high, so it is good to see our government showing some

leadership in this area.

Summer employment is one thing, but students are working toward one day

getting meaningful employment, so government needs to do more than just promise

that jobs will be there in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The communities of Northwest River and Sheshatshiu have been placed on

evacuation alert, this of course due to a forest fire that is in the area.

I ask the minister: Can they give us an update on what resources have been

deployed to the area, and if the fire is contained, what can they do to ensure

that people's safety is not compromised?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

We currently have three water bombers and two fire crews on standby, Mr.

Speaker, with eight to ten people on each crew ready to fight the fire.

Additional resources will be identified as requested. Fire and Emergency

Services Newfoundland and Labrador is working with community officials to

coordinate efforts, and the residents, if necessary, will be evacuated to safe

and secure locations.

The most recent notice I got, Mr. Speaker, is that the fire is moving toward

Sheshatshiu and Northwest River.

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, the Government House Leader publicly stated that he would allow the

debate on Bill 29 to go on as long as the Opposition wanted. However, early this

morning, he gave notice of closure, effectively shutting down debate on this

draconian legislation.

So, I ask the minister: Why are you using such a heavy-handed procedural

manoeuvre to stifle debate on the secrets act?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

We started debate on this bill at approximately 1:30 on Monday and sat all

through Monday night, all day Tuesday, and all through Tuesday night; we sat

last night until 12:30, Mr. Speaker. I indicated I was willing to keep going,

but I am not going to as a government, we are not going to tolerate racist

allegations being made by the Minister of the Crown, who is responsible for

human rights. At that point, Mr. Speaker, it was felt appropriate to bring in

the notice of closure and to shut debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Justice Green led us down the road to openness and accountability, resulting

in what we know as the Transparency and Accountability Act. Now, through Bill

29, your government is taking us a step backward in democracy.

I ask the minister: Why are you taking us in an opposite direction from where

Justice Green was taking us?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, anytime you bring legislation into being,

whether it is the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador or whether it is the

federal Parliament of Canada, you have to try to find a balance between what is

in the interest of public safety and the public interest, and the infringement

on individual rights. Those are always the principles that you have to follow

when you bring in legislation. It does not matter whether it is the Access to

Information Act that we are doing here or whether it was Bill C-30 in the

federal Parliament, where the police were given extra powers to deal with cyber

net crime. Mr. Speaker, you always have to try to find that balance. In our

estimation we have found that balance in this act and we have brought it forward

on that basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, some of the most important events in the

Province's history, such as the Cameron Inquiry, Lamer Inquiry, and details on

the Burton Winters tragedy, have come as a result of the access to information.

I ask the minister: With your new laws, will it now restrict the access to

information by the public on important events like this? Why would you allow

this?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, these are the kinds of allegations,

incorrect allegations, that have caused the hysteria and concern in the public.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Speaker, the majority of provisions

in this act are discretionary provisions subject to the approval of the Privacy

Commissioner. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in this act that will change

conditions from what they were before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has commented that nobody

wants to see what is in the minister's briefing book. The minister thinks that

no one wants to know what information he bases his decisions on.

I ask the minister: Limiting access to information is an affront to

democracy. Why are you insisting on pushing the ATIPPA amendments through?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the right to information is not an absolute

right. We safeguard the principle of the need for the public to have access to

government information. That is a sacred principle. We cannot violate that, but,

Mr. Speaker, in the interest of good governance and in the interest of

constructing government policy, it is necessary sometimes to put restrictions on

what you can release. That is what this act does.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, Democracy Watch, a national group that advocates

for open and accountable government, has said that changes to ATIPPA would allow

government to limit scrutiny, exempt more information from disclosure, and

weaken enforcement of the rules. They called it dangerously undemocratic, Mr.

Speaker.

I ask the minister: Why are you forcing changes that are deemed as

dangerously undemocratic?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, let me tell the House what this act does.

Public bodies now, as a result of the new provision in this act, will have

greater flexibility to provide public information. The previous act had a

mandatory restriction. You could not release personal information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. F. COLLINS: That mandatory restriction is taken away and any personal

information now, Mr. Speaker, subject to a harms test, can be released.

Mr. Speaker, people who want to do business with this Province now have

greater protection in developing the economy and moving forward in this

Province. Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner

has the same powers as they always did, no change, with the exception of the

official Cabinet records. Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner

also has the legislative ability now to conduct privacy investigations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in this act that speaks to

the allegations that the hon. member raised.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can assure you that the people on that side of the House are the only

people who believe there is greater flexibility.

As the Canadian Association of Journalists correctly points out, government

work is paid for by the public; therefore, every effort needs to be made to make

this information as available as possible.

I ask the minister: Why are you making it harder for people to access their

own information?

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

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I simply have to go back to what I just said

about people accessing their own information. People accessing information from

this government were subject to a mandatory prescription in the previous act, in

the current act, that personal information cannot be released. It is a mandatory

provision. You cannot release anybody's personal information.

Mr. Speaker, now, we have a harms test in there that if it is not an

unreasonable invasion of privacy, and there is a whole list of reasons to

justify it, that creates much more flexibility in giving out personal

information, much more flexibility than you ever had before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We already know of examples where we have had to take the Attorney General to

court to get personal information.

Mr. Speaker, Newspapers Canada stated that they do not see a rationale for

what government is attempting to do.

I ask the minister: What is your rationale for going well beyond the

recommendations of the Cummings Report?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, we were quite fortunate to be able to enlist

the services of Mr. Cummings to do this report. We followed the majority of his

recommendations. Mr. Speaker, his recommendations enhances ATIPPA. It enhances

it. It makes it more consistent with other jurisdictions. It strengthens it. It

makes a number of provisions in this act, Mr. Speaker, that betters the

position, both of the people who look for information from the public and the

government's position. Mr. Speaker, this is a very well-balanced act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The only position that is in the better situation today is the Cabinet

position. Mr. Cummings, by the way, there were sixteen of the thirty-three

recommendations that have been accepted. Mr. Speaker, by making these changes,

government is effectively using the majority to overturn a court of appeal

ruling and in doing so, making our access law a national embarrassment.

I ask the minister: Will you revoke these harsh amendments to the ATIPPA

legislation and save the Province from further damage at the national stage?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the hon. member across

does not understand some of the things we have been debating for the last couple

of days. The court of appeal decision that he is referring to, Mr. Speaker,

deals with solicitor-client privilege. Mr. Speaker, solicitor-client privilege

is a sacred principle of law that has strength in every jurisdiction. The court

that made that decision is aware of that, but because of the vagueness of the

language it had no choice but to advise us that the information had to be

disclosed.

We have simply tightened up the law, Mr. Speaker. The court of appeal never

said that the Privacy Commissioner was the person to make decisions on

solicitor-client privilege. What the court of appeal said was that the law was

so vague that it could not be enforced.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Over the years government has made many Blue Book promises and repeated

claims of being open and transparent.

I ask the minister: Why are you breaking your promise to be open and

transparent?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, no government in the history of this

Province gives out as much information liberally and freely as this government

no government in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, we have numerous pieces of legislation and

provincial strategies, which in combination with this act makes this an open,

transparent, democratic Province and a safe place to live. We have the best

human rights legislation in the Province. We brought the Auditor General into

this place, Mr. Speaker. We have provided more possibilities, more avenues and

more mechanisms to get information out to the public than any government in our

history.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Justice stated that government receives thousands of access

of information requests when in fact it is only eleven per week.

I ask the minister: Why did you present the wrong information to the public?

Was it just to try to justify the bill?

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

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to comments that I

made in a press conference that said we have had thousands of requests over the

years. Mr. Speaker, we have an average of 500 and 600 requests a year of

information, and in addition to that, requests for personal information. Back

over three years, Mr. Speaker, we had over 1,500. If you go back to five or six

years, we are certainly into the thousands. So, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of

manipulating figures.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the government is showing its true colours

by denying the people the right to know under freedom of information and

rejecting whistle-blower legislation even when they promised to do so. You are

now doing everything you can to limit access to information.

