PDF Version

June 11, 2015

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVII No. 30

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Verge):

Order, please!

Admit strangers.

I am pleased to welcome to the public gallery today Mr.

Wilf Hunt and his wife, Marion.

I think Mr. Hunt will be the subject of a member's statement in a

little while.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

We are expecting Chief Joe, but I do not see him so I will welcome him

when he arrives.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today we will hear members' statements from the members representing the

Districts of St. George's Stephenville East, St. John's Centre,

Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, Humber Valley, Virginia Waters, and St.

Barbe.

The hon. the Member for the District of St. George's

Stephenville East.

MR. REID:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I rise to pay tribute to the late Ben Alexander,

a former Mayor of the Town of St. George's.

Mr. Alexander was a successful businessman and very active

contributor to the development of his town and the region.

He will be forever remembered for his countless hours of

volunteer work within the community and the Province.

He and his wife, Heather, were the owners of Steel

Mountain Lodge, and his love for the great outdoors brought him many

hours enjoyment. Whether he

was flying his plane or salmon fishing on the rivers, he truly enjoyed

the beauty of the West Coast.

To many people, Ben Alexander was a respected member of

his community, but to others he was even more.

To others, he was a husband, a father, a grandfather, a brother,

and an uncle.

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

with in expressing our sympathy to the family and recognizing the

contribution of Ben Alexander to our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I would also like to welcome to the public gallery today Chief Misel Joe

of Conne River.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MS ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am so happy to pay tribute to Bishops College high

school, in the heart of St. John's Centre.

Closing for good at the end of this school year, Bishops has been

a wonderful example of partnerships, working with others, and supporting

every member of our community.

Staff members have won countless awards for their innovative

approaches to learning and life.

The Pink Committee, which I was honoured to be a part

of, was just one aspect of Bishops' inclusiveness the school led the

way in anti-bullying programs and mental health awareness, and had the

Province's first gay-straight alliance.

The art program at Bishops is legendary they had the

first high school art gallery in the country.

Their educational partnership with nearby Booth Memorial gave

students access to many more courses than either school would normally

be able to offer.

On June 25, current and former students, teachers, and

staff will gather to acknowledge the Last Flight of the Red Baron.

They will say goodbye to the building, but keep the lessons they

learned there forever.

Bishops itself will move on to the new Waterford Valley High School.

I ask all hon. members, many who are alumni of Bishops

high school, to congratulate Bishops College for fifty-six years of

educational and social leadership.

Bravo, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

MS DEMPSTER:

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to

recognize the success of the tenth annual Relay for Life held on Friday,

May 29, in the community of Charlottetown, Labrador.

For the past ten years, following the death of my good

friend, Ray Turnbull, the Charlottetown relay has been organized by his

widow Joyce, brother Boyce and wife Sherry, and with the help of a very

dedicated committee, raising over $200,000 to date $17,000 this year

alone. What a tremendous

accomplishment for a region with such a small population.

This year, we were graced with the presence of His

Honour Lieutenant Governor Frank Fagan and Her Honour Patricia Fagan.

What a privilege and inspiration it was to have them in

attendance. They were in awe

of the generosity displayed by the local residents.

Residents from the communities of St. Lewis,

Charlottetown, Pinsent's Arm, Mary's Harbour, Port Hope Simpson, Lodge

Bay, and Williams Harbour participated in the relay.

The regional approach to such an event is a major factor in its

ongoing success. Cancer

touches everyone. The

response to such a tremendous cause is overwhelming.

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

organizing committee and volunteers on yet another successful Relay for

Life in Charlottetown.

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 hon. House today to congratulate Darren

Langdon of Deer Lake on being named one of six new inductees into the

Newfoundland and Labrador Hockey Hall of Fame.

Darren Langdon has enjoyed a tremendous playing career

that is the envy of many hockey players in our Province.

Darren joined the New York Rangers on February 18, 1995.

Throughout his career, Darren played with five NHL

teams, including: the New York Rangers, the Carolina Hurricanes,

Vancouver Canucks, Montreal Canadiens, and the New Jersey Devils.

His playing career lasted ten seasons with 521 NHL

games, totalling thirty-nine points and over 1,200 penalty minutes.

Darren had the fortune of playing alongside such hockey greats as

Wayne Gretzky, Mark Messier, Brian Leech, and Ron Francis.

On June 13, Darren will be inducted into the Hockey

Hall of Fame Players category along with Dwayne Norris of St. John's

and Darren Colbourne of Corner Brook.

Jim Hornell of Buchans, Rosemary Marshall of St.

John's, and Kenny Williams of Bay Bulls will be inducted into the

Builders category.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House of

Assembly to join me in congratulating the six hall of fame inductees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Virginia Waters.

MS C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to

recognize a gentleman who has played a vital role as part of Roncalli

Elementary School's family and community.

Mr. Wilf Hunt has been this school's crossing guard for

approximately ten years, and his dedication goes beyond the crosswalk.

He has manned the crosswalk for special events, such as the

International Walk To School Day and the Terry Fox Walk to ensure the

safety of the children.

He knows the children by name, has played his accordion

at Christmas concerts, was an honoured guest to read

'Twas the Night Before Christmas ,

and even helped with the milk and cookies.

You can imagine his surprise when the entire school population

came out to sing Happy Birthday on his sixty-fifth birthday.

In 2012, Mr. Hunt was responsible for preventing a

child from getting hit at the crosswalk when a driver failed to stop.

Without hesitation, he protected that child.

The admiration for Mr. Hunt was recognized when he was honoured

with Canada's Favourite Crossing Guard award in 2013.

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

Hunt for being this school's favourite crossing guard for today and for

many years to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. J. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Lily Perry, aged eighty-four, Daniel's Harbour, is a

former teacher, volunteer, and community leader for seventy years.

At age nineteen, Lily married Bill Perry, but remained

a teacher until 1972 when she resigned to support three daughters:

Dorcas, Sheila, and Bertha.

Freed from teaching, Lily now devoted even more time to

the community, including the Anglican Church Women that she joined at

age fourteen.

On a recent visit with Lily, my primary school teacher,

we talked about all of the children Lily had shaped, including all seven

members of the current town council.

Lily was proud to acquaint me with her grandchildren,

whose graduation pictures are proudly on display.

They are Cathy, school principal; Dallas, a director, Central

Health; Nicole, pharmacist; Tobi, business development officer;

Veronica, with Revenue Canada; Colette, with Health Canada; Amanda,

science teacher; Dion, nurse practitioner; and Melissa, lawyer.

In my work, serving the people of St. Barbe, Lily's

zeal for public service is evident in the person of Bertha Brophy, her

daughter and my Constituency Assistance.

I ask all hon. members to join me in thanking Lily Perry for a

lifetime of service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in this hon. House to recognize Penelope

Rowe, who was honoured earlier this month and presented with an honorary

Doctor of Laws degree from Memorial University for her distinguished

service to the community.

Born in St. John's, Ms Rowe became a driving force with the Community

Sector Council in 1976, an organization focused on strengthening the

role that voluntary and non-profit community organizations play in

building healthy and prosperous communities throughout the Province.

Mr. Speaker, through co-operation and promotion, the

Community Sector Council works with thousands of organizations to

encourage citizen engagement and provide leadership in shaping public

policies. As the council's

Chief Executive Officer, Penny mobilizes and inspires those around her

to develop projects that improve the quality of life and standard of

living for people in need and she instills the belief that the most

important way of recruiting volunteers is the personal touch.

Penny once said: Volunteers just don't fall out of the trees.

They just don't happen you've got to be open and have a way for

people to communicate with you, and you're got to reach out.

Mr. Speaker, by reaching out to youth, municipalities,

immigrants, and to those working with our most vulnerable populations,

Penny reminds us that giving back to the community is about much more

than doing something that feels good it impacts the economy.

Her actions highlight how

volunteers and community-based workers in Newfoundland and Labrador

contribute millions of work hours every year, volunteering at food

banks, providing outreach services for people living on the street, or

working with charitable organizations.

Penny's accomplishments are numerous: she was

celebrated as one of Canada's fifty most influential women; she was the

first woman to host CBC Television's

Here and Now , which I did not

know until recently, and she received an appointment to the Order of

Canada in 2002. Mr. Speaker,

along with these examples, she inspired all of us in government to renew

our focus and bring greater attention to the community sector efforts

which continue through the Office of Public Engagement.

Mr. Speaker, I invite all members to join me in

congratulating Penny Rowe for receiving her honorary degree from

Memorial University, and also in thanking her for her lifelong

dedication to giving back to her Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Just in case you were wondering, I say to the hon.

member, the applause was not for you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MR. OSBORNE:

We live in hope, Mr. Speaker we live in hope.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for the advance copy

of the Ministerial Statement. We,

also, on this side want to join in celebrating the accomplishments of Ms

Penny Rowe, and they are many.

Her lifelong commitment to the development of the volunteer

community is legendary. She

is well known throughout this Province by community leaders,

politicians, and volunteer organizations a very well-recognized and

respected individual.

Mr. Speaker, she is largely responsible for having the

volunteer work done by the people in this Province recognized as having

economic value. She was a

driving force in government recognizing volunteer work as having

economic value. She was the

founding Chair of the Capital Coast Development Alliance, which was the

Regional Economic Development Board for this region of the Province.

She is largely responsible for training the non-profit

organizations and volunteer sector in this Province to ensure that they

operated efficiently and properly.

Her commitment to working with charities and volunteers has not

wavered from the day she started through to today.

I have a great deal of respect for Ms Penny Rowe, and I am

honoured to have her recognized today in this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MS ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of this

statement. Congratulations to

Penny Rowe for being honoured in this way by our university and our

community. Penny has done so

much to raise the profile of volunteers in providing an organizational

framework for volunteerism in our communities.

She has actively promoted survival strategies for

non-profits to increase their capacity and effectiveness.

She has been tireless in speaking out about practical ways to end

poverty and maintain a compassionate society.

How lucky have we all been to have Penny's years of

brilliance and leadership over the years?

Bravo and thank you to Penny Rowe.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in order to better understand the factors

influencing the population decline of the George River caribou herd, and

to generate the science-based information required to support management

decisions, the provincial government launched the Labrador Caribou

Initiative in 2011.

