Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 7 April 2011 (46th General Assembly, 4th Session, Vol. XLVI No. 12)
2011-04-07
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
April
7, 2011 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVI No. 12
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: Today, the Chair welcomes the following members' statements:
the hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the hon. the
Member for the District of Bellevue; the hon. the Member for the District of The
Straits & White Bay North; the hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port;
and the hon. the Member for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale.
The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I stand in the House today to recognize and congratulate an
immensely talented and accomplished musician from my district who can now add
another accolade to his already extensive list Duane Andrews.
Duane, in collaboration with Dwayne Ct
of Cape Breton, recently won the International Album Award at
the 10 th Independent Music Awards. As if this award were not
prestigious enough, Mr. Speaker, Duane impressed a panel of judges that included
internationally renowned Tom Waits, Pete Wentz, Ozzy Osbourne, and Seal.
The dynamic duo have also picked up the MusicNS Jazz Recording of the Year,
the MusicNL Instrumental Recording of the Year, and have been nominated in the
Jazz Album and Instrumental Album of the Year categories in the upcoming East
Coast Music Awards in Charlottetown this month.
It has been a very good year for Duane Andrews, Mr. Speaker, and he has done
our Province proud by showcasing our traditional Celtic music on an
international stage. His musical talent and creativity is further exemplified in
the way he blends traditional Celtic music with Gypsy and Jazz inspired tones.
I would highly recommend this album to all hon. members as a shining example
of what Newfoundland and Labrador musicians are capable of producing when they
have the support of their Province. What better way to show that support, Mr.
Speaker, than by purchasing Duane Andrew's and Dwayne
Ct's debut self-titled album.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me in congratulating Duane
Andrews on his success and wishing him all the best in his future musical
endeavours.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a fire department in the
District of Bellevue.
On February 24, I had the great privilege of attending the twenty-fifth
anniversary of the St. Bernard's-Jacques Fontaine Fire Department. The fire
department has an active membership of thirty. They are a regional department
that responds to emergencies in St. Bernard's-Jacques Fontaine, as well as the
nearby towns of Bay L'Argent, Little Bay East, and Harbour Mille.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to recognize six firefighters who received the
twenty years of service awards at this anniversary. They were: Chris Hodder,
Felix Hackett, Carl Power, George Power, Barry Hodder, and Billy Hodder. As
appreciation, they received anniversary clocks and service pins. The clocks were
on behalf of the fire department members and the pins were from the Government
of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in
congratulating the St. Bernard's-Jacques Fontaine Fire Department on their
twenty-five years of service and thank them for their commitment and dedication
to the people of the area they serve.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White
Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to congratulate The Straits Rifters
PeeWee White Hockey Team that won the regional championship game that was held
in Port aux Choix on March 12. Four teams from the Northern Peninsula
participated in this tournament.
The Straits Rifters Peewee White Hockey Team played an amazing championship
game pulling off a score of 4-0 against The Straits Rifters Peewee Black Team.
The members of the winning team were: Kyle Squires, Benjamin White, Ross Whalen,
Brandon Guinchard, Mitchell White, Ty Whalen, Mack Coles, Jarret White, Zack
Applin, and Nick Mitchelmore. Their hard work, relentless effort, and attention
to detail have certainly led to the teams' success.
I also want to extend congratulations to coaches Lloyd Coles and Dave White.
Their hard work and dedication to the team has certainly contributed to their
victory.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in
congratulating The Straits Rifters Peewee White Hockey Team and their coaches,
and to wish them well as they participate in future competitions.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. CORNECT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House of Assembly to
congratulate Gwen Stagg from Boswarlos, who at age eighty-five, last fall,
successfully published her first book entitled, In Retrospect: From One
Remote Newfoundland Outport to Another.
Mr. Speaker, in this book Gwen recounts what life was like for her growing up
in the outport community of Grand Bruit and then, later in life, raising a
family in the small community of Boswarlos on the Port au Port Peninsula. Gwen
delightfully described the day-to-day lived experiences of what life was like
for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in outport communities beginning from the
1920s. Gwen gives the reader an insightful view of the hardships and joys
experienced in times gone by giving a personal touch to our Newfoundland and
Labrador history.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members of this House of Assembly to join with me
in congratulating Mrs. Gwen Stagg on the accomplishment of publishing her first
book.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Baie
Verte-Springdale.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Flo Paul In Unison Award is presented annually to an individual, group,
or organization who exemplifies the values and principles articulated by In
Unison, which is a government vision that promotes full citizenship in Canadian
society through inclusion.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Ms Kem Young of
Springdale. At the 2010 Supported Employment Newfoundland and Labrador
Conference, Kem was the proud recipient of the inaugural Flo Paul In Unison
award. She has been instrumental in advancing the vision of inclusion to action,
not only to her community but to the whole Province.