My question is for the Premier: Why such a secret and oppressive manner of

governance?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, as I just mentioned, this Province has in

the past five, six years brought in more legislation and more provincial

strategies to make this Province a safe, democratic, and good place to live. Mr.

Speaker, we have the best anti-poverty reduction strategy in the country; we

have the disabilities inclusion program, which was just brought in; we have the

Auditor General in place. Mr. Speaker, we have a freedom of information in

place, we have whistle-blower protection in a number of pieces of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a secret and oppressive government, much to the

contrary of what the Opposition states.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, because of the closure motion, government is

not allowing debate on twenty-eight of the thirty-four clauses in Bill 29. For

example, clause 10, or as we say the John Noseworthy clause on withholding

employment contracts, will not be debated.

I ask the Premier: Why are you not allowing debate on these serious issues?

What are you hiding?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

By my count, there has been over seventy hours of debate. The members

opposite chose yesterday to spend approximately six to eight to ten hours on

shall versus the may, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, much of it very uninformed and just very

nonsensical comments. They chose to go that route, Mr. Speaker. I

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: I indicated last night, Mr. Speaker, that we were willing to

keep the House open. We had our members coming back. We were willing to sit

through the night, but when we saw the kind of behaviour displayed by the Leader

of the NDP last night, Mr. Speaker, there was no way we were going to continue

that and subject anyone to that kind of abuse.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, what I would say is nonsensical

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: What I would say is nonsensical is what this government

is trying to do to deny information to the people of this Province. Mr. Speaker,

government actions, when it came to expropriating a paper mill in Grand

Falls-Windsor or a report to cut X-ray and lab services in the Province, were

all revealed through access to information by the people in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: I would ask the Premier: Is it embarrassing situations

like this that is driving government to introduce this legislation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There was plenty of time to debate this. As was indicated during the debate,

Mr. Speaker, the Cabinet documents are ones that are subject to restriction, but

there are well-known rules in law. The matters that were referred to earlier,

Mr. Speaker, Burton Winters was not a Cabinet document and the Cameron inquiry

was not a Cabinet document. Those matters became known, and although they were

discussed in Cabinet, Cabinet confidentiality would apply, Mr. Speaker.

What we have here is a situation where there are changes. There is no

question about that, but the changes relate to Cabinet documents and keeping

them confidential.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, we have asked in the House: How much

government money has been spent thus far fighting employees' entitlement to

legislated pay at the College of the North Atlantic in Qatar? Similarly, the AG

highlighted concerns over inappropriate spending at the Western School District.

These are mechanisms of accountability and depend upon access to information.

I would ask the Minister of Justice: Will this type of information be made

available in the future? If not, how is the Opposition to do its job to hold you

accountable to make sure public money is spent properly?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as the process is in place now and will continue

if anybody or any particular organization is looking for information, they will

apply through the access to information. Mr. Speaker, if that information is

available within the department and it is accessible, it will be provided.

Mr. Speaker, at this point, anything that is a Cabinet document, and as we

move forward with the legislative changes that is a certified Cabinet document,

that is not accessible nor should it be. We all understand that principle. Any

other information that will go through the test will go through the rules and

will go through the regulations. If it is available, it will be provided.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I would say this new legislation is removing

the test. There is no test that we are going to go through any longer.

A former employee of the College of the North Atlantic in Qatar has come out

to illustrate how changes to ATIPP will impact his case against the College

moving forward, as well as how it would have prevented him from receiving

information on why he may have been wrongfully dismissed. This employee made

numerous ATIPP requests over the years, to the extent that government might

interpret it vexatious. Indeed, he has been vexed by wrongful dismissal.

I would ask the minister: Without clear guidelines on what constitutes a

vexatious request, what will prevent government from denying, for example, an

individual vexed by a wrongful dismissal access to information?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, let me give you an example; let me give you

an example of a frivolous and vexatious request: a request from an applicant to

several departments, asking for all correspondence, external and internal

information, and transcripts from all radio talk programs and polls. Staff tried

to work with the applicant to narrow the parameters of the request. It was so

massive, requiring enormous amounts of time and resources; the applicant refused

to co-operate and proceed with the request. Department officials tried to get

the information together, and got it together, only to be told by the applicant

he did not want it.

Mr. Speaker, there is another one: an applicant request for the subject line

for all e-mails to and from seven people in the department for a one-month

period and the subject line for all e-mails exchanged between two other

individuals for the period of one year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, that is (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I would deem that a frivolous and vexatious

answer to my question, is what I would call that.

In attempting to justify the sweeping changes government has proposed to

ATIPP, the Government House Leader said that he supports tightening the rules on

access, because he does not want to operate in fear.

MR. SPEAKER: Please get to your question.

MR. A. PARSONS: My question to the House Leader is: What do you have to

fear?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, for a quick answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

A briefing note, Mr. Speaker, a Cabinet document can have a number of

options. What happens, Mr. Speaker, when those documents get in the hands of

unscrupulous people, the question can become: why did you choose one option or

the other, Mr. Speaker. So what happens is you are subject then to criticism and

scrutiny when you are doing your job, and that is simply not a way in which

Cabinet confidentiality can work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Canada is a well-respected member of the international community. We are also

a respected member of the Commonwealth, as is our colleague country, Uganda

equal in every respect to Canada in the federation. What is said in the House of

Commons and in provincial houses can have international repercussions.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Justice: Will he stand and apologize

for remarks he has made about Uganda and other countries to avoid any possible

diplomatic embarrassment for Canada?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I have to say that I am very disappointed in the approach taken by the Leader

of the Third Party. I heard her on CBC today, Mr. Speaker, where not only she

maintained her position from last night, but she now accused the minister of

systemic racism. That kind of commentary is simply uncalled for, and just shows

how nasty you really are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, when a politician or celebrity from elsewhere

says something disparaging about Newfoundland and Labrador, people in this

Province are quick to react with outrage. We are proud of who we are.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Justice: Why does he think it is okay for

him to disparage the proud people of other countries?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the comments that the hon. member refers to

were comments made last night in this House in response to a media presentation.

You talk about apologizing to Canada. We are presenting on behalf of Canada and

the G8 countries, Mr. Speaker; the media presentation suggested that Canada as a

G8 country ranked below a whole list of Third World developing countries. Mr.

Speaker, the G8 countries were ranked well below Mexico, Ethiopia, Nicaragua,

Bulgaria, Uganda, Moldova, and Guatemala. Canada was nowhere to be seen below

that. We are speaking for Canada, not apologizing to Canada. Canada, the ranking

system in here, Mr. Speaker, was never explained and the countries ranked on top

of that list have

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

Perhaps the minister should go study why the ranking is the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Association of Journalists, the largest national

professional organization for journalists, which represents some 600 members,

has said they are shocked by the draconian changes this government is trying to

make to our Access to Information and Protection of Privacy laws. This is strong

language.

I ask the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker: Why is government pushing

legislation which is changing this Province from being a leader in the area of

access to information to being a national embarrassment?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite asked why we invoked

closure, and I referred to the behaviour of the Leader of the Third Party. Well,

what we are seeing here today is not someone who is contrite for making

unsubstantiated allegations; what we are seeing is an individual who is trying

to put forward justification for, Mr. Speaker, what only can be referred to as

scurrilous remarks. I would suggest that is the tone of the debate that this

member wants to continue and it justifies what we did last night.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, another well-known national organization which

advocates open and accountable government, Democracy Watch, has also taken a

strong stand against government's proposed changes to the Access to Information

and Protection of Privacy legislation. The group says the legislation is

dangerously undemocratic, legislation which goes against the trend across Canada

towards more openness. It warns government is proposing excessive,

unjustifiable, and undemocratic secrecy, which is a recipe for corruption,

waste, and abuse of power. That is what they say, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Minister of Justice: Why, in the face of strong national opposition

to this legislation, does this minister continue to insist it is good

legislation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, reasonable people can disagree as to the nature and intent of

legislation. The members opposite have done their job in questioning the

legislation, Mr. Speaker, but to compare us last night, to call us racists and

fascists, I would suggest that simply goes beyond the pale.