Supported to date by over $2.2 million in funding, along with an

additional investment of $320,000 through Budget 2015, the goal of the

initiative is to implement research and monitoring programs designed to

inform management of the herd, including the implementation of a

five-year ban on all hunting.

One aspect of the Labrador Caribou Initiative is to

improve public awareness and stewardship about the George River caribou

population. To that end,

last year, fourteen stakeholder groups including Aboriginal governments,

NGOs, private sector companies, and the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador collaborated on a Caribou Stewardship Awareness T-shirt

project. Through the

project, 500 T-shirts were purchased and distributed throughout

Labrador, 200 of which were purchased by the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador and awarded to youth through an in-school contest as a

method of increasing conservation awareness of the herd.

Through the contest, youth were asked to express why

caribou are important to them and their families, by whatever creative

means they chose. Mr.

Speaker, the level of participation was fantastic with hundreds of

entries being received in the form of drawings, stories, poems, slide

shows, and posters.

Mr. Speaker, through the response to the contest and

the passion shown in the entries, it is clear that caribou are of great

importance to the culture, traditions and lifestyle of many Labrador

families, and I would like to take this opportunity to commend the youth

of Labrador for their interest in this critical species.

I was extremely impressed by the artistry and creativity of all

the entries and am pleased to advise that many are now available on the

department's website.

The status of caribou in Labrador is of concern not

only to this government, but to all Labradorians.

This initiative and others like it aim to initiate conversation

about the issue, garner increased support for conservation initiatives,

and instill a sense of stewardship in youth now and in generations to

come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his

statement. Mr. Speaker, all

caribou herds worldwide are declining, including the George River

caribou herds and the herds that are in existence here on the Island

portion of our Province as well.

Although science cannot determine the cause, we as

Aboriginal harvesters have been taught that all wildlife species rise

and fall in cycles. Caribou,

for example, has a sixty- to seventy-year life cycle,

whereas other

species like ptarmigan and rabbits go in three- to seven-year cycles.

Mr. Speaker, I have harvested the George River caribou

herd when it was on the increase to where it peaked in the 1990s at

750,000 caribou to where it is today.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister has initiated an

awareness campaign, and everyone should do their part.

If the minister really wants to know where our young people stand

on caribou awareness, I ask him to come up and visit us and to find out

just how important caribou were to our diet and that young people cannot

afford a nutritious diet anymore.

Mr. Speaker, there is one important issue where

government has fallen down, and that is the enforcement of its own

five-year caribou ban. There

is much work to be done to improve the health and populations of our

caribou, because there are many new impacts that we did not have in the

past.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MR. MURPHY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister today for the advance copy

of his statement. No doubt

getting youth to express their passion for this herd and instilling them

with a sense of stewardship are all laudable goals, Mr. Speaker.

For that matter, the five-year hunting ban was probably a wise

measure as well.

I ask the minister: What is he doing to ensure that

this herd survives for the next generation and the generations after

that? Where is the strong

management plan that groups have been asking government to develop in

recent years? When do we

seek convictions, for example, for the hunting violations there?

What is being done to protect the calving grounds?

All these are pretty good questions that we hope the government

will have the chance to answer.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Seniors, Wellness and Social Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN:

Mr. Speaker, I recently announced that the Department of Seniors,

Wellness and Social Development has realigned its healthy living,

recreation and wellness grants programs to be administered under a

streamlined program called the Community Healthy Living Fund.

Mr. Speaker, this realignment brings together funding

from a number of grant programs available to communities and

organizations and processes them much more effectively through a single

application process. The

Community Healthy Living Fund is a one-stop shopping approach to grants

and will minimize the need for organization staff and volunteers to

complete multiple applications.

The $2.2 million Community Healthy Living Fund will now

serve as the single entry point for applications, replacing such

programs as the Seniors Recreation Grant Program, the Provincial Health

and Wellness Grant Program, the Age-Friendly Newfoundland and Labrador

Organization Grant Program, and the Community Recreation Support

Program.

I want to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that there is no

reduction in funding available for community programming as a result of

this realignment. All

organizations eligible for previous programs are eligible to apply under

the new streamlined program.

Mr. Speaker, this new approach is also aligned with our

Provincial Wellness Plan, our Recreation and Sports Strategy, the

Provincial Healthy Aging Framework, the Provincial Strategy for the

Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities, and the goals and objectives of

our Poverty Reduction Strategy.

Initiatives funded through this program will help build community

capacity and improve access to wellness, recreation and healthy living

initiatives for all individuals and families, regardless of

circumstances.

The establishment of the Community Healthy Living Fund

is just one example, Mr. Speaker, of how the Department of Seniors,

Wellness and Social Development has been able to take initiatives that

have previously resided in multiple departments and bring them together

under a single, cohesive department focused on common goals.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage community organizations to

visit the Department of Seniors, Wellness and Social Development website

for more information on the Community Healthy Living Fund, and to review

the guidelines and application process.

We have a lot of work to do, together, to improve the health and

wellness of our population and it starts with support for initiatives

at the community level.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. HILLIER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his

statement. As the minister

has stated, this fund will combine multiple grant programs like the

wellness grant, age-friendly grants, and community recreation support

grants.

The minister said there will be no funding reduction

overall. We hope, as well,

there is no impact on each specific program funding amount, as various

groups now compete for the same pot of money.

Mr. Speaker, the minister says its pooling of grant

money is aligned with the Provincial Wellness Plan.

Government is now seven years late on launching phase two.

The minister says his fund is aligned with their

Strategy for the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities.

We have been waiting for an actual action plan for three years

now.

The minister says this fund aligns with their Poverty

Reduction Strategy. They

were supposed to begin implementation of this new plan four years ago,

and it is still nowhere to be seen.

Mr. Speaker, spending based on outdated and non-existent plans is

not fiscally responsible.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize all the

great groups out there working to make their communities healthier and

happier, we are grateful for all the work they do.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MS ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The $2.2 million for over 500 communities serving over

500,000 people for a full year for a senior's recreation grant program,

the Provincial Health and Wellness Grant Program, the Aged-Friendly

Organization Grant Program, and the Community Recreation Support Program

does not look so fantastic when you do the math and divide it up.

There are such great, great needs in this area.

The minister's one-stop shopping takes us only as far as the

cosmetic counter, there is nothing substantial here.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Corner Brook Pulp and Paper is in the news with a

request by the company to alter their pension plan payments to allow the

company additional time to pay back into the plan.

Workers and retirees have until July 8 to respond.

If workers accept the plan, government will be asked to modify

its regulations.

I ask the Premier: What discussions have you had with

the company on this proposal?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are all very much aware that we have worked very

closely with Corner Brook Pulp and Paper to ensure they continue to

provide employment and their operation continues on the West Coast.

We know that the long-standing paper mill in Corner Brook and the

owners and operators are working very hard to make sure that the mill

stays in operation.

We have partnered with them, with a $110 million

investment from us to work with them in order for them to continue that

operation, but they still have serious issues there, Mr. Speaker, and

they are working through them.

Under regulations, for them to alter their plans in the way that

they are looking at doing the modifications to their pay back in their

plans they are looking at doing, they need the consent of plan members

which are their employees.

They are going through that process, Mr. Speaker.

We await the outcome of their discussions with their own

employees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In 2012, workers approved a plan to allow the company a

ten-year extension to pay back money into the underfunded pension plan.

Just last year, government, as the Premier mentioned, gave Kruger

a $110 million loan. This

was something that we understand was needed to be done to stabilize the

forestry industry. Now the

company wants to modify payments for 2014, 2015, and 2016.

I ask the Premier: Have you agreed to make these

changes if workers accept the company's latest proposal?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, the process is that the company with the members of the

plan, their employees, have a process to go through.

They go through a process of laying out and discussing with their

employees what their plan is, what action they want to take, and how

they want to respond to this.

Quite often, it is not unusual for employees to say to

the company, tell us about your plan and how you are going to sustain

the operation, tell us about other parts of the aspects of your plan.

Employees have a say in what happens and in the decision-making

process.

Until they make that decision, Mr. Speaker, and until

the company makes application, we have made no commitment to do this for

them. I have made no

commitment to do this for them, but I want to see what happens in the

process. We want to hear

from employees. We want to

hear from the company. We

look forward to having further discussions on that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Registered Nurses' Union is raising concerns about

RN staffing levels at Western Memorial Regional Hospital.

They say the emergency department nurses are being cut from five

to four for the day shift, and four to three for the night shift.

I ask the Premier: Why are you cutting nurses at

Western Memorial's emergency departments?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My understanding is that there was a pilot project

underway on a staffing model for Western Memorial that include nurses

from the emergency room, and that Western Memorial was now making an

adjustment to that.

Mr. Speaker, we continue to look for best ways to

deliver services. We look

for the best staffing models to provide support to the hard-working

staff in all of our health authorities but it was a pilot project, and

there are changes coming as a result of that pilot project in the

staffing plans that they are doing.

I am sure the minister, in follow-up questions, if the member has

any further follow-up questions, the minister can provide specific

details of exactly what those numbers look like.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, government continues to say that they are

actually committed to reducing ER wait times, but they are now scaling

back on registered nurses.

We all know that nurses play a vital role in emergency rooms, and help

tremendously with ongoing wait-time issues.

So I ask the Premier: How do cutting back nursing

levels in emergency rooms help address the issue of wait times?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, as the Premier mentions, Western Health has decided to

discontinue a one-year pilot with the Clinical Decision Unit, but there

will be no staff layoffs. In

fact, seven nursing staff are being reassigned to the emergency

department, and one to the interim unit at Western Memorial.

So staffing is actually being enhanced in a number of ways, Mr.

Speaker.

One additional triage RN will work an additional four

hours a day, Monday to Friday; and one additional RN will be added from

10:00 am to 10:00 pm, twelve hours a day, seven days a week.

So in fact, we are going to provide better access to the

emergency department and greater staffing as a result of these changes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, as part of its 10-Year Child Care Strategy, this government

promised to deliver a centralized child care registry by the end of last

year. As with many of this

government's commitments, they have failed to deliver on the centralized

child care registry.

So I ask the acting minister: When will you finally

deliver on the centralized child care registry you know parents need?