Her tireless advocacy, solid commitment, and boundless energy has propelled
the principle of inclusion to new heights within the region as she continues to
work with the Green Bay Association for Community Living and the Green Bay
Employment Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, I invite all hon. colleagues to join me in applauding and
recognizing the outstanding efforts of Kem Young as she continues to strive to
advance the values of compassion, dignity and equality among the persons with
disabilities.
Capturing this provincial award is a testament of her tireless efforts and
the difference she has made to individual lives.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Volunteer and
Non-Profit Sector.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to acknowledge April 10-16 as National Volunteer Week. Volunteer
Week is an opportunity to recognize and celebrate the amazing work of volunteers
across our Province and across our country. They touch every part of our lives
and it is important that we recognize their tireless work and say thank you for
all they do in our communities.
In this Province, Mr. Speaker, there are approximately 197,000 volunteers
that contribute thirty-five million hours of a year, valuable, unpaid time to
their communities and community organizations. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker,
currently in Newfoundland and Labrador there are almost 23,000 people employed
in the volunteer and non-profit organizations in a concerted effort to make our
Province stronger.
Mr. Speaker, this year's theme, VolunteersStars in the Community, is a good
reflection on what volunteers mean to the people around them and the people they
affect. They light up people's lives, they give people guidance and they make
our communities shine. They are all stars in the eyes of the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
The volunteer and non-profit sector in Newfoundland and Labrador is essential
to the prosperity and the sustainability of our Province. This was evident, Mr.
Speaker, this past fall when we were devastated by Hurricane Igor. The efforts
of people volunteering their time and resources, and organizations reaching out
to communities and individuals, were remarkable. It showed the kind of impact
you can have if you give a little of yourself for your community. It was a
tragic time, but it showcased the true meaning of volunteerism. People lent a
helping hand to their neighbours and it spoke to the sense of community across
our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, last year government launched a new multimedia campaign. The Who
Cares? campaign celebrates the voluntary non-profit sector for the difference
they are making in our communities every day. Through avenues such as the Who
Cares? website and Facebook page, the Who Cares? campaign will let the public
see the sector in a new light. I would encourage everyone to go to WhoCaresNL.ca
and thank a volunteer in their community.
Mr. Speaker, although this is just one week designated to recognize
volunteers, I think it is important that we celebrate and thank volunteers and
the non-profit organizations all year long. As the Volunteer Week approaches I
ask all Honourable Members to join with me in honouring the valuable work that
the volunteer and non-profit sector contributed to our great Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair welcomes all visitors to the House of Assembly; that is why we have
a public gallery. It is obvious that we have a visitor here today who has
challenges with their health and as a result of that it is obvious that there is
pain endured here by the sounds that we are hearing. This is the Parliament of
Newfoundland and Labrador, and we have no other choice but to enforce
parliamentary rules of not having interruptions within the precincts of the
House. I ask if it is possible, that we could have silence in the galleries; if
not the Chair will have no other choice but have ask the members to leave the
House and to deal with the situation that we have here today.
I ask if it is possible for your cooperation and understanding of our rules
and regulations within the precincts of the House.
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.
Indeed we should thank all the volunteers in this Province each and every
day. It is nice to see that we have carved out a special week called National
Volunteer Week in our country in order to recognize them. Of course, they
deserve our thanks and our gratitude each and every day of the year.
It is amazing when you look at the numbers; 197,000 volunteers out of a mere
500,000 that live here on our rock and in Labrador. It is great to see that we
have such dedicated people; thirty-five million person hours a year donated and
devoted to helping each and every one of us living in this Province. It is just
amazing and I doubt if any other province in Canada per capita has those kinds
of statistics that they can put forth.
With regard to Hurricane Igor, of course, the minister it is quite right. It
is usually in times of trouble and the most trying times that everybody does
pull on the oars together and come together to help one another.