What we are seeing from this Third Party, Mr. Speaker, is that their true

colours are coming out. What I would suggest that the Leader of the Third Party

should do is get up today and apologize to the Minister of Justice for the

comments that she made last night. Not only to apologize, Mr. Speaker, for the

sake of it, but to mean it. Because the dance she did in her seat last night,

Mr. Speaker, was something to behold.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When government was forced by a Supreme Court decision to allow the

Information and Privacy Commission to review documents government has deemed

protected by solicitor-client privilege, he found that many of them were, in

fact, not legitimately protected. He found in many cases the public body was

unable to offer a reasonable explanation for their claim.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Justice, if he is able to explain why this

privilege was apparently used inappropriately by government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, you will not find anyone in the legal

fraternity, or in the legal Bar, or in the judiciary, or anywhere else for that

matter, who will deny the privilege of solicitor-client needs to be protected.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, in the drafting of the current act the language was

not strong enough to protect solicitor-client privilege. It had nothing to do

with whether or not the Privacy Commissioner is the one to make a decision on

solicitor-client privilege. The Court of Appeal was clear on that. The language

was vague, so the court had no choice but to make the comments about that

particular language. Mr. Speaker, when that happened, the government tightened

up the language so as to ensure the privilege of solicitor-client privilege.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker,

section 22 of Bill 29 allows the Commissioner to

investigate an attempt to resolve a person's complaint of a government breach of

their privacy. There is no provision, however, in the bill for the Commissioner

to investigate a whistle-blower's complaint to the Commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Justice: Will he amend the bill to ensure

the Commissioner has this power?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the whistle-blower legislation has been

discussed at length in this House, or the lack of whistle-blower legislation. We

made it clear, Mr. Speaker, in this House that when we see a piece of

whistle-blower legislation that we can adopt, we will do that. In the meantime,

Mr. Speaker, we have all kinds of coverage in our legislation and in the

Criminal Code of Canada with respect to protection for people in the workplace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the problems with applying ATIPP in a small municipal setting is the

availability of trained staff and councils to safeguard the protection of

privacy and ensure access to information when deemed necessary under the law.

My question for the Minister is: What steps has his department been taking to

ensure 100 per cent compliance with the present legislation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, each and every year we give several educational

sessions to municipalities, especially after an election, say in 2013, that we

might or may have new councillors being elected in that process. That is a

continuous process in regard to an educational program that we have within

Municipal Affairs, which will include this act as well. Each and every one of

the councillors and staff will be provided enough information to deal with the

provisions within the act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, I filed access to information requests with the

Department of Advanced Education and Skills in an attempt to discover

information regarding plans for infrastructure work at College of the North

Atlantic in Stephenville. In response, I received back from the department

nearly six pages of solid black toner.

I ask the Minister: What was the message she was trying to send by approving

the release of this black toner response?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it is like any request that comes into any

department, whether it is Advanced Education or Skills. The request is reviewed

and if the information is accessible information it is provided. There are rules

around what is not provided and rules around what needs to be redacted. If the

information was not to be provided it is redacted by the staff who do that, Mr.

Speaker, for the department. If the information is accessible, it would not have

been redacted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For years now the people of St. Anthony have tried to find the truth behind

government's relocation of their air ambulance service. Despite frustrated

access to information requests from myself and others, and despite pending court

cases pursued by concerned citizens of St. Anthony, the people of the region

remain in the dark.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health before she closes the door on this

information permanently: Will she commit to providing the people with all

documentation around the event so they can know the truth?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on any number of occasions in this House of Assembly that same

question has been asked. It was asked long before I came into this portfolio to

my predecessor. He has answered the question. I have stood in this House of

Assembly and I have answered the question.

I have no idea what he is talking about when he says he cannot get access to

the information. We have given it to him on many, many occasions and to the

person who asked the questions the last few times when he was not in the House.

Mr. Speaker, this is really unfounded, this is really unnecessary. Anybody

who watches the House of Assembly knows how many times we have answered that

question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

CBC learned from filing requests for information using provincial access to

information legislation that although the Minister of Health and Community

Service's office said she was monitoring a health scare in Central Newfoundland,

it was the local health authority who was handling the problem. The e-mail CBC

got shows otherwise; the truth was the minister was very much involved.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: Is she

supporting her government's amendments to the Access to Information legislation

so she can avoid future embarrassments of this kind?

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 am in no way embarrassed about doing my job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, if anything, this is one of the best examples I

have seen of openness and transparency. They requested information, they got

information, and no information denied, Mr. Speaker. They asked and they got it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The member has about ten seconds to ask a very quick

question.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: In order to avoid future

embarrassment with regard to getting bills passed in this House, will she

immediately strike viable working standing committees similar to other Canadian

jurisdictions?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice under Standing Order 11, seconded by the Minister

of Advanced Education and Skills, that I shall move that this House not adjourn

at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, June 17, 2012.

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

not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Monday, June 17, 2012.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

MR. KENNEDY: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, it appears that Monday is June 18.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice under Standing Order 11, seconded by the Minister

of Advanced Education and Skills, I move that this House not adjourn at 5:30

p.m. on Monday, June 18, 2012.

I further give notice under Standing Order 11 that this House not adjourn at

10:00 p.m. Monday, June 18, 2012.

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I present a petition, to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the Regional Economic Development Boards diversify, grow, and

strengthen economies throughout the Province by providing training

opportunities, marketing advice, proposal writing, leveraging funds,

collaboration, and other means; and

WHEREAS the federal government's decision to cut funding to the Atlantic

Canada Opportunities Agency ACOA is resulting in the elimination of funding

to the RED Boards and their termination in May, 2013; and

WHEREAS 75 per cent of the operational funding for RED Boards, roughly $3.6

million, is provided by ACOA, with the additional 25 per cent from the

provincial government; and

WHEREAS the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development IBRD

has $200 million in their suite of programming, some of which has poor uptake;

and

WHEREAS just 1.5 per cent of the Business Attraction Fund of the Department

of Innovation, Business and Rural Development was used last year, $366,800 of a

$25 million budget;

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

commit to bridge funding in its 2013 Budget, which may come from the Business

Attraction Fund, to help preserve the RED Boards in Newfoundland and Labrador

who provide support to municipalities, communities, organizations, and

businesses.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

The petition that I have is signed by petitioners in St. John's, Mount Pearl,

Conception Harbour, and CBS.

Mr. Speaker, there are nineteen RED Boards in the Province and they were

sixteen years in the making. They have had many, many successes in what they

have done over the years, in terms of being able to truly create local, regional

issues, to bring forward, and to work with a number of stakeholders. Right now,

the Department of IBRD, in the Business Attraction Fund, has $15 million. So, if

anything goes on past history, they will not use all that money, and they can

commit to funding and look at, maybe with the performance-based model that has

been implemented with the RED Boards doing things that also can look at making

them more self-sufficient around revenue-generating mechanisms.

So, I present that petition here to the House of Assembly.

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to present a petition.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

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

collective agreements are negotiated without work disruption; and

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

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

provinces have never repealed those laws; and

WHEREAS anti-temporary replacement worker legislation has reduced the length

and divisiveness of labour disputes; and

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

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

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

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

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

enact legislation banning the use of temporary replacement workers during a

strike or lockout.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, we are very fortunate in Newfoundland and Labrador that we do

not see the use of replacement workers or scab labour very frequently. It is

only in very seldom occasions that it really comes to that, because most of the

time employers and employees, whether that is in the public sector or the

private sector, come to an agreement in a very quick manner. Very seldom does it

come to a strike and very, very, seldom does it ever come to the point where

employers resort to the use of replacement workers. I would say that we are very

fortunate for that, but I would like to see a situation in Newfoundland and

Labrador where we never see the use of scab labour in the collective bargaining

process, in labour disputes, because I think that that really diminishes the

rights of workers and I think it really hurts employers in the long term as

well.