What are you waiting for?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, child care is certainly a complex business.

As the member opposite is quite aware, we do have a ten-year

strategy that we are implementing, and a ten-year strategy that is

working. We have a

significant increase in the number of child care spaces in Newfoundland

and Labrador. Our strategy

is focused not only number of spaces that are available, but also the

quality of those spaces, and the quality of care and services provided

to children, and we also focused on affordability.

There are numerous programs that are rolling out as a

result of our ten-year strategy, our very effective strategy that is

making a difference in child care in our Province.

We continue to work with stakeholders, if it be for-profit and

not-for-profit. We continue

to work with families who avail of these services.

We also work with educators who work in the industry to make them

better qualified and better able to deliver good services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, the Premier said he had a ten-year strategy.

Well, they are six months behind, so they have a ten-and-a-half

year strategy now.

Like the child care registry, the government has

reneged on its commitment to deliver a revised Inclusion Supports

Program by the end of last year.

This is an important program that supports the inclusion of

children with special needs in child care centres and home-based care.

I ask the minister: When will the Inclusion Supports

Program changes that you announced be delivered?

How much longer will families with children with special needs

have to wait?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to get another opportunity to reference our

strategy, as the member opposite has referenced once again.

Our strategy is over a ten-year plan because we realize and we

understand, on this side of the House, that we cannot go from here to

here overnight. It takes a

lot of work, a lot of focus, a lot of dedication.

A lot of work in consultation with stakeholders in order to make

changes to child care and make improvements for families, improvements

for children in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER DAVIS:

The child care report that the member opposite likes to refer to from

time to time will demonstrate that Newfoundland and Labrador made better

progress than any other province in Canada during the report period.

We are going to continue to focus on child care and make better

opportunities and better offers of services to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Monday, I questioned the Minister Responsible for

the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission about a recent

CBC story concerning Mr. Pat Dunphy, an injured worker who is currently

hospitalized and who has been fighting with workers' comp for fair

treatment for the past seven years.

At that time the minister said he would have his officials look

into the matter. As recently

as a half hour ago, I have been advised that neither the minister, his

officials, nor anybody from the Commission have been in contact with the

Dunphys.

I ask the minister: When are you going to keep your

word and do something for this family?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister Responsible for Workplace Health, Safety and

Compensation Commission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. S. COLLINS:

Mr. Speaker, first off, I would say it is disingenuous for a member

across the way to ask me on the floor of the House of Assembly about

personal issues with regard to a particular person.

He knows I cannot discuss

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. S. COLLINS:

If I could finish, please.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. S. COLLINS:

I will say to the member, I have followed up with my officials in the

department. I have asked

them to go over the policies and procedures.

I am very confident that policies and procedures have been

applied consistently to this case, and that will be relayed to the

Dunphy family.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.

MR. LANE:

Mr. Speaker, the minister has already failed to meet with the Marystown

Shipyard Families Alliance and now the minister is playing deferred and

delayed tactics once again, this time at the expense of the Dunphy

family.

Mr. Speaker, the Dunphy's have now engaged legal

counsel who has been given the authorization by them to deal with

workers' comp on this issue.

Their representative has contacted the minister directly, but the

minister was not willing to speak with him.

I ask the minister: When are you going to stop this

running around and actually do something for this suffering family?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Workplace Health, Safety and

Compensation Commission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. S. COLLINS:

Mr. Speaker, I was contacted actually by the legal counsel.

I will say it was through Twitter.

So I guess that is how people operate nowadays.

I did say to the

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. S. COLLINS:

I did say to that person, as I have said to the member across the way, I

am not going to get engaged in personal matters here on the House of

Assembly floor. He

understands that. So when he

keeps asking these questions, he knows I cannot speak specifically to

that. I go back to

referencing with regard to the Marystown Shipyard

MR. JOYCE:

(Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. S. COLLINS:

If I can finish, please, I say to the Member for Bay of Islands.

You are done, thank you.

Mr. Speaker, if I could speak with regard to the

Marystown case. I have said

to them, unequivocally, I would meet with them.

I actually offered them to come into town and to meet with me.

They were not able to do so.

So I said when the House closes I will be more than happy to

travel out to Marystown and meet with them to hear their concerns.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, last month government warned salmon anglers that it had

issued defective angling tags with this year's salmon licences.

This development is causing a great deal of concern and angst

among anglers, especially given the season started June 1.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE:

I ask the minister: How many tags were issued and how many were

defective?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately, we do have a problem with faulty salmon

tags. The card portion of the tags that arrived at our offices was

faulty. The samples that

were provided during the procurement process were fine, the samples met

specifications, but when the tags did arrive we had an issue with the

cards.

Not all of the cards are faulty on all of the tags.

There are about 110,000 tags, I believe, Mr. Speaker, in

circulation, not all are faulty.

We do not have an exact number on that, but I would suggest the

majority of the card portion of these tags are faulty.

We looked at ways that we could bring replacement tags in; six to

eight weeks it would have taken us to bring tags in.

Mr. Speaker, we did our due diligence around this

issue. We are informing the

public. We are making the

people of the Province aware of the issue, and there are

responsibilities to follow the regulations with regard to the fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, anglers have also expressed concern about tags and licences

coming out late, saying that government is not planning far enough

ahead. If done ahead, there

would have been time to test them, review them, and order if defects

were present.

I ask the minister: How much will your poor planning

and this year's defective tags cost government as your own solution is

clear tape?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL:

Mr. Speaker, like I said earlier, when the tags arrived and we are not

late getting our licences out there.

We are not late getting our tags out there.

They went out there just like they did the previous years.

The tags that arrived, with visual inspection, look exactly like

the tags that we used in previous years.

It was impossible to be aware that these faults were part of the

components of the tags.

Mr. Speaker, when we started handling the tags and we

started shipping out to vendors, we realized there was an issue with the

tags. Immediately, we put

out a press release.

Immediately, I got on the open airwaves and communicated to the people

of the Province on the very first day of salmon fishing season, there is

this issue with the tags that they have to deal with.

Mr. Speaker, most people in this Province are

responsible anglers. They

will respect the regulations.

They will manage and handle these tags in a proper manner.

I have full confidence in the people of this Province

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL:

to make sure that they manage the fishery and the resource efficiently

and effectively. We will

continue to do so as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, we understand these broken and deformed tags were

manufactured in China.

I ask the minister to confirm this, and whether

standards and specifications attached to the contract were not met and,

given defective tags, if a refund is being pursued?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL:

Mr. Speaker, a local supplier won the contract to supply these tags.

These tags were made offshore.

China was the place where they were made, just like many things

we probably see around here in front of us.

So that is not unusual.

They met the specifications.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a contract issue this is not a

procurement issue actually.

It is a contract issue and we have stopped payment with the local

supplier. We are looking

into the matter. We have

acquired legal advice, and we will pursue it from that angle.

Mr. Speaker, as an angler myself, a long-time salmon

fisherman, a lifetime salmon fisherman, I know the people of the

Province are concerned about this, but they will take care of

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The minister's time has expired.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS:

Mr. Speaker, continued concerns have been expressed about the clear lack

of communication between families and CYFS when it comes to the removal

of children from some areas in Labrador.

These issues include language barriers where families need

translation.

When decisions are made whether or not to remove

children from their homes, they are not made lightly, and they have to

be communicated clearly and understood completely.

I ask the minister: How do you plan to implement

measures so that these very serious concerns will be addressed?

MR. SPEAKER:

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. S. COLLINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question actually because we have done

some great work in Labrador, particularly over the last number of months

and years with regard to the work that CYFS does in Labrador.

I bring up the fact that we have community support

workers in many of the communities, and that is why they are so very

important with regard to the language and being able to access and being

able to speak the language.

They act as a conduit between the staff and the people in the

communities, but also I bring up the fact about the MOUs.

We signed Memorandums of Understanding some time ago, and they

are actually under review now both with the Inuit and the Innu

governments. We are moving

forward with those. It is a

great piece of work and it is all about collaboration.

I thank the member for the question.

I can say, quite confidently, we have done quite a bit and we are

going to continue to do more.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The issue is clearly still there.

Mr. Speaker, there are many children removed from the

region and are placed in foster homes with no link to Aboriginal

culture, language, or traditions.

I ask the minister: Given this is an ongoing problem,

how do you plan to increase foster homes to ensure children are

protected while at the same time preserving their cultural heritage?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. S. COLLINS:

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, we always want to keep children in

their hometowns, particularly when it comes to Labrador and Aboriginal

communities because the culture is so important.

We do that whenever we can.

There are challenges, however, with foster homes and

having appropriate levels of fostering care in those communities, as

there is in many communities around the Province.

We are taking great steps in being able to accommodate that, and

I go back to the Memorandum of Understanding and working towards having

those placements right in the community so those children and youth can

stay there.

With regard to out-of-province placement, sometimes it

is necessary when the proper care cannot be provided not only in

Labrador, it cannot be provided on the Island either and those children

would have to go outside for specialized treatment.

To remove a child is very serious, and we do not take that

lightly. Any time that we

can keep that child in the community, we do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, a local man recently reached out for mental health

treatment for depression and anxiety.

CYFS was notified and a file was opened on the family declaring

the father a risk to his children.

The social workers involved allegedly had no mental health

training.

I ask the minister: How do we expect people to reach

out for mental health supports when the response from government is so

distressing?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is referring to a story of a gentleman

who did present to the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and

Addictions. It is very

difficult on the floor of the House of Assembly to discuss any

individual case. It would

not be appropriate at all.

What I can say is that improving mental health and

addiction services is a priority for this government.

We have made major investments over the last decade in

implementing our strategy on mental health and addictions.

We are building a new strategy and we are very committed to the

work of the All-Party Committee.

We have made progress, but there is still a lot of work

to do. Some of that work has

to be done in terms of training and education people within the health

care system where stigma continues to be an issue, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, when CYFS put this father under a supervision order, no

provision was made by the department for a psychiatric assessment.

Two months after reaching out for help, the CYFS file was closed

because a psychiatrist reported the man was not a risk to his children

or himself. Moreover, the

doctor reported there was no need to notify CYFS in the first place.