I would like to pay particular tribute as well to all of those who have been
thanked with respect to Igor. I understand there were some 260 workers in our
public service, particularly in the Transportation and Works Department, who
came from all over this Province to come here to help these people in their
times of need. I think they need a special recognition as well because they went
above and beyond. They did not have to come and do it; they were asked to do it
and they did it willingly and graciously.
With regard to firefighters, of course, I always put them forward as the
epitome of a volunteer in our community because not only are they volunteers,
but they are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice. In fact, I will be
honouring the Rose Blanche fire department in my district on Saturday night, as
I do each and every year for all of them.
Of course, to all of the other volunteers, whether you work in a seniors'
home, whether you volunteer in a hospital, or if you are a minor sports program
coach of some kind; each and every one of those volunteers contribute to what
makes us what we are as a society. So I also lend my congratulations to all
these volunteers in the Province, and I think it is very appropriate that the
minister did in fact single them out for this recognition today.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
I am very happy to stand with him and recognize and congratulate the
thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who give their time and their
skills for the benefit of their community. We know so many of them; all of us
here know hundreds, I am sure, each. I do look forward this week to taking
part
in some of the events that I have been invited to, to recognize the work of
these volunteers.
Volunteers are committed they are very, very committed people. Very often
they are committed to an individual issue, sometimes to an individual cause, and
just sometimes to helping people in general. I think it is incumbent on us to
not take advantage of our volunteers. We must make sure that there are not
sectors that get overtaxed and that volunteers do not get worn out. We need an
infrastructure in place to work with volunteers.
I believe the women's community is one example of where we need adequate
funding so that there are people in paid positions to back up the work of the
volunteers. Very often we have volunteers doing the work that should be done by
professionals.
So I encourage us in celebrating volunteers to also look at our funding
systems and to make sure that we have sustaining funding for organizations who
are always a combination of those who are paid and those who are doing volunteer
work.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.
The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
"A best practice" is how the Provincial Government's Business Retention and
Expansion program was described at a forum of the International Economic
Development Council in Missouri. This label was earned as a result of high
levels of commitment being made to use the innovative program as a key tool to
stimulate business growth.
As a government we are extremely pleased to hear such endorsements. However,
our goal is not focused on earning international acclaim. It is focused on
supporting business development in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Businesses, in particular small businesses, are the engines that drive the
local economy. They are the suppliers of products and services and employers of
residents. To increase the size and productivity of that engine, well trained
staff from the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development work
hand-in-hand with businesses to address expansion issues and identify new growth
opportunities.
To effectively deliver the Business Retention and Expansion program or BR&E
as it is widely referred economic development officers work directly with
businesses to address specific issues impacting business operations and identify
opportunities. Together an action plan is developed that addresses those
challenges. By working collectively it not only strengthens that operation but
empowers the company to play a greater role in the growth of their communities.
This collaborative exercise is delivering results. It has linked companies
with some of the Provincial Government's more than $120 million business
development programs and services, as well as better networking opportunities,
and matching of information and services.
Deer Lake-based NCL Holdings has said that the program enabled them to
identify inhibitors to success. The manufacturer of rock aggregates went on to
say that the "recommendations stemming from the program positioned it to secure
opportunities in emerging markets in the private and public sectors."
Joyce LeRiche of Family Tree Memorials in Bishop's Falls described the
program as "being a great service to us as it zeroed in on specific issues
around future operations and marketing. It made us realize where we needed to
focus our energy."
These are the stories we want to hear. These are the outcomes that will
continue to support the development of a vibrant, successful business community
that is focused on expansion.
For small businesses interested in learning more I encourage them to contact
our department for more information.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White
Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement.
It is always truly good to hear success stories when it comes to small and
medium business development within our Province. Undoubtedly, it is important
that we recognize - as the minister said, they really are the backbone of many
communities, not only in the employment that they create but in the services
they provide and so on, and they are crucial to our very existence. Certainly,
we want to recognize that today.
We support the goals of the Business Retention and Expansion program and wish
it much success. We want to recognize the employees who work very diligently to
help take - sometimes especially in more rural areas where all the services of
government are not necessarily available at a person's fingertips - an idea and
to help develop that, whether it is with business plans, arranging meetings and
really becoming somewhat of an advocate for the whole idea that this person has.
We want to recognize that, and there is a true value to that. I recognize it in
my district and I am sure it is throughout other parts of the Province.