I urge Members of the House of Assembly to support these petitioners because

this is an excessively important issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, in

Chapter 13 of Bosc and O'Brien, Rules of

Order and Decorum, says, "Remarks directed specifically at another Member which

question that Member's integrity, honesty or character are not in order. A

Member will be requested to withdraw offensive remarks, allegations, or

accusations of impropriety directed towards another Member. The Speaker has no

authority to rule on statements made outside the House by one Member against

another."

Mr. Speaker, today during Question Period, the Government House Leader made

remarks that were personal attacks directed at myself; language used against me

that were personal insults. I do request an apology from the Government House

Leader saying what you did in this House last night is showing how nasty you

are, is an insult. There were many other things that were said; I do not have,

obviously, Hansard in front of me. I am standing up here trying to represent the

people of this Province and, Mr. Speaker, I do request an apology from the

Government House Leader covered by this.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I said, Mr. Speaker, was indeed something to behold last night as she

did her dance and it showed how truly nasty she is. Also, Mr. Speaker, you have

to look at the interview that she gave to CBC Radio this morning where she

questioned again the minister's integrity and this time accused him of systemic

racism. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it was put to her on a number of times: Are you

saying the minister is racist? She would not go that far. She did invoke

parliamentary privilege last night, Mr. Speaker, because she wanted to protect

herself. She knew she had made libellous comments.

Mr. Speaker, the comments I made to the Leader of the Opposition today were

no different than her accusing the Minister of Health basically of lying or

misleading this House. If there is anyone who should be apologizing, Mr.

Speaker, it is her for her behaviour last night. There is no point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party, to the point of order.

MS MICHAEL: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the Government House

Leader refers to what I said on the radio this morning, first of all the Speaker

does not rule on things said outside of the House. Secondly, when I was on radio

this morning, Mr. Speaker

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: I explained my understanding of systematic racism based on

the work that I have done around racism. That is what I did on the radio this

morning. That is not something that can be ruled here, what can be ruled are the

insulting remarks that were made to me questioning my character remarks about

my character that were made by the Government House Leader. I want an apology,

Mr. Speaker. I hope you will rule that way.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

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

In fact, what is interesting is when the member says that her comments

outside do not give rise to a point of order. They do give rise to a point of

privilege and the Speaker ruled on that earlier this year in relation to another

member of the NDP. Mr. Speaker, the comments made outside the House and when

we get the transcript, maybe this is something we will have to raise as a point

of privilege because a point of privilege is one that questions a minister and

affects the minister's ability to do his or her job, or a member.

Mr. Speaker, this minister is the minister for human rights and for that

member opposite to question his integrity like she did last night and make that

very serious allegation and to repeat it again today I challenge her, go

outside the House of Assembly after and make the comment.

Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order. What may come from her comments is a

point of privilege.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) court.

MR. KENNEDY: Or a court action, yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party, to the point of

order.

MS MICHAEL: Just to say, Mr. Speaker, that I will stand by your ruling on

the point of order that I have raised.

MR. SPEAKER: When Hansard is published on today's session, the Speaker

will review Hansard and the tapes of today's proceeding and on the next sitting

day provide a comment for the House.

The Member for The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: I would like to present a petition to the House, Mr.

Speaker.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents in Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the need for cellular coverage is far-reaching in the District of The

Straits White Bay North; and

WHEREAS there is limited cell coverage in the Route 430 from St. Anthony

Airport to St. Anthony, and there is little to no cellphone coverage in the

communities surrounding Route 432, Route 433, Route 434, Route 435, Route 436,

Route 437, and Route 438; and

WHEREAS residents of these communities require cellphone coverage to ensure

their safety and communication abilities; and

WHEREAS the residents of The Straits White Bay North District feel the

Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development should also develop

incentives for further investments in cellular phone coverage for rural

Newfoundland and Labrador;

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

support the residents of The Straits White Bay North District in their request

to obtain adequate cellular coverage in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

This petition is signed by residents of Flower's Cove, Cook's Harbour, Sandy

Cove, Savage Cove, Anchor Point, Black Duck Cove, Nameless Cove, Pines Cove,

Ship Cove, and a number from Raleigh. The people of Raleigh and Ship Cove,

actually there was someone who went door to door to ensure that all residents

of Raleigh and Ship Cove, I believe, had signed it. There are quite a number of

signatures for the people who live there.

Mr. Speaker, there are significant gaps, and there are significant gaps all

around the Province when it comes to cellular coverage. I have been working with

stakeholders, working with mobility providers, doing research on the CRTC, and

also hoping that we can see similar initiatives put forward, how we can work

with regions and how we can work with RED Boards, municipalities, and with the

Department of IBRD to bridge those gaps.

There is some positive work that can be done around that. There are critical

gaps, but with the right approach we can ensure we have better communication and

cellular coverage. That is coming far-reaching from people in the district and

even without. Other members here in the Opposition have been presenting

petitions on cellular phone coverage. This is something I hope we all as hon.

members urge the government to make a greater investment.

MR. SPEAKER: Petitions.

The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I petition the House. I have a petition here for the removal of the Englee

fish plant, a public safety hazard and environmental concern.

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 showeth.

WHEREAS the provincial government refuses to admit they have a role to play

in the removal of the condemned Englee fish plant; and

WHEREAS the Town of Englee has exhausted all avenues over the past seven

years lobbying government for removal; and

WHEREAS inaction has resulted in economic loss for the town, delay of new

infrastructure, and has become a concern of public safety as large debris has

fallen in the major shipping route.

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

immediately order full removal and environmental cleanup of this condemned

property former fish plant in order to restore public confidence in the

system and settle land issues to permit new wharf development, providing

residents of Englee with the mechanism to revitalize a presently devitalized

economy.

As in duty bound, your petitions will ever pray.

Sincerely, the undersigned.

This petition is signed by residents of Roddickton and Englee.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the government, through Service NL has issued

an order to the defunct company hoping that there will be some removal. However,

there are greater initiatives that need to be done and we are seeing where

government can take further action to press to settle those land issues around

who actually owns the property so that this town can really move on.

It has been close to ninety days and there has been no removal to date.

The residents of Englee and area are certainly urging this House to press the

government to see if more can be done to make sure that the health and safety

concerns in this environmental matter can be restored. We have seen the

government intervene in areas where they have taken property which they did not

own and they are doing the environmental remediation and cleanup for the

goodwill, health, and safety protection of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition here to the House; to the hon. House of Assembly of the

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

the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

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

million rural broadband initiative announcement on December 22, 2011, only one

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

WHEREAS the communities of Pines Cove, Eddies Cove East, Bide Arm, North Boat

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

and St. Anthony Bight still remain without services; and

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE:

WHEREAS many small businesses within the district rely

on the Internet to conduct business; and

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

slower dial-up services; and

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

further educational opportunities;

We petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to reinvest in the

rural broadband initiatives in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I have presented this petition to the House, but we are getting

more and more mailed into our office, so it just shows that this initiative is

very important and we hope to see that there is greater investment.

Thank you for your time, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, to ask

leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Fatalities

Investigations Act, Bill 33, Mr. Speaker, and I further move that the said bill

be now read the first time.

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

shall have leave to introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend The Fatalities

Investigations Act, Bill 33, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

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

introduce Bill 33, and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Fatalities Investigations Act", carried. (Bill 33)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Fatalities Investigations Act. (Bill

33)

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

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. KENNEDY: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 33 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, that

pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock p.m.

on today, June 14, 2012.

I further move, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House

not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 14, 2012.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that this House do not

adjourn at 5:30 o'clock p.m. Thursday, June 14, and further that this House do

not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 14, 2012.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 5, second

reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act and The City Of

St. John's Municipal Taxation Act, Bill 30.

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education,

that Bill 30,

An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act and The City Of St.