I ask the Minister of CYFS: Do you think it is fair

this family now has a permanent file with your department because of

your department's inadequate wait times for mental health and poor

co-ordination of services?

MR. SPEAKER:

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. S. COLLINS:

Mr. Speaker, I will say I am familiar with this case.

When we look at the work that our front-line workers do, our

social workers do, it is very important work obviously.

They have to make decisions on the ground.

Any time that they anticipate that there is a child protection

issue, they have to act on that.

There is a liability to do so and there is an acknowledgement of

that duty to do so.

With regard to this case, while I cannot speak to it

specifically, I can say I understand where this individual is coming

from. With regard to the

time frames and actually I had a discussion with the Member for St.

John's Centre regarding such.

I acknowledge there were some issues with regard to the

protocol, but I certainly do not question the work by our front-line

workers. When they perceive

there is an issue with child protection, they have to act on that.

I would encourage them to do so, and I support them in their

actions.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, there is currently a wait-list of 100 requests from CYFS

clients for their records, and the wait time is typically over a year.

The department has said that they are not governed by ATIPP

legislation's thirty-day time limit for response.

Time and time again the Child and Youth Advocate has criticized

CYFS for poor documentation.

I ask the minister: Would you not agree that making

clients wait over a year for access to their records is unjust and

unaccountable?

MR. SPEAKER:

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. S. COLLINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We would all agree records checks and having that work

done is very important; however, we are doing work in the department to

expedite that process. I go

back to my conversation that I had with the Member for St. John's Centre

regarding this case and being able to expedite that process.

A year clearly is too long and we want to make sure

that we do it quicker. On

the other hand, Mr. Speaker, we have to do our due diligence.

It is very important to do so, but I will work with the

department to make sure those get expedited.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. HILLIER:

Mr. Speaker, the Premier said recently they are seeing the benefits of

their plans on seniors' poverty.

Let's look at the reality.

Between 2003 and 2012, a period of nine years, a period of

unprecedented wealth, the median after-tax income of a senior living

alone in this Province increased by $12 a day.

That does not factor in the increased cost of living over those

years.

I ask the Premier: Do you think it is acceptable that

for each year this government has been in power, after spending over $20

billion in oil money, seniors living alone got an extra $1.30 a day to

live on?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Seniors, Wellness and Social Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN:

Mr. Speaker, it has been said several times in this House, the creation

of a department with a specific focus on seniors tells you where this

government wants to be, first and foremost.

Secondly, if you look at the investments we have made

in seniors' programs across various departments, the engagements that we

continue to have with seniors, we are committed to doing the best for

the seniors of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. HILLIER:

Mr. Speaker, we already have the poorest seniors among provinces.

The Premier said he is aware of the poverty, that is why he

created the department.

Given that the department is new and eager to get

started, I ask the Premier: If you are so concerned about seniors'

poverty, why are you raising the HST?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Seniors, Wellness and Social Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN:

Mr. Speaker, the one thing we have said, and we have said it

continuously, the seniors of this Province deserve two words: dignity

and respect. We give them and we

provide that to them. We do

it through the programming we offer as supports to seniors.

I would say to the member, if he wants a briefing on

some of the programs that we have put in place, I would ask him to come

across the way, because our commitment to seniors is unprecedented.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St. George's Stephenville East.

MR. REID:

Mr. Speaker, the success and popularity of programs such as the Little

Green Thumbs and the Rooting for Help demonstrates students and parents

want locally grown, healthy food options in schools.

I ask the minister responsible for agriculture: Has he

undertaken any initiatives that would result in more locally grown,

healthy food options available in the cafeterias of public schools in

this Province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Forestry and Agrifoods Agency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. GRANTER:

Mr. Speaker, we all know of healthy living and healthy food options in

schools. I come from a

background in education, Mr. Speaker, and we have seen an incredible

change in healthy eating habits of young people in the Province.

We have milk programs in our schools, subsidized milk from the

dairy producers of the Province.

As we move forward, whether we move forward with regard

to sustainability of food grown in the Province, we will look at and

continue to look at how we can achieve better health for the students of

the Province. If it means

looking at specific programs as we move down the road, we will do so as

a government, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MR. MURPHY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Fishing industry insiders are saying they have lost

their livelihood, possibly from the leaks of oil from Shoal Point, Port

au Port Bay. The scallop

fishery has been decimated.

Accordingly, federal fisheries did not test scallops last year from the

area for petrochemicals.

I ask the Minister of Fisheries: What action has your

department taken on this very important matter?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL:

Mr. Speaker, in that area, there has been no significant commercial

scallop fishery. That is one

thing we have to make sure everybody understands.

There has been a recreational scallop fishery harvested by

divers. That fishery is not

part of the DFO's dockside monitoring program.

We did actually send samples last year actually, DFO

sent samples last year from the area just to see exactly what was going

on around that area because there were reports that there were not as

many scallops in the water as there were before.

They came back, and there was no evidence of any hydrocarbons in

these scallops that were tested.

Mr. Speaker, that is where we are on that issue and

that is the information we have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MR. MURPHY:

Mr. Speaker, I am told they were not tested for petrochemicals at all.

Mr. Speaker, according to last year's inaction on the

spill report, the fracking review panel already has an answer of whether

or not to allow fracking now in the Province.

Orphaned wells will be an issue in the future, like they are

today.

I ask the minister there is obviously cleanup needed

but the companies have long gone.

We do not have a company to point the finger at, Mr. Speaker.

The question for this government is: Who pays, and when

does the cleanup happen?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since June 4, we have made three official visits to the

site to visit the area. We

went with local people who have witnessed some of the seepage that was

happening, Mr. Speaker. We

were there yesterday as well.

The tides were not low enough really to get to where the problem

is. This weekend, we expect

the tides to be lower.

Mr. Speaker, we have established an environmental

science table comprised of DFO, Environment Canada, our Department of

Environment and Conservation, the Water Resources Management Division,

the pollution protection division, and Natural Resources.

We have a team of scientists looking at this right now.

We are going to find out what the problem is, Mr. Speaker, and we

will fix this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MS ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I do not expect the minister

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I do not expect the minister to interfere with the

day-to-day operations of Her Majesty's Penitentiary; however, I do

expect him to be fully aware of the staffing crisis due to his budget

cuts and not to throw it on the back of his superintendent.

Now that he is aware, I ask the minister: What is he

going to do about it, especially since we are coming into holiday time?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, for the record, there is no issue with

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. KING:

There is no issue with staffing at HMP as a result of any budget cuts

quite the contrary. Mr.

Speaker, we actually hired thirty new employees for Corrections in

December, and we are interviewing more today.

So factually, the member is totally incorrect in the premise to

her question first of all.

What we will continue to do, Mr. Speaker, is do what we

have always done, and that is to work collaboratively with members of

the union, members of management.

Not so long ago I met with the union, and a number of significant

issues were raised. One of

which was not, I remind the member opposite, twenty-four-hour shifts.

They talked about pepper spray, the use of pepper

spray, stab resistant vests, among other things, Mr. Speaker.

The things they raised to me at that time, we have implemented.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MS ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, all our correctional facilities face serious staffing

shortages. Obviously, offering people casual positions is not solving

the problem. The minister

has created a decade of indifference.

I ask the minister: What is he going to do about this?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, what we are going to do is we are going to take action like

we always do when issues arise.

As I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, this was never an

issue that was raised to me as the Minister of Justice.

That is an issue that was percolating in the system.

It has now been raised, and my officials I had given some

direction yesterday, gave them further direction today to have

discussions with the union.

There are all kinds of alternatives, Mr. Speaker.

One that I can suggest to you, that has been rebuffed

by the union, was split shifts which today, in five seconds we can

eliminate the use of twenty-four-hour shifts if the membership down

there would be prepared to agree to that, but we have to find other

creative solutions. As the

president of the union asked for this morning on the Open Line

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. KING:

This is a very serious issue, Mr. Speaker.

I do not want to compete for airtime.

As the president of the union asked for this morning,

it needs immediate attention.

I say to the member opposite, it is going to get immediate

attention. I have directed

my staff today, immediately, to do an inquiry and to look at the review

of the use of medical leave program, review of practices of

accommodations, the use of split shifts, and the use of off-site escorts

and whether or not there is an alternative means so that correctional

officers do not have to leave the facility and free them up to work on

the facility.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

Present Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I hereby table the report of the Auditor General

entitled, Report to the House of Assembly by the Auditor General on

Reviews of Departments and Crown Agencies, dated June 2014.

Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will move the following private

members' resolution:

WHEREAS the remains of a Beothuk woman named Demasduit,

and her husband, a chief named Nonosbawsut, have for many years been in

storage in Edinburgh at the National Museum of Scotland; and

WHEREAS the remains of these Aboriginal people of

Newfoundland and Labrador should be repatriated to Newfoundland and

Labrador, Canada, and laid to rest in the place where the Beothuk people

lived.

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House calls on

Government of the United Kingdom to facilitate the repatriation of the

remains of Demasduit and Nonosbawsut to Canada so that they may be laid

to rest with dignity.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice, under Standing Order 11, I

shall move that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, June 15,

I further give notice, under Standing Order 11, I shall

move the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m., Monday, June 15.

I further give notice, under Standing Order 11, I shall

move that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 16, 2015.

I further give notice that the House not adjourn at

10:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 16.

I further give notice that the House not adjourn at

5:30 p.m. on Thursday, June 17, as well as 10:00 p.m. on Thursday, June

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader, just for clarity,

the private member's motion that the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La

Hune read will be done the next government Private Members' Day, is that

correct?

MR. KING:

Yes, that is correct, Mr. Speaker.

I understood I could have given that notice on Monday, so I did

not have it on my orders for today.

MR. SPEAKER:

Okay, thank you.

Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Trinity Bay de Verde.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS many communities in the District of Trinity

Bay de Verde do not have cellphone coverage; and

WHEREAS residents of the district require cellphone

coverage to ensure safety and communications abilities; and

WHEREAS cell coverage on many portions of the highway

in the district is very poor or non-existent;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to work with the appropriate agencies to

provide adequate cellphone coverage to the entire District of Trinity

Bay de Verde.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity this

afternoon to enter that petition on behalf of the constituents of the

District of Trinity Bay de Verde.

I have entered it many times before and I will continue to enter

it until government takes some action.