John's Municipal Taxation Act, be now read the second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 30,

An Act To Amend The

City Of St. John's Act and The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act, be now

read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act

and The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act". (Bill 30)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in regard to

bringing these much-needed amendments to the floor of the House of Assembly here

today. They were requested by the City of St. John's and also supported by the

Board of Trade as well. There is a fair bit of consultations went into these

amendments with the city and also the business community of the City of St.

John's.

These amendments will enable the city to provide a commercial tax system

which is equitable and transparent. Mr. Speaker, right now, as it sits today,

there are two forms of commercial taxation in the city, a business occupancy tax

and a commercial property tax. The city's assessment roll has a listing of all

the commercial properties in the city. They are assessed at a value, which

includes both the real property, which is the building itself, and the value of

the space that might be occupied by each individual business at that particular

property, Mr. Speaker, and that is the way it is done.

What the City of St. John's wants to do is blend these two together and

create a taxation system that is more transparent, more understandable by the

business community, and also there is some value in that, in regard to the

business community. The business tax is based upon, right now, the assessed

value of the property that is occupied by the business, and multiplied by an

applicable tax rate. That is the way it works. The rate varies for different

types of classes of businesses, and they are set in regard to the regulations of

the City of St. John's.

The commercial property tax is based upon the set value of the property,

multiplied by the commercial mill rate, which is common to all commercial

properties. In other words, there are two types of rates. The rate would vary to

the type of business and the classes of businesses that are set in the

guidelines in regard to the City of the St. John's, and then the assessed value

of the property is valued at a commercial mill rate, which is common to all.

The amendments that I am proposing, in regard to the City of St. John's Act

and the City of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act will allow the city to

streamline the processes for business commercial property owners and the city.

With the elimination of the business tax, will require the city to increase its

commercial property tax to recover previous revenue generated by the business

tax. The new tax structure will be revenue neutral. By not increasing overall

taxation, it will provide a clear taxation structure. I want all the hon.

members in the House of Assembly to understand that this does not mean there is

going to be an increase in business tax and overall taxation to the City of St.

John's. It is actually revenue neutral to the City of St. John's, other than it

provides clarity under the act and clarity to the business owners in regard to

their taxation rates.

Mr. Speaker, these amendments will also ensure that the commercial tax

structure of the city is clear. It will ensure efficiency in the administration

of taxation, and it should help eliminate problems associated with the

collection of taxes as well. The City of St. John's requires their tax base to

provide the infrastructure requirements of all the people, its residents, the

businesses that do business in the city, so they need revenue streams to do

that, along with the important contribution that the provincial government makes

to the City of St. John's on a yearly basis. I believe that we, on average, give

the City of St. John's anywhere between $10 million and $12 million in regard to

their infrastructure requirements, not counting other special investments too

that we have made in various buildings and various infrastructure big

infrastructure investments over the years. With the City of St. John's though,

from their point of view, they have to have a tax revenue stream to help them

provide those kinds of things to the residents of the city, as well as the

business world.

In the circumstance where a commercial property owner is leasing a property

to a business, other than the property in which the provincial government is a

tenant, the lessee can collect increased fees from the business in order to

offset any tax increases. That has been discussed between the City of St. John's

and the business world. The business world clearly understands, along with the

Board of Trade, how it is going to work in regard to the way the new tax

structure is set up, the extra fees in regard to their lease agreements would be

worked out, and they will move forward. Again, I want to highlight that this is

a revenue neutral position for the City of St. John's; it does not require and

will not increase the amounts of money that businesses would be spending or

required to spend in regard to business tax and commercial taxation.

When the Province is a tenant of a building, which we have many across the

city, the owner of the commercial real property can claim vacancy relief, so to

compensate the owner for their inability to collect any tax. In other words what

I am saying is that there is no infringement in regard to the buildings that we

occupy as a government across the city right now. The City of St. John's is in

agreement with that; the business world is in agreement with that. So the

mechanism that will be used to offset the blending of the commercial and

business tax would be that they would be deemed as being vacant, but they would

be occupied by government offices.

Mr. Speaker, our government has been pleased to work with the City of St.

John's to provide a progressive structure for the city, and the amendments

proposed were requested by the city, as I said before, and supported by the

Board of Trade.

Mr. Speaker, we, in Municipal Affairs and my staff, will continue to work

with all our municipalities to ensure the appropriate tools required to provide

services to its residents. We have undertaken significant efforts in recent

years to work with our municipalities and provide support as we recognize their

importance to our Province, and this will continue.

As well, Mr. Speaker, I should mention in regard to a building that a person

would own but is currently vacant, that the owner of that building can apply for

a vacancy relief when that is empty. In other words, their tax would reflect

that they are not collecting any lease revenues from that particular building

and that would offset any undue hardship on the owner of the building.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good amendment to the legislation of the City of St.

John's. There is a fair bit of work that has gone into it and a fair bit of

collaboration and the consultation with the City of St. John's, the Board of

Trade, and the business community at large. I have spoken to the city, I have

spoken to various business owners in St. John's, and each and every one of them

supports these amendments. They are looking forward to them being enacted in the

very near future.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat in the House. I look forward to

any comments. I am quite sure that my Opposition people across the House will

support it and take knowledge that the Board of Trade and the City of St. John's

both are in agreement to these amendments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just rise to have a few words on this bill. I heard the minister say the

Board of Trade is in support of this bill. I am not sure that is 100 per cent

correct that the Board of Trade is in support of this bill. From my

understanding, they contacted myself personally and they would like to address a

few concerns that they have with the bill. I am not sure if the minister had

consultations with the Board of Trade. If he did, I am not aware that they are

in support of this bill, Mr. Speaker. They do have some concerns.

Mr. Speaker, this bill would amend the City of St. John's Act to allow the

elimination of business tax, the city tax, and the vacant land tax.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: This is an administration thing for the City of St. John's to

try to incorporate, to eliminate a few of the taxes that they have. This bill

would also amend the City of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act, eliminating the

ability of St. John's to impose a business tax. This is a part of why the City

of St. John's is recommending and supporting this bill, Mr. Speaker. It is a

thing for the City of St. John's that would help the City of St. John's in some

of the taxation, which they would have on rental properties and other businesses

in the St. John's area.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the bill will allow the owner of a commercial property to

increase rent to a tenant, recovering from the tenant "the amount of any

increases in commercial property taxes resulting from the elimination of the

business tax". What they are saying here is that it gives a person who owns a

commercial property the ability to increase the rent if the business tax is

taken away from the person who is renting the property. If their tax is

eliminated, then the rate the person can charge whoever is renting the building

it gives them the ability to increase the rent, Mr. Speaker; now they will not

be paying any taxes to the city directly, but it will go to the person who rents

the property.

Basically, Mr. Speaker, the bill moves responsibility of tax collection from

the city to the landlord of the commercial property by increasing the rent to

the tenant in the amount that the tenant would have paid the City of St. John's

in business tax. What we see here is a business that operates within a rental

structure. Right now, the person who is renting the building would pay the tax,

which would decrease the tax of the person who actually owns the building you

are renting.

Mr. Speaker, what this amendment is asking is that now the City of St. John's

can put a business tax on the person who owns the building. That would allow

whoever owns the building the ability to charge extra rent to cover the amount

the person who is renting the building would have to pay in taxes to the city.

In theory, Mr. Speaker, it would eliminate somehow that the city is responsible

for one taxation purpose then, just whoever owns the building, not who is

renting the building.

It does change the scope of rentals and taxation. Once again, that was one of

the concerns that the Board of Trade mentioned, Mr. Speaker. Again, I heard the

minister say that the Board of Trade is in support of this bill. From my

understanding, that is not correct. The last one that I was speaking to is and

Mr. Speaker, the minister is saying that they are in support of this and that

the Board of Trade is in support of it. I understand if the minister says it,

and I will be speaking to the Board of Trade that this is fine, Mr. Speaker.