Mr. Speaker, today I am going to talk about three

documents; the 2011 Blue Book where government said, We will work with

service providers to develop a plan to expand digital and cellular

telephone access to more regions of the province.

That is 2011.

We come forward now, Mr. Speaker, to March 13, 2015, we

have an ATIPP request that says, I am requesting, under the Access to

Information and Protection of Privacy Act, any briefing notes regarding

cellular coverage in Newfoundland and Labrador, since January 1, 2014.

It subsequently goes on to inform the requestor that there has

been no action taken on cellphones between the federal and provincial

government between January 2014 and February 2015.

Just today, Mr. Speaker, we get another ATIPP request.

This ATIPP request was one that I did put in myself to see what

has been happening between the provincial government and Bell Mobility.

This ATIPP request we got back today says: I am requesting a copy

of briefing notes, information notes, fact sheets, et cetera, on Bell

Aliant Mobility, Bell Canada regarding broadband and cellphone coverage

in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for 2014-2015.

Guess what, Mr. Speaker?

The last time this government talked about cellphone coverage was

in September or October 2011.

They have not talked about it since.

They have not talked to the feds about it.

They have not talked to Bell Aliant about it, or Bell Mobility.

Mr. Speaker, what the government has done is they have

not talked cellphone coverage.

They stand and talk about the need for communications and rural

infrastructure, but one of the necessary things for rural infrastructure

in this Province is adequate cellphone coverage.

It is needed for safety and it is needed for regional economic

development.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible).

MR. CROCKER:

The minister across the way is saying now that they talked to Bell this

morning. Well, I ask the

minister if he could spare me ten minutes a little later today, he can

sit down and tell me what Bell is saying because I would love to be able

to tell people of Trinity-Bay de Verde what Bell has said to the

minister about cellphone coverage for my district.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St. George's Stephenville East.

MR. REID:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition again today related to health care in

the St. George's and surrounding area.

The petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned humbly sheweth;

WHEREAS there is not a permanent doctor in the Town of

St. George's; and

WHEREAS the absence of a permanent doctor is seriously

compromising the health care of people who live in the town and

surrounding areas, causing them undue hardship; and

WHEREAS the absence of a doctor or nurse practitioner

in the area leaves seniors and others without a consistency and quality

of care, which is necessary for their continued good health;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to take action which will result in a

permanent doctor or other arrangements to improve the health care

services in St. George's and surrounding areas.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition that I have presented

many times, of course, in this House.

It is a situation in St. George's where they have not had a

permanent doctor for about half a year now.

They looked to the neighbouring community of Jeffrey's and they

see that that community has not had a doctor for nearly a

year-and-a-half now, Mr. Speaker.

It is a serious situation.

It is a crisis situation.

People are not getting the type of medical care they need in a

timely manner, and it has gone on for too long.

I am pleased to hear from the Western Health care board

that a nurse practitioner will be taking up a position in Jeffrey's,

shared between Jeffrey's and St. George's.

So that is a positive thing that is happening there, but I think

we still have to continue to look at getting a doctor or another nurse

practitioner in this area.

Certainly, some things can be looked after by a nurse

practitioner, but I think there are other things that need to be dealt

with by a doctor through regular visits to these communities.

I am hopeful that this situation will be resolved soon.

I have talked to the minister.

I talked to officials at Western Health.

I know they are working on it.

I have talked with municipal leaders in the area.

I am going to continue to push, continue to present these

petitions, which people have signed, until we get a resolution to this

problem.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cartwright L'Anse at Clair.

MS DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon.

House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

most communities in the District of Cartwright L'Anse au Clair do not

have adequate broadband service; and

WHEREAS

residents, businesses, students, nurses, and teachers heavily rely on

the Internet to conduct their work and cannot afford to wait until 2017

or beyond to access a potential plan in partnership with the Muskrat

Falls development; and

WHEREAS

there are a number of world-class tourism sites in the region, including

UNESCO site at Red Bay, Battle Harbour Historic Site, and the Mealy

Mountains National Park;

WHEREUPON

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

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

with the appropriate agencies to provide adequate broadband service to

the communities along the Labrador Coast.

As in duty

bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, later on tonight I am going to be flying

up to Labrador attending the Combined Councils of Labrador.

The Combined Councils is where all of the community leaders in

Labrador gather together for a couple of days to discuss issues in

Labrador that they need to advocate and lobby to the provincial

government with.

I have no doubt when I go up to Goose Bay tonight one

of the very first things that I am going to be asked about from

community leaders is: What is going on with broadband in Southern

Labrador? The broadband

issues are just crippling the region absolutely crippling.

I did hear the Minister of Business say a few minutes

ago that he spoke with Aliant this morning.

I hope one of the things on his radar when he was speaking with

Aliant was the broadband issues, because I do not understand how

government cannot intervene and can allow a service provider to charge

for a service that the area residents are not receiving.

Another thing that concerns us is there does not seem

to be any dialogue between the Province and the feds with the Province

lobbying we do not know what the plan is to leverage federal money.

We do not know where that is going to be rolled out in broadband

on a go-forward basis.

In my area, businesses are being very crippled.

We are coming into the tourism season.

You can do very little more with the Internet in 2015 beyond

sending and receiving an email.

I have said it before, have the people here try living under

those stipulations for a couple of days and you will soon find out that

the work that you are trying to do is very seriously impeded.

As long as the House is open, Mr. Speaker, I have a

feeling that people in my district are going to be continuing to sign

the petitions and I will be continuing to stand on my feet and keep the

issue front and centre.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to go right now to Motion 6.

I move, as per Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at

5:30 p.m. today, Thursday, June 11, 2015.

MR. SPEAKER:

The motion is that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The motion is carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move on to Motion 7.

Pursuant to Standing Order 11, I move that the House not adjourn

at 10:00 p.m. today, Thursday, June 11, 2015.

MR. SPEAKER:

The motion is that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today.

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The motion is carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At this time I would like to call from the Order Paper,

Order 2, third reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Works, Services

And Transportation Act, Bill 4.

That is so moved by me, seconded by the Minister of

Transportation and Works, that the said bill be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The motion is carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Works, Services And Transportation Act

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I say to the Clerk, there was a member standing to

speak in third reading and I did not notice him.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak to

this bill once again. I

think it is quite clear the last time I spoke where I stand on it, but I

just want to reiterate a couple of points for the record.

As we know, this particular bill was crafted to raise

fines for parking on government-owned parking lots.

That would include Confederation Building.

It would include places such as Motor Registration.

It would include places such as I am not sure about the

workplace compensation commission, perhaps; but the bottom line is

government-owned facilities, government-owned parking lots.

Of course, the bill was to basically raise all fines up

to a maximum on $100, or give the ability to do so.

There were a number of offenses that would be included there.

Parking offenses were included on the ticket.

The last time I spoke to this, I actually had a copy of one of

the tickets that would be handed out by Transportation and Works

Security for people who are illegally parking.

Certainly, the minister said at the time that they

wanted to create a greater deterrent, because the fines that were placed

were quite low. I think we

all acknowledge and would agree with that.

He talked extensively about parking meters.

He talked about the fact that all you would get if you parked

illegally here at a meter is a $10 ticket,

whereas if you were to park

illegally at a meter in the City of St. John's down on the waterfront or

something like that, it would be higher.

So they were going to raise it from $10 to $25.

They said it was not a cash grab.

One of my colleagues indicated that the timing was somewhat

suspect, given the budgetary situation and so on.

We have seen fees raised in parks and for motor registration and

everything else. Maybe it

was an opportunity to raise some more money.

I do not know if that was the thinking or if it was not.

Certainly, the argument made by the minister was that is not what

it is all about, it is about creating a deterrent.

The minister also said it was about being consistent

with the municipality. He

referenced in the City of St. John's the tickets on the meter are much

higher. So meters were

raised from $10 for a meter, if you did not feed the meter in time, or

you did not feed it all and it expired.

It is going from $10 to $25.

Then there were a bunch of other fines on that ticket

that were $10 fines. These

were things like parking illegally, parking without a permit, parking on

a crosswalk, improperly parked, and there were a few more.

We all acknowledge and those tickets were only $10.

I think we all acknowledge that $10 is pretty low, and if you

want to create a deterrent, and you want to be consistent, then you

should do that. I think the

plan is to up those tickets from $10 maybe up to $50, I think.

I could be wrong on the amount, but they are going to be raised

anyway.

Then I know there was another fine, which was parking

in fire lanes. Fire lanes

are a very serious concern, there is no doubt about it.

We have fire lanes for a reason.

We have fire lanes it is a life and safety issue.

That is why we have them, so that if there ever was a fire, we

have a place for the fire department to pull in and set up, and hook up

to hydrants if necessary to fight the fire.

That could be a life safety issue.

That particular fine, I believe, on the current ticket is $20.

I believe the plan is to go from $20 to $50 in that regard.

We have no issue with that either, no issue whatsoever, and to be

consistent.

Mr. Speaker, the bigger issue and the issue which I

raised some concern at the time and I continue to raise, and I have had

conversations with persons in the disability community about this since

and they agree is the fact that the only fine which was not raised

here was for blue zone parking. Blue

zone parking, currently for the tickets that they would give out here at

Confederation Building, as an example, are at $100.

Mr. Speaker, we can go back about three-and-a-half

years ago when blue zone legislation came in.

At that time, there were a number of changes made around blue

zone parking. One of those

changes was the range, was the fines.

So one part of that legislation was about creating the blue zones

and ensuring it with permanent vertical signage, but then another piece

around that was the whole issue of fines.

There were advocates in the disability community at the

time who was advocating that the fines should have a strong deterrent.

They were advocating for a $400 fine for anybody who knowingly

parked in a blue zone, thus denying access to a person with a legitimate

disability who required that blue zone space.

They were advocating for $400.

Unfortunately, the government did not listen to them.

They did not listen to them and they decided no, we are going to

go with a range. We are

going to go with a range of $100 to $400, which means by default we are

at $100. We were told

municipalities, if they so choose under their bylaws, now had the

ability to adopt higher blue zone fines.

They had the ability to go as high as $400, but as a

Province we were not prepared to dictate, if you will, put in

legislation, the Highway Traffic Act, that we would be at $400.