The rationale for the City of St. John's, Mr. Speaker I can understand this

totally, Newfoundland and Labrador is one of the last provinces in the country

to have a business occupancy tax. This would eliminate this from the department.

Once again, if everybody is in agreement with this, we can see that it is

bringing it more in line with the rest of Canada. I can see why the City of St.

John's would support this.

Then we have the elimination of the business tax, which would put the City

into a more competitive position with Atlantic Canada for business attractions

and retention. This is the City of St. John's rationale for it, Mr. Speaker. Of

course, if we are going to put legislation in play to ensure that businesses can

operate better in St. John's, attract new businesses because of the taxation

system, and keep businesses in St. John's, I would have to support that. When we

get down to the details of the bill, if this is an actual fact, it is a great

thing that we can attract and retain businesses in St. John's.

As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, businesses pay two taxes: the business

property tax and the business occupancy tax. The minister mentioned also that

what they are going to do is eliminate this here and bring it all in the one. I

guess if you can eliminate anything that is going to help the City and ensure

that there is uniform taxation system for the City of St. John's, Mr. Speaker, I

can definitely agree with that. I definitely agree with it and understand the

rationale behind it, Mr. Speaker.

To compensate for the lost revenue through the business tax, the City will

increase the mill rate on the business property taxes by the landlord. The

landlord will in turn increase the rent to compensate for the increased business

property tax.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, this is just to streamline the business taxes, as we

know. The City of St. John's will bring this in in-line with other uniform

across Canada to ensure there is only one form of tax. The landlord then will,

and I am sure will have the right to increase the rent for the City of St.

John's to make sure they are compensated in the extra tax. That is now

streamlined and will be taken care of by the property owner, Mr. Speaker.

Also, it helps with the administration burden in the collection of two taxes,

Mr. Speaker. As we said, this is a part of the legislation, the regulations and

the amendments, is to ensure that the administration burden of two taxes then

again, if you are doing any accounting for any municipality in Newfoundland and

Labrador, if you have to go and bill the same person or the same building twice,

it is an administrative pressure on them. It definitely helps to have one bill

going to one person who happens to own the building. It definitely helps with

the administration. It fine tunes the collection system for St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, the good side about it for the landlord, is if the landlord has

this act in place, when he does advertising for his building or his property, it

will advertise all inclusive facts. Once you put an advertisement out for some

type of rental for your building you would put out one tax, and this one tax

then would be all inclusive.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the minister, because this bill is supported by

the St. John's Board of Trade and the Canadian Federation of Small Business. I

was waiting to consult with the because I had a phone call into the St. John's

Board of Trade but I am aware they are supportive of this bill. There is another

one I think, Mr. Speaker, that the Board of Trade has some concerns with. So I

apologize to the minister for bringing that up in the beginning. The Board of

Trade and the Canadian Independent Business are both in favour of this bill, Mr.

Speaker, and I am sure they analyzed the bill quite well. I am sure they

understand the implications for the people under their umbrella, and I am sure

they are ensuring that it is best for the people in their groups. Also, the City

of St. John's is supporting this bill, Mr. Speaker.

As the minister mentioned, in a brief discussion that we had earlier with the

minister, this is more of a housecleaning amendment, Mr. Speaker. This is to

ensure that Mr. Speaker, we all have to have consultations on these types of

bills and all these regulations, and the minister mentioned that he had

consultations with the City of St. John's, the St. John's Board of Trade, and

other stakeholders.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Also, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the minister had any other

discussions with other towns across the Province to incorporate this type of

legislation for other major towns across the Province. I am not sure he has,

but, Mr. Speaker, if a lot of groups look at this and if it is good for some

areas, we may be able to implement it in some other areas all across

Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, as we know now, the vacant land tax, as it is known today, will

be eliminated through this regulation. That is part of this regulation also, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the city tax was a tax used years ago as a rental value tax. I

will just give you an example of that. The tax was assessed by using the rental

value of the property. This tax has not been used since the early 1980s and is

seen more as a housekeeping item, Mr. Speaker.

Once again, when you have certain bills and regulations in place it is always

nice to go and review the bills and review the regulations to ensure that you

can improve upon them to help with the municipalities, and in this case the City

of St. John's, and the other businesses in St. John's that fall under the St.

John's Board of Trade. Once again, it is great that everybody can come together

and come to a mutual agreement that yes, there needs to be some changes.

On this issue itself, Mr. Speaker, I may have a few questions when we get

into Committee stage, but as the minister mentioned, and after reviewing the

legislation on this bill, I will be, just as a formality, calling the three

parties involved with this: the Canadian independent business, the St. John's

Board of Trade, and the City of St. John's, to see if they have any concerns or

any questions, or anybody else who have any questions or concerns that they

would like for me to raise during the Committee stage. As I mentioned earlier,

this seems like more of a housecleaning bill because it is supported by all

parties involved.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me pleasure to talk to Bill 30 today, the amendments to the City of

St. John's Act. I think that knowing the number of pieces that have been coming

up dealing with municipalities lately, in particular affecting the City of St.

John's itself, I think that one of the first observances that I had in looking

at all these bills that were coming through that perhaps our provincial

government needs to get into consultation now with the City of St. John's and

probably undertake a new work, a whole new City of St. John's Act and modernize

the act itself. St. John's is a growing city; it is growing very, very fast.

That is one consideration, I think, that came upon these pieces of legislation

that are coming through in the next couple of days.

Perhaps the minister can probably get into consultations with the City of St.

John's on that. I know that it would be a big piece of work, but I think that

these are modern times and the City of St. John's Act still has things in it,

for example, like the necessity of registering of horses is still in the act. It

just goes to show I do not know if there are any horses that are still

registered within the confines of the City of St. John's, but it is probably a

good question to ask. Modernization of the act may simplify things in the future

when it comes to that.

I want to thank the minister as well for the excellent briefing from his

staff. Chad Blundon gave us a really good breakdown of what has been happening

here. He opened it up to the point where we still have some questions to it, and

probably a couple of suggestions that the Minister of Municipal Affairs can not

only work into the present City of St. John's Act, work it into the policies,

but possibly to work in with other municipalities around the Province for

example that may run into the same well, I guess in this particular case we

will call it a taxing problem or in this case probably a taxing solution. You

can call it what you will.

Getting into it, there is really not much to it that we found next to these

couple of points. The problematics that we had with it we understand the

necessity for the City of St. John's to have the freedom of blending the tax and

showing some transparency when it comes to this. One of the more important

points that we found when you are dealing with a commercial operator for example

like a mall versus the business contained within, both were being taxed and both

on that same space at some point. They decided to remove the responsibility of

the corporation involved, for example, the owner of the mall, and put the onus

on the business for the business to be paying its tax. Then they merged it so

that would be collected at the same time through that corporation. Also, what it

does is give the city the ability to place a lien on particular problem payers

of the taxes.

The big concern we had, Mr. Minister, and perhaps you can give us a little

bit of a flavour as regards what to do here, the question we had was how

charities were going to be able to handle this particular tax measure. We have

some feelers out there as regards how charities are going to be affected, for

example, by this tax measure. We know charities do not carry a big bottom line.

They do not have a lot of money in the bank. Of course, these days, with

problems with people donating money and the lower level of funds they have been

getting, sometimes they do not have a lot of money in the bank to be able to pay

their taxes upfront. The situation is different, for example, from one charity

that may own a particular property that they are living in vis--vis a charity

that owns the property they are living in.

There are two different dichotomies there we hope the City of St. John's is

going to be working through. I think one of the things they are talking about is

the possibility of a rebate system where they are paying their business tax

upfront. Then, they get the ability to either, A, get the tax back automatically

or, B, have to apply for it and then get their taxes back.

Those are the only couple of little problems we have seen with it when it

came to the charitable end of things. We are a little bit worried about the

effect that is going to have on charities and their ability to carry a positive

bottom line in the future. We are feeling that has to be looked at. Hopefully

the City of St. John's will be able to address that little matter.