We said no, no, we will go the range.

Even though that is not what the disability community wanted, we

will go with the range and we will let municipalities decide.

I am not certain why that was.

I do not know what the rationale was for it.

I never did really get any clear rationale.

Even when I questioned the minister during Committee of the

Whole, basically we feel it is a deterrent.

If we feel it needs to be a stronger deterrent, then we will look

at amending it down the road.

The people in the disability community are not

interested in taking this down the road.

They wanted it from day one, and they still do.

Based on that, I do not understand why we would not want to have

the higher range, the higher ticket of straight $400 across the board.

I do not understand it.

The only thing I can think of is perhaps the politics

around the fact that if people get a $400 ticket even though they

deserved it, they would not get it if they did not deserve it,

obviously, or they could fight it if they did not deserve it but if

someone got a $400 ticket, maybe they would be upset and then blame it

on the government: I cannot believe it, this is a ridiculously high

fine.

That is the only thing I can think of.

Maybe it was like, we will put in the range and then we will let

the councils adopt the higher ticket.

Then if someone gets a ticket, they can blame it on the council.

Then it will be: well, we did not do it.

We just put a range in and the council decided to go higher.

It was not us. That

is the only thing I can think of.

I cannot think of any other rationale of why it would have been

done. The point is, it was

not done.

The City of St. John's to their credit, and I give

them full marks stepped up to the plate, and through their bylaws they

adopted the $400 ticket.

They said, I do not care if the Province does not want to show

leadership here. I do not

care. We want to do what is

right for the disability community within the City of St. John's.

We want to provide strong deterrents for those who decide they

are going to park illegally in a blue zone.

We want to provide access for persons with disabilities.

That is what we want to do.

They took the lead, to their credit, and they made that happen.

I congratulate them for it.

Shortly thereafter, the City of Mount Pearl followed

suit. The City of Mount

Pearl did the exact same thing.

They adopted a $400 fine for parking in blue zones, the same as

what the City of St. John's had done.

Now, according to my colleague, the Member for

Conception Bay South, the Town of CBS has also done the same.

I was not aware that they had, but according to my colleague

MR. HILLIER:

Three years ago.

MR. LANE:

Okay, he is telling me three years ago.

The Town of Conception Bay South also showed leadership and they

adopted the $400 fine. I

think I have heard that Corner Brook has done the same.

I know I wrote Mayor Pender about a year ago and encouraged him

and council in Corner Brook that they should do it.

I do not know if they did it or not, but I am told they may have

done it. Good for them if

they have.

I have suggested certainly through COD-NL that when

they are doing their presentations now because in fairness the

Province, through the Minister of Service NL, they did give COD-NL a

grant for awareness and education and all that stuff around blue zones.

I have suggested to COD-NL I am not sure if they have done it

yet, but I have suggested to them that they need to make a presentation

to the urban municipalities at the MNL convention or symposium on the

blue zone legislation and encourage them to follow suit as well and

adopt, through their bylaws, the higher fine for illegal blue zone

parking.

I think it is absolutely ridiculous that we should be

having to go through this long, exhaustive process because the easy

thing to have done would have simply said instead of a range, it is $400

across the board, then it is consistent.

We did not do it.

Now in this case, for government-owned parking lots,

which do not fall under the City of St. John's or Mount Pearl or

whatever, if it is a government-owned parking lot, government sets its

own fines. There is

legislation to say we set it ourselves.

So we are choosing to keep it at $100 and not to be consistent.

We want to be consistent with St. John's when it comes

to meters. We want to be

consistent when it comes to fire lanes.

We want to be consistent when it comes to illegal parking.

We want to be consistent when it comes to loading zones.

We want to be consistent when it comes to parking without a

permit, but when it comes to blue zones, for some reason, we do not want

to be consistent. We are

going to keep it lower.

This is very interesting as well, Mr. Speaker, when you

look at it from the perspective I am going to use an example that I

used in second reading, the Department of Advanced Education and Skills

that is just one government department.

It could be any government department, but I am just using that

one as an example. It is not

about that department per se.

In that case, they have an office at the Regatta Plaza and they

are actually leasing office space at the Regatta Plaza.

So if somebody visits that department, the Department

of Advanced Education and Skills at the Regatta Plaza and they illegally

park in the blue zone, then the RNC or perhaps even a municipal

enforcement officer with the City of St. John's will come and issue a

ticket and that ticket will be for $400.

If that same individual left that particular office and

came into the Confederation Building to the Advanced Education and

Skills office there and they parked illegally in a blue zone, thus

denying access to a person who needed it, they would only get $100.

So we are in the same department, same city, but because we are

leasing a space versus our own space, there is no consistency, so that

makes no sense whatsoever.

We are also told, by the minister, that Eastern Health

makes up their own rules as well.

Eastern Health can make up their own rules.

I do not understand why that would be, but apparently they can.

If you go and you park at the Health Sciences Centre or the

Miller Centre, St. Clare's, and what have you and I am assuming if it

applies to Eastern Health, I guess it applies to Western Health and

Central Health and so on. If

you park on a hospital parking lot then the fines could be different

again for blue zones and for anything else because they can set their

own.

Then MUN well, MUN, they are separate again.

MUN can do whatever they like.

They can just pick and choose their own fines as well apparently

AN HON. MEMBER:

No consistency.

MR. LANE:

There is no consistency and they can pick their own.

As a matter of fact, with MUN, we found out recently if you park

in a blue zone at MUN, you get a $20 ticket twenty bucks.

AN HON. MEMBER:

That is cheaper than (inaudible).

MR. LANE:

It is cheaper.

What I have been told by people in the disability

community is that they have been told I guess by security or people

there that people will park in a blue zone and stay there all day and

take a chance on a $20 ticket, because it is cheaper to pay a $20 ticket

than it is to feed the meter all day.

Not to mention it is so hard to get parking or to get a permit or

whatever. It is really just

worth your while. Park in

the blue zone and maybe I will not get a ticket at all but if I do, it

is only $20. Well, I would

have had to put more than that in the meter, so I am better off because

they can set their own.

What we have here is a total lack of consistency.

A total lack of consistency between municipalities because they

are kind of on their own to do their own thing and adopt what they like.

Then the government does what it would like to do and does it

here at the Confederation Building.

MUN, well they will do what they like.

Then the different health authorities will do what they like.

I do not know how it applies to other Crown agencies.

I am not sure if there are other Crown agencies.

Workers' comp is sort of semi-government, sort of like an arm's

length. So I do not know if

the government rules apply there, if the city rules apply.

Maybe workers' comp has their own rules too, I do not know.

There is no consistency.

There should be consistency, Mr. Speaker, I believe,

across the board. When it

comes government-owned parking lots, health authority parking lots, MUN

parking lots, College of the North Atlantic parking lots, or if it is

the City of St. John's or whatever, I think we should have consistency.

Whatever it is for one it is for the other, for all of it, but in

particular, when it comes to blue zone parking because that is so

critical to be able to provide people with mobility issues, the ability

to access services, in this case government services, educational

services, health care services.

It could be you or me tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

It could be anybody.

It is not necessarily just somebody who perhaps was born with a

disability of some type and maybe uses a wheelchair or whatever.

People who use blue zone parking, these could be people who have

serious heart conditions, and people who have MS certainly are another.

It could be any number of reasons.

It could be senior citizens and so on.

We could be fine today, but require that particular access

tomorrow.

As a Province, if we want to be inclusive, then it is

up to us certainly as legislators, as we are crafting any kind of

legislation in this House of Assembly, whether it be parking or

otherwise, it is incumbent upon us if we want to be an inclusive society

to ensure that when we pass legislation that we are looking at it from

all the various angles and various lenses.

One of those lenses has to be the inclusiveness lens from the

perspective of somebody who has mobility issues, somebody who has a

disability and so on, and we need to craft our policies around it.

While I have no problem, in principle, with this

particular bill in terms of raising other fines and so on, I have to say

for the record that I believe we are missing an opportunity there was

an opportunity to also raise those blue zone fines, an opportunity that

was already passed. We had

the opportunity three-and-a-half years ago; we should have done it then

right across the board.

At the very least now, I think we had an opportunity

for government facilities to show leadership.

We should be the ones leading by example instead of having the

City of St. John's and Mount Pearl and so on leading by example and they

are up here and we are down there.

We missed an opportunity.

I am very disappointed that we have, that it is not in this

legislation an opportunity to do that.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

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

MR. MURPHY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to take a couple of minutes to talk about

Bill 4 here and this piece of legislation.

Sometimes whenever a piece of legislation comes to the House, we

have the realization that we have to make changes to some pieces simply

because of ignorance.

I have to say the word, Mr. Speaker.

Because we have people who are out there who take advantage of

somebody else's situation.

They will go ahead and they will deliberately park their car in a blue

zone. They will go ahead and

they will park their car too close to a set of steps to the point where

they cannot not a set of steps, sorry, but a ramp, for example, so

that they cannot get the wheelchair up over it; or they will park too

close to the blue zone, sometimes over the blue zone to the point where

somebody who is in a wheelchair cannot open up the door to their own

vehicle and get their wheelchair out.

Mr. Speaker, we have this situation out there where

government had to deal with a piece of legislation here.

There is no doubt about it I think that with well, pretty much

the same thing as what my fellow Member for Mount Pearl South was

saying, we have a consistency in violations here right across the

Province, right across the world, let's face it.

I just wanted to make a quick note about that at the

same time. Sometimes you

have to change the legislation to the point where you have to bring

awareness more so that people are going to violate it anyway simply for

the sake that they can get away with it.

Enforcement, Mr. Speaker, I think is very important in

this particular matter. I

want to bring up the simple case again for some of the matters of where

they are raising fines.

Again, I will say it to the minister.

Parking on a crosswalk as far as I am concerned is absolutely

abhorrent. If somebody is

going to do it, it is an accident waiting to happen and should be

subject to demerit points.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I do not know about

this one, I will have to check this one too, but I think even parking in

a blue zone is not subject to demerit points.

I stand to be corrected on that.

Perhaps the minister can probably correct me on that.

The absolute abhorrence of being able to have somebody break the

law and park in a blue zone should be subject itself to demerit points

and subject to a heavier fine, as some of my fellow members have been

saying.