The other matter having to do with the collection of taxes has to do with

some of the vacant buildings we are seeing around town, in particular some of

the grocery stores, and how that is going to affect how the City of St. John's

is probably going to be collecting taxes there. The question here in this

particular case, and the one thing the residents of the City of St. John's will

obviously notice, is abandoned grocery stores, for example, where you have a

parent company that would own a business, that business was formerly operating

in that premises and now they are not there. How is that tax going to be

measured upon companies that are leaving these properties vacant? Because while

they are not used and while there is still some sort of a commercial tax that is

being collected from these businesses, the problem still is that these formerly

operating businesses are now vacant and they are a little bit of an eyesore.

Hopefully, it would be upon the city to see if they can have that one addressed.

We agree with the fact that the city needs to be able to do this on their

own. Again, the real concern that we have is, of course, number one, a new City

of St. John's Act possibly should be done here to address some of these

problems, and for older municipalities around the Province to have the act in

their respective cities redrawn as well. I think there are two or three other

cities within the confines of the Province that would probably be deserving of

having their acts revisited.

Again, just something else that was in there too, when I mentioned to the

minister when I was looking down through the initial bill when it was first

passed out, there is even mention there of a fuel oil tax, but it has not being

imposed on consumers in years. My understanding was that was done on the basis

of the old imperial gallon versus the US gallon in that particular time and it

was done, I think, at two cents on an imperial gallon. That will give you a

sense of the last time that was addressed. The last time we used imperial

gallons over US gallons in this Province, I think at the time, was we switched

over to metric, which was probably 1975 I am guessing or 1976.

Just a couple of concerns there and again, our real concern here lie with

how charities are going to be affected here. Hopefully the City of St. John's

will address that. It gives them the freedom to do this measure, so we look at

it as being a positive thing where government takes its hands off the city and

gives them the ability to call their own shot if you will.

That being said, Mr. Speaker, I cannot see any other problem with this

particular piece of legislation. Some of the things that we already mentioned

are probably about the only things that we can think of. If there are any other

problems we can think of or that I did not get at this particular time, we will

bring it up again when the bill comes to Committee.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Kilbride.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, had a briefing at Municipal Affairs with the manager of

governance a very bright young man, makes you feel confident when you have

such excellent young people in our system here. This young fellow knew all about

local government. I was kind of impressed that he was in the position he was at

the age he is. I thank him for the briefing.

I knew an awful lot of what he was going to tell me anyway because, as you

know, I was twelve-and-a-half years at St. John's city council anyway. This

legislation that we are dealing with today, the issue we were dealing with ten

years ago at the city, it started then, so this is nothing new.

Bill 30 is going to amend the city act and the city's municipal taxation act.

It was requested by the city and the minister said that, the city is the one

that is requesting this. This did not come out because someone else wanted it;

the city has been dealing with this for ten or more years and they want this. As

a matter of fact, I think it was only the other day that I had a copy of a

letter from the mayor asking us to support this legislation, to get it through

as quickly as possible because they want to act on this.

When this Bill 30 is passed and I am assuming it will be St. John's will

have the authority to change its present commercial tax system. Presently, there

are two tax rates with the city's commercial system. There is a business realty

tax or a commercial realty tax, which is based on the value of the commercial

building. There is also a commercial or a business occupancy tax. What this new

legislation will do is blend the two of these taxes into one.

As I mentioned already, Mr. Speaker, the city has been dealing with this for

a number of years. They have not been dealing with it on their own. Back ten

years ago when this started, the Board of Trade and other business groups in the

city were involved with this, but they were very cool to the idea of what was

happening today, what we are doing now. They did not want any changes. Something

had to be done to get them to go along with it.

The city, with its present commercial system, had a lot of problems,

especially with the occupancy tax part of it. This occupancy tax was very

difficult to apply first of all. It was very labour intensive. What had to

happen, take a commercial site like the Avalon Mall. A city tax assessor

literally had to go in, measure up the whole building, first of all, and know

the square footage of the building. If someone applied to put a store in part of

the Avalon Mall, then you had to go in and measure that up, and to apply an

occupancy tax you had to know what percentage the business was of the commercial

site. Once you knew that you applied the commercial occupancy tax rate, which

was so many mills, so you would times that by the percentage.

Also, applying this occupancy tax was troublesome, apart from being labour

intensive. It was hard to collect. I can remember when I was on council, on the

finance committee; we would have a list of people who owed business taxes. You

would have a list, probably four or five pages long of taxes that could not be

collected. Because what often happened, a business went into a commercial site,

like the Avalon Mall, set up, they lasted two or three months, then they went

out of business or they left and went somewhere else and the city was not

notified. Very often that tax had to be written off, it was uncollectible.

Another thing about this tax system is that the only way the city sometimes

were aware that someone was in business in a commercial site is that they went

in and made an application. If they did not apply, the city did not know they

were there. They had no way, unless they picked it up in the papers as an

advertisement or something. If someone was advertising their commercial business

saying we have a sale on today. Then the city said: boy, we did not know this

existed. Then they would send a bill out. Technically, the biggest problem the

city had with its commercial business taxes was the occupancy tax. They wanted

to change that because it was hard to collect, especially.

The new system that will be introduced when Bill 30 is passed will be a blend

of the two systems. What will happen, the commercial site will be assessed. The

city, which now collects $25 million in business property tax and $20 million,

approximately, in occupancy tax, they will keep that revenue. They are not going

to lose any revenue, nor will they gain any revenue. The idea is to assess the

building then increase the mill rate so that they get the same revenue from

businesses.

Now, the advantage of the new system is this. What will happen, the owner of

the building will now collect the tax as a part of his rent and then he will

forward that on to the city. I mentioned in the beginning that the business

community was not in favour of this. What did the city do or what was done to

get them to come onboard? One of the things they did, rather than sending bills

out and having bills payable January 1, which was always the case, they decided

to send bills out four times a year, with the first one going out at the end of

March. So that gave businesses a chance to get set up and have the year at least

a quarter of the way over.

Another thing they did, they put in a vacancy relief clause in this.

Actually, it is vacancy relief. If you had a commercial building that you were

not renting for six months of the year, you were not charged for the whole year.

You could get some tax relief on that under the new system. Another thing they

did to try to make this palatable to the business community, they said they

would recognize all existing leases. It is difficult to have someone who has a

lease signed in a building, say for two years, bring in a new system and expect

them to go on the new system right away. So until those leases run out, the new

system, when it comes in place, will not affect these businesses.

The amendments in Bill 30 will give the city a new commercial tax system.

Also, in Bill 30 there will be provisions that will allow the city and give the

city authority to make tax relief bylaws.

MR. JOYCE: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands, on a point of order.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I notice the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi

has (inaudible) buttons on. From my understanding of the rules in the House, you

are not allowed to have buttons to wear in the House of Assembly. I will just

ask for a ruling on that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: From where the Speaker sits, I know the Member for Signal

Hill Quidi Vidi is wearing something in her lapel. I have no idea whether it

is a piece of jewellery or what it may be, because I cannot read it from this

distance; however, I would remind members that they are not to wear material to

promote or to convey a message that would otherwise be frowned upon in this

House.

I take the member on her word, if she is, in fact, wearing something that is

prohibited in the House, that she would remove it. If it is a piece of

jewellery, obviously it is something very different; but, because I cannot

personally see it, I would ask the member, and I will take her on her word, if

that is what it is, if she will remove it.

Thank you.

The Member for Kilbride.

MR. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can see now.

I will go back to what I was saying. Bill 30 also gives the city the

authority to make tax relief bylaws

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DINN: and this will cover registered charities. The city with the

tax relief bylaws will be able to recognize charities that are now renting parts

of commercial buildings tax free or rent free I should say. So now that will

be recognized. It will also recognize the fact that the government rents

commercial buildings in the City of St. John's and they do not pay taxes. With

Bill 30, the city can make tax relief bylaws to cover those situations. St.

John's, today, has variable mill rates for businesses. When the new system comes

in, there will be only one mill rate for businesses in St. John's. That will be

an advantage for people.

To sum up, the minister noted that this is going on in other jurisdictions in

the country; this has been done in many places. The city has been dealing with

this issue for several years. Much discussion has taken place over the years on

this issue. They hired a consultant to do a report on the issue. A law firm was

hired to look at the legal ramifications in setting up this new system, and the

business community has been involved with this from day one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DINN: I encourage all hon. members in the House to approve Bill 30.

The city is in favour of this, they are waiting for it, and we have to get on

with it.

There are some points I mentioned that the minister will deal with. I will

not say much more, other than thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to stand in the House today to speak on Bill 30,

An Act To

Amend The City Of St. John's Act And The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation

Act. As a resident of the city, as a MHA for St. John's West, I take great pride

in this city and I take great pride in good legislation that is going to help

this city and the businesses in particular in this city to move forward.

Mr. Speaker, a quick definition of municipalities, I would consider: They are

communities of neighbours working co-operatively to deliver basic services,

enhance the quality of life of citizens, and foster local business growth. Bill

30 is about streamlining the municipal tax system, which enables the City of St.

John's to collect taxes through an equitable and transparent commercial tax

system. Working collaboratively with municipalities and consulting with the

municipalities is one of our most important priorities as a government. Helping

municipalities follow through on the choices they make is important as well, Mr.

Speaker. Bill 30 is a direct result of this type of co-operation. The City of

St. John's requested these changes. They deemed the present system to be

somewhat cumbersome and inefficient. This was supported by the St. John's Board

of Trade, as previous members have noted.

Mr. Speaker, when we looked at this legislation, we as a government are

continually thinking about our municipalities and their fiscal sustainability.

We are currently reviewing criteria for municipal financing and have provided

traditional funding, while the Department of Municipal Affairs continues its

work regarding the municipal grants formula. Bill 30 is the type of legislation

that will help a municipality, in this case the City of St. John's, to better

manage their ability to generate revenue and deliver the host of important

services they provide to their citizens on a daily basis.

Mr. Speaker, while this new tax structure will be revenue neutral to the

businesses impacted, it will ensure the commercial tax structure for the City of

John's is clear. It will provide efficiencies to the city in terms of

administrative and collection. Basically this bill will eliminate the business

tax, the city tax, and the vacant land tax but will allow the city to collect

taxes through commercial real property taxes. They are basically combining three

taxes into one and streamlining the system, which makes things efficient for

everybody involved. From a former business person, myself, I know how important

it is to cut through red tape and to make running a business easier so you can

focus on what is important: to be profitable.

This will also allow the owner of a commercial property who is leasing

property to a business to collect increased fees in order to offset any tax

increases. With regard to situations where the Province is a tenant, the lessee

can claim vacancy relief as a result of the owner's inability to collect any tax

increases. Mr. Speaker, there will also be provisions in the regulations for

commercial property owners for vacancy relief if a property is not leased for

six months or more.

On that note, Mr. Speaker, as everybody knows, we are experiencing an

economic boom in this region. There are many properties in this city, but the

commercial vacancy rate is at a very, very low level. That situation does not

exist very often right now.

Mr. Speaker, most commercial properties, most business owners that own

commercial properties have their properties leased, rented, and are doing very

well. In fact, one of the things our government is most proud of, certainly in

the last little while, is the facilitating of the growth of our economy, the

business sector. Certainly as a St. John's MHA in this particular region, there

is so much going on in this region and I want to take a moment to highlight it,

just a few things that are happening in St. John's in terms of commercial

business development that this tax will have an impact on in terms of making

these businesses more profitable, more viable, and streamlining their

operations.

For instance, Mr. Speaker, just calling out a few notes here that I have,

there are five or six hotels being built in the city as we speak right now.

There is a $65 million development in downtown St. John's; they have a new

building, East Port Properties Ltd. the demolition of the former department

store there everybody is familiar with on Water Street West; that property is

well underway. That development is worth $65 million. There is another $50

million being spent today; it is already started and is in construction. Fortis

Properties is working towards a twelve-storey building: 152,000 square feet,

class A office space, and 183 parking spaces, at the corner of Springdale Street

and New Gower Street. You drive by it every day if you are in that neck of the

woods. That is where I go when I leave here and go home; I drive right by it. It

is fabulous to see all of these cranes up in the city, all this construction

happening. What a great thing happening in our economy.

Mr. Speaker, there is $8 million being spent on Kelsey Drive for a new

building that has been identified. It is going to be happening over the next

year. They have already started construction on that one. There is a restaurant

going up next to the Keg downtown, a $12 million investment. There are going to

be two restaurants in that building. Again, it is going to be very applicable to

helping these businesses run efficiently with the new tax structure, the new tax

regime that the City is going to incorporate.

We have a few other highlights here, Mr. Speaker, before I close and let the

minister close off debate. I do not want to be too long. We have already touched

on all of the points, but again, I just want to talk about the glowing things

that are happening n this region and the happy things that are happening for the

citizens of St. John's in particular.

Mr. Speaker, another hotel $70 million is being spent on Stavanger Drive;

it is 129 rooms, 2,500 square feet, meeting spaces combined. The Hampton Inn, it

is going to be called. There is another $50 million; construction is starting

already, Mr. Speaker. It is going to be on Duckworth Street, with a parking

garage, Republic Properties. It is going to be a long-term stay facility. Mr.

Speaker, another hotel going up: the SilverBirch Hotel & Resorts on Kenmount

Road

MR. SPEAKER: I remind the member that the bill is about taxation and not

MR. CRUMMELL: $21 million. The point being, Mr. Speaker, the economy is

doing well. We have all these businesses

AN HON. MEMBER: Putting in tax dollars.

MR. CRUMMELL: Yes, that tax dollars are going to be generating revenue

from; just applying it and calling highlights to the building tax, which is in

reference to that. Mr. Speaker, I take your point, and there are a few more as

well to go through. There are so many great things happening in this region. The

taxation system for the business owners and for the commercial property owners

needs to be revamped. We recognize that, the City of St. John's recognizes that,

and we are doing the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I am just saying again that this will create a more

equitable and transparent commercial tax system. There are ways for owners to be

compensated for their inability to increase fees. Both the City of St. John's

and the Board of Trade support these changes. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all

members of this hon. House to support these amendments. It is good for the city;

it is a good example for the Province. I am sure we will see similar taxation

structures rolled out over time in other jurisdictions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs speaks now, he

will close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. O'BRIEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank my hon. colleagues in regard to their comments and support for the

proposed amendments, amendments to

An Act to Amend the City of St. John's Act

and the City of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act. I am pleased now to close

debate in regard to second reading of this proposed bill.

As well, I do support, and I want to make sure that I highlight a couple of

things. One thing is that it is revenue neutral to the City of St. John's. In

other words, what that means is that there will be no increase in business taxes

to the business community of the City of St. John's. It is supported by the

business community of the City of St. John's. It is supported by the Board of

Trade. The hon. member for Kilbride is right in that a lot of work has gone into

this over several years.

I also want to reference, Mr. Speaker, that we are in a constant consultation

process with the City of St. John's in regard to their acts, with a view that at

some point in time in the future, we might replace the full act itself to

reflect changes in our society over the years. That is something that happens on

an ongoing basis in government. When I was the Minister of Government Services

at the time, I brought forward many acts and amendments to the acts to this

floor of the House of Assembly, and in my capacity as the Minister of Municipal

Affairs I will do the same.

Also, as well, Mr. Speaker, there is no change in regard to charitable

organizations that would occupy a building or a space in the City of St. John's,

in that they will be given taxation relief as well, no different than what they

did before. The City of St. John's has agreed to that.

As well, with regard to any vacant buildings in the City of St. John's, such

as abandoned I suppose, if you want to put it that way buildings that are

not used, grocery stores or whatever, they will be subject to a tax, yes, but

they will be given tax relief under the vacancy portion of these amendments. It

will be considered that it would be exempt to a certain degree, with regard to

the vacancy po