Mr. Speaker, that is all I wanted to say on it.

The other point is thanks to the groups like COD-NL for their

advocacy work on this piece and their continued advocacy on pieces

having to do with those people who need the assistance sometimes.

In some cases like this we have to make the realization that this

is an educational process for everybody too.

I think that we can all be in hope that we will all be made more

aware of both disability and ability issues in the future.

Mr. Speaker, that is all I wanted to say on that

particular point, but for government to consider, like I said, some of

the points where they did raise fines, perhaps they can go up a little

bit higher. Probably the use

of demerit points may in fact actually enhance the enforcement component

of it.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion

that Bill 4 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The motion is carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Works, Services And Transportation Act.

(Bill 4)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill

do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Works, Services

And Transportation Act, read a third time, ordered passed and its title

be as on the Order Paper.

(Bill 4)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, for the record I would like just to make

a correction. When I gave a

notice of motion, I think I said Thursday, June 17 for next week, but it

was intended to be Thursday, June 18.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

MR. KING:

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move to Motion 4, ask leave

to introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend The Regional Service Boards Act,

2012, Bill 14.

It is so moved by me and seconded by the Minister of

Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs that the said bill be now read

the first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

Was it Bill 14?

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Municipal and

Intergovernmental Affairs shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Regional Service Boards Act, 2012, 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 14, and that Bill 14 be now read a first

time?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The motion is carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Regional Service Boards Act, 2012.

(Bill 14)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. KING:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 14 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This time I would like to call from the Order Paper,

Bill 7,

An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act.

It is so move d by me, seconded by the Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board, that the said bill be now read the second

time.

Motion, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The

Revenue Administration Act.

(Bill 14)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This amendment to Bill 7, just by way of a bit of

background to the amendment or the issue at hand and to create some

context for the amendment itself, it goes back a little ways, back in

the mid-1980s actually and further adjustments made in 1997.

There was in place in Labrador, a creation of a

Labrador boarder zone. This

was a creation of these zones which basically and fundamentally covered

the Labrador West region Labrador City and Wabush.

It also then covered the South Coast of Labrador.

Those two regions of Labrador share a border with Quebec, where

there is population to commute back and forth between the Labrador

portion of the Province and Quebec.

In particular, there was a huge impact on retail sales, both in

the Labrador West area and the South Coast of Labrador, as a result of

cross-border shopping.

At that time, there was an assessment completed.

The determination one of the major contributing factors to that

draw across the border was around the sale of tobacco.

There was a huge price differential in tobacco prices in Labrador

West and on the South Coast of Labrador versus the neighbouring

communities in Quebec.

So back then in the mid-1980s there was a change made,

not necessarily intended to equalize the issues around the pricing of

tobacco, but to create equalization around the taxation associated with

tobacco. There are two

things that happen in Quebec.

One is the rate of taxation, and the products that will get taxed

in Quebec versus in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Back then, Mr. Speaker, there was a program put in

place to provide for tax rebates, not a reduction in the tax per se but

a rebate to retailers who were selling products.

That way they were able to compete.

In so competing on tobacco, they were able to actually maintain

or retain shoppers in their respective communities for other consumer

products. As a result of

that, Mr. Speaker, this was introduced back in the 1980s initially, and

further changes made in 1997.

Fast forward, Mr. Speaker, to 2013.

In 2013, the program had been in place for a while.

It had provided some ongoing stability, Mr. Speaker

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Cross):

Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN:

A couple of things were in place, there was a quotient.

Obviously, it was not intended to create a zone within the

Province that provided for the purchase of tobacco at a reduced rate for

export to other parts of the Province, potentially.

It was not that at all, Mr. Speaker.

So to contain and to ensure it was protection for local

consumers, people who lived in both Labrador West and the South Coast

portion of our Province, adequate protection for them as consumers.

There was a program that offered a cap.

At that time, there was a cap in Labrador West, for example, of

110 cartons of cigarettes; 110,000 in Labrador West and 16,000 in the

South Coast of Labrador. So

there was a cap. There was a

quotient put in place, and the rebate would apply to that volume of

activity. There was a

process put in place to administer the program.

It involved a large degree of co-operation between the

wholesalers and the retailers in Labrador to manage the quota, together

with the program itself.

In 2003, there was a decision made in that year that

there may be an opportunity to make a change, to eliminate that tax.

Maybe it was not having such a positive impact as was thought.

In 2003, there was a belief that not only was it not necessarily

given the kind of protection it was initially intended to, and it may

not have a huge impact on retail sales, but also the Province found

itself that year in a very difficult financial circumstance.

So it was decided that those rebates would be eliminated for that

zone. That Labrador border

zone would be eliminated.

Over the period of time between that year, 2013, and

today, there were a number of things happened, obviously.

The dynamic in Labrador West changed hugely.

The economy has made a huge change there with mining activity in

a very different spot than it was four or five years ago, and retail

sales are really taking a hit.

So, on further analysis, and looking clearly at what

was happening in Labrador West initially, a lot of the wholesale sale of

tobacco information that we had predominantly centred around Labrador

West. Basically, Mr.

Speaker, when we did an analysis of it, we started to realize that

consumer retail sales in Labrador West, not just on tobacco, but many

other consumer products had taken a significant hit.

Not only did it drop because the economy had changed there, but

on close examination this was not just about the economy taking a hit.

There was something else fundamentally going on there.

We did a fairly detailed analysis, worked with the

retail sector, worked with the wholesale sector.

What we found very clearly, Mr. Speaker, we found a connection, a

correlation between what was happening with consumers leaving Labrador

West and going across the border and shopping in Quebec.

Not only were they drawn there for the difference in the tobacco

tax, but while they were there they purchased many other consumer

products. So almost retailer

by retailer in Labrador West you are able to track and identify clearly

significant slippage in their sales, and not just because the economy is

in a very different spot today than it was four or five years ago.

As a result of some tracking, we were able to clearly tie it to

the loss of tobacco sales.

What this amendment is doing, Mr. Speaker, is going

back to where we were pre-2013.

The Budget was announced back at the end of April.

I read into the record here this year's Budget, and commented

about this change that we are going to make.

When we did the first analysis, the focus was on Labrador, but

the information we had at that time confirmed for us that we needed to

make a change in Labrador West.

The Budget did not include the South Coast of Labrador

in the reinstatement of the Labrador border zone.

Since that time, since we introduced the Budget in the House, we

have had additional information brought to our attention.

We have had officials do a deeper analysis solely focused on the

South Coast of Labrador.

They came to the same conclusion that this was happening.

The South Coast of Labrador obviously is a much smaller

region, a smaller population.

Retail sales in the South Coast of Labrador were never as high as

retail sales in Labrador West.

Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, for those people in business on the

South Coast of Labrador, it was having a similar impact on them.

So what we are doing here now is making an amendment to Bill 7

that actually puts in place or recreates this Labrador border zone for a

tobacco tax rebate for both the Labrador West area and the South Coast

of Labrador.

The Labrador West initiative came into effect on April

1, and the one in oh, I am sorry May 1.

Labrador West is May 1 and the one in the South Coast of Labrador

will be July 1. So retailers

are already getting the benefit in Labrador West because it came into

effect on May 1. The South

Coast retailers will get the benefit starting on July 1.

Mr. Speaker, there are two amendments associated with

this. The first provides for

the rebate itself. The

second amendment grants us the authority to make regulations with

respect to the calculation and the administration of the rebate, and

also the calculation of the quota.

I said earlier in my comments that when it was initially

established there was a quota established and there was a mechanism put

in place for the rebate. So

these amendments now give the Department of Finance officials in

government the authority to re-establish the calculation of the

administration of the program, together with the calculation of the

quota.

Mr. Speaker, this is a relatively simple amendment to a

bill that gives us an authority to implement that rebate program in

those two regions of the Province.

This bill is not about the issue of smoking.

Obviously, government has been very clear through its policy

decisions and other things it has done that we promote non-smoking

environments, we promote healthy lifestyles, and we promote healthy

choices that people make.

Those healthy choices and those healthy lifestyles do not include

smoking.

This is not intended to endorse smoking as a habit.

Merely, this is a piece of legislation that amends

an act that

will see us creating an equal playing field for retailers who are in

Labrador West and on the South Coast of Labrador who have to compete

with a very different tax structure in their neighbouring communities in

Quebec. So this amendment is

purely and simply just to create an equal playing field for retailers in

both the South Coast of Labrador and in the Western Labrador.

I do not think I need to provide any greater

elaboration on what this bill is about, what it is intended to do, and

the motivation for doing this and what benefit and value it will have

for retailers in Labrador.

So, Mr. Speaker, I will take my place but, no doubt, when we get into

Committee if there are some very specific questions around some

components of the bill, I would only be too glad to answer them.

I welcome others' comments.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

MS DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to speak for a few minutes to Bill 7 since

the impacts of Bill 7 my district has certainly felt the impacts of

the changes. I think it was

just before I came into the House of Assembly in 2013 I know when I

started at the doors in 2013, I began hearing from people loud and clear

that we are not happy with what had just happened in the House.

I began to do some digging, looking in and trying to understand

it, and I am going to talk about it over the next little while.

First, for the purpose of the people who might be

watching today, just to understand, Bill 7 is

An Act to Amend the

Revenue Administration Act and it is a bill that would amend the Revenue

Administration Act to provide for a tobacco tax rebate in the Labrador

border zones.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I should say right off the mark that

myself or our Leader of the Opposition, we are certainly not about

promoting smoking. We are

not about encouraging the use of tobacco, because I think all of us

understand the full implications of smoking.

We see it every day.

I just did a member's statement on the cancer relay that happens every

year in a little community in Charlottetown, a tremendous success.

A small region giving a lot, wanting to make a difference in the

lives of people who are living with cancer, or hopefully the money will

help with research to prevent the ongoing spread of cancer.

Mr. Speaker, this is about something different; the

tobacco tax rebate is about cross-border shopping.

The Southern part of my district when you come into L'Anse au

Clair, you are in very close proximity to another province where prices

are very different. What

happens there is when people go there, people who are going to smoke are

going to smoke and they are going to have the cigarettes.

What happens is when they go across the border for cigarettes;

they end up buying lots of other things.

This becomes a huge disadvantage to the small

businesses, small businesses that are struggling in those rural parts.

You have a small population base around you.

You have a high cost of getting your freight brought into the

region. You have high electricity.

There are many times that my colleague for Torngat and myself, we

have stood there is a rate application right now before the PUB that

concerns us. So there are

lots of reasons why we need to be doing all we can to support small

business.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, when this government, two

years ago, decided they were going to do away with the tobacco tax

rebate, the people in the Opposition at that time understood the

implications and the damage that it would be to small businesses, and

they voted against it. They

debated it.

I was not here at the time, but I went back into

Hansard and I saw that there was some pretty heated debate.

At that time, there was all kinds of dialogue here in the House

around we are about promoting health and wellness.

The Member for Lab West, whose district was going to be very

impacted, spoke at length and he said it is not going to be a big

impact. I do not think

businesses are going to hurt.

In fact, I do not think one job will be lost from this.

He spoke at length about that.

He said sometimes it comes down to choices and you have to make

the choice that is right.

AN HON. MEMBER:

What is he saying now?

MS DEMPSTER:

I do not know what he is saying right now, but clearly this is a another

example I would be remiss on behalf of the people of Cartwright

L'Anse au Clair that I represent, Mr. Speaker, I am their voice, I am

the voice of the small businesses I would be remiss if I did not say

this is another blatant example, and we have many, many in the House,

where this government did something, they did to do their homework, and

they went back after and they decided to look and see what the

implications to the small businesses would be.

In fact, they found out what we knew all along.

They found out what was very clear.

You have many disadvantages when you live close to a

border, Mr. Speaker, and you can get goods across the border that are

cheaper. That leaves

businesses there very disadvantaged.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, every day when I am in my district

we see examples of how much we are losing to Quebec.

Muskrat Falls we are losing our shirts to Quebec, so much.

This is another example of where businesses have really

felt the smart because this was brought in and now two years later we

are going back, government recognizes that they did the analysis after

the fact. This analysis

should have been done prior.

So I do not know what the loss was.

I do not know what, but I would venture to say that government is

not going to compensate those small businesses for that loss for sure.

Budget day I was sitting here on Budget day when the

Finance Minister delivered the Budget and during that time he referenced

the tobacco tax being reinstated at Lab West end.

I thought that seemed very strange, what about the businesses in

Southern even though Lab West was a Tory district and the Southern was

a Liberal, I thought it must be a slip-up.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, it was not.

The homework had not been done properly again, and because of

that I have to give credit where credit is due.

I am thankful that the minister and his department have been

looking into this and that they are going to go back and revisit.

It is my understanding that the Southern border and it is here

written in the act now will have the tobacco tax reinstated.

Mr. Speaker, the businesses in Lab West have been

enjoying the benefits of this rebate now since the Budget came down,

since May 1. It is my

understanding that the best that we can hope for is that the small

businesses in Southern Labrador will get to appreciate the value of this

rebate in July. Mr. Speaker,

what about May and June? May

and June because of the analysis being done again after the fact we

have small businesses that are the heart and soul of our community,

every small business that employs two or three people makes a world of

difference in a small community, but because the analysis was done after

the fact and not before, we have a number of small businesses in my area

and they are losing out financially.

They are losing out for two months financially.

Not to mention this should not have been done in the first place

and businesses, for two years we have two years of damage already

done, two years of damage.

There is an old saying that says if it is not broke, don't fix it.

It was not broke, there was a reason why the tobacco tax was

there, and it was to give these small businesses a fair opportunity.

It was to give them a fighting chance.

AN HON. MEMBER:

It was Liberal policy.

MS DEMPSTER:

It was Liberal policy, as my colleague said, brought in because it was

recognized that those businesses at the border, they had a lot of

challenges because it is easy for customers to get in their vehicle and

drive a few kilometres.

Everybody consumers loved the benefits, Mr. Speaker.

They love the benefits if you are going to save a little bit of

money.

We have two years of damage done and then we see the

Budget comes down we are happy to see that the rebate is back, but I

am hearing from business owners in L'Anse au Clair, I have heard from

business owners in L'Anse au Loup that have been making multiple calls

within the departments, a number of business owners.

One of the things that was mentioned to me was the business

confidence under this government.

When this Premier took over, business confidence was at its

highest. Here we are now a

short time into this, and I think we are down to 6 per cent or 7 per

cent.

Mr. Speaker, this is just an example.

We need to be setting policy and reducing red tape.

We hear that all the time from small businesses.

We need to be doing all we can to support.

We talk about oil and gas, and that is 4 per cent of the jobs

that is created in this Province 4 per cent.

It is the small business owners that we need to be doing all we

can to support.

It was just last week when I was I wrote down a

quote. I had an email from a

small business owner. He

said to me: I struggle with

reaching out to my member and asking about the tobacco tax rebate.

He said: I, myself, am all about promoting health and wellness.

I would love for someone to be talking to me about subsidizing

the fruit and the milk and the vegetables here, but it is about my

business. It comes down to

survival. He said: What

really, really irritates me is treating the red and blue districts

different. So that is how

the businesses are feeling right now in the Labrador Straits because at

the Western border, there has been two months of rebate that they will

not enjoy.

I do not know what the dollar figure is on that, but I

imagine that is it very, very valuable for the businesses in that area.

Again, to quote Hansard, the Member for Labrador West said: I do

not think businesses are going to suffer.

Guess what happened?

Once they did the analysis, after the fact they saw that indeed

businesses were suffering, and the Southern Labrador businesses will

continue to suffer I do not have a definite date.

Maybe I will get a chance to ask the minister that after if the

July 2 date is actually an absolute date in which the tax rebate will be

reinstated at that time.

I do not have a lot more to say on that.

I believe that it was a wrong decision in the beginning.

I am glad that they have revisited, but it is always at a cost

and just another example of where you cannot be rolling the dice and

gambling with people in the Province, gambling with businesses who are

working very hard to make a living.

You need to be doing your homework first; you need to be doing

the analysis prior.

Mr. Speaker, coming out with things like this two years

ago with no consultation with the people, no consultation at all, it

reminded me of the RFP for Labrador when we have been so desperately

waiting and needing a ferry.

So we had an RFP that went out and now that is hauled off the table

because they understood that they needed to go back and do some more

homework. Here is another

example of that.

I stood in the House a number of times and I entered

petitions on behalf of the businesses.

The businesses were calling to have this reinstated.

I am happy to see that happen.

I am happy to see that government listened to that because small

businesses are very, very valuable in our community, Mr. Speaker.

I grew up in a family where we were small business

owners, so I understand first-hand.

We did not get to do a lot of things, take a lot of days off as a

family. It was my

observation that running a small business successfully meant that you

were working eighteen hours a day for yourself so you did not have to

work eight for someone else.

I am very familiar, Mr. Speaker, with that lifestyle.

From a very, very young age I was expected to work in the family

business as well. It did not

hurt me. Hard work never

hurts anyone. I understand

the struggles and I understand sometimes in a small

MR. WISEMAN:

(Inaudible).

MS DEMPSTER:

I am not sure what the Finance Minister is saying over there, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. WISEMAN:

I am wondering where this tied into the bill, but go ahead.

MS DEMPSTER:

I think, Mr. Speaker, he wants me to go back and talk about that the

tobacco tax rebate should not have been cut in the first place.

The analysis should have been done.

So I am happy to have been able to stand and speak to Bill 7.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say it again, it is unfortunate

that small businesses in Southern Labrador right now, today, June 11,

are being disadvantaged against their Western businesses for the last

four, five, six, seven weeks.

I am sure they are very anxiously awaiting the date when all the

processes are taken care of in the department and they will have the

tobacco tax rebate.

It will level the playing field.

It is just about fairness.

Cross-border shopping is always going to happen when people live

near a border. We need

rebates in place like that to encourage the residents who live in the

area to shop at home. So

when you drop in for your pack of you have your little bad habits

there, you are also going to pick up all of the other things that you

need along the way, Mr. Speaker.

It is about supporting small businesses in Newfoundland

and Labrador. Every

opportunity that we have, Mr. Speaker, I believe we need to do all we

can to support the small businesses and the mom-and-pop operations.

I know they are certainly valued in my district.

We appreciate all that they do and how they give to the

community. These are the

people who we call on whenever there is fundraising and things like that

health issues, people going away, all kinds of things.

So we need to be supporting them.

So, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Cartwright

L'Anse au Clair and Labrador, I am happy to have had the opportunity

to speak to Bill 7.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MR. MURPHY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As Yogi Berra once said, this is dj vu all over

again. We talked about this

particular piece of legislation back in 2013, and back then when it was

repealed. I find it hard

sometimes to actually understand why government does things.

In the last little while we have seen, I will say it,

indecisiveness on the part of the government.

We saw the government, for example, talk the other day on the

possibility of not putting in an HST increase, then they were in the

Budget, then they changed their mind again, and now with this one, of

course they change their mind for good reason, because we told them

so. This side of the House,

we told them so back in debate in 2013

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Thank you.

The Speaker is just having difficulty hearing the hon.

member.

MR. MURPHY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Back in 2013, just to reiterate, we told government so

that this was going to be happening and the possibility was here, of

course, that there was going to be some fallback from this.

Of course, certainly government learned that but they did not

listen. So we are back to

the drawing board again, so to speak.

There is a necessity here for government to ensure in

this particular case the survival of small businesses and large

businesses for that matter that are trying to compete on an equal

footing in a market that is next to Quebec.

We know that there are challenges with that that people are going

to get around, and we know that, of course, people go and they like to

shop for the best deal. We

all know, of course, that we want Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to

spend money at home. That is

one of the reasons why they are instituting this again.

We warned you at the time that the $3.4 million I

think that was the number that was put on it that was saved on the

backs of Labrador retailers who would lose revenue to cross-border

sales, people travel to take advantage of cheaper cigarettes in Quebec

we warned government that was going to happen, that the possibility was

there, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately as it is, in Newfoundland and Labrador this year, if you

look at the Budget figures, for example, just to give a little bit of a

chat on how much taxes are actually collected, government in the

budgetary figures and I think I said this in the House before they

talked about $157 mil