No doubt, it is easy to attract business investment to the larger centres of
the Province but when we get out into the more rural areas of the Province that
are looking to attract business and to develop business and so on, the
opportunity to attract is not always the same. The onus on government, in these
cases, is to make sure people understand what is available and for the employees
who are willing to work with them to see that it takes place.
Again, it is good to recognize the ventures throughout our Province, they are
very important to us.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement.
I am glad to hear about another program that helps small businesses in
Newfoundland, in this case the Business Retention and Expansion program. I
congratulate businesses that have benefited from it and I know there will be
many more that will.
I do encourage the minister, as I did earlier this week, to look at one
barrier in particular for small businesses that we still hear people talk to us
about, and that is the lack of broadband Internet access for all parts of the
Province. We do hear from some businesses that literally cannot completely do
their own Web sites because they do not have the capacity to put photos, for
example, up on the Web site. As we help small businesses, this is something that
is really important to them for marketing. I ask the minister to think further
about it.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I see yesterday that Ed Martin was out, the head of Nalcor,
trying to do some damage control in the media. He did not do very well, I must
say, by some accounts because people are saying he was pretty evasive in the
fact that he was not answering the questions that Debbie Cooper was posing to
him last night on Here and Now . Mr. Speaker, maybe I will try and get a
direct answer from the Premier today.
Will the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, who own Muskrat Falls, pay more
for that power than someone living in the Maritimes? That was the question that
was posed, why don't you give us an answer?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, if we let all the water that we have in excess of what we need
here in the Province we will pay 14.3 cents a kilowatt hour. Mr. Speaker, if
that is the decision that is being promoted by the Leader of the Opposition,
then, yes, we will never sell power anywhere else in terms of what the market
can bear.
Mr. Speaker, the short answer is we can pay the 14.3 cents and never get
another copper from Muskrat Falls and have the ratepayers of Newfoundland and
Labrador pay all of that cost, or we can take the excess power, bring it to
market, get the best price we can for it, and as a result, have money flow back
to the people of the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I see the Premier watched Ed Martin's interview last night, too. Maybe we can
get a direct answer, Premier.
The people in Newfoundland and Labrador, who own Muskrat Falls, will they pay
more for their power than the people in Maritime Canada?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, in 2016, before Muskrat Falls comes on,
and before one penny of the costs of the development of Muskrat Falls is charged
out to anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador, ratepayers in this Province are
going to be paying 14.3 cents a kilowatt hour. There will be no change from the
cost of electricity in the isolated system by moving to Muskrat Falls in 2016.
What will happen as a result of Muskrat Falls is that our power rates will not
continue to rise at 5 per cent a year, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will help the Premier out, Mr. Speaker, because it is very convoluted
answers that she is giving today. The truth of the matter is, is that people in
Newfoundland and Labrador will pay more for their power, for Muskrat Falls
power, than people in the Maritime Provinces will pay for Muskrat Falls power.
That is the truth of it, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Martin also told the CBC that Nalcor does not want to sell any excess
power to the Maritimes or New England in the long term. He said that we are
going to need all the power from Muskrat Falls here on the Island. To date, Mr.
Speaker, the government has not been able to justify where the 40 per cent use
of Muskrat Falls power is going to be used in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I ask you today, Premier: How can you expect and ask people to buy into the
argument that all of the power will be used on the Island portion of the
Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Here we go again, Mr. Speaker, no vision, no hope, no
plan.
Mr. Speaker, we believe in Newfoundland and Labrador. We believe in the
opportunities for development in this place. She may not accept the forecast put
forward by Nalcor, but we know that we will have an energy deficit in this
Province in 2019. Mr. Speaker, that is a fact that can be substantiated by the
analysis that has been completed.
Mr. Speaker, she talks about wanting power for industrial development in
Labrador. She also talks about wanting a heavily subsidized rate of power for
people on the Coast of Labrador. Mr. Speaker, she is going to have to settle on
a position one way or the other. She either wants Muskrat Falls or she does not,
because without it we can do nothing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe if we had all of the information and the people in the Province,
Premier, had all of the information instead of the spin that yourself and Ed
Martin want to put out there on any given day, they would be able to make
decisions for themselves. So far your government and you, Premier, have not been
able to justify the demand for 40 per cent of the power on the Island portion of
the Province.
How can you go out and make a statement that we are going to need 80 per cent
of the power on the Island when you cannot even justify 40 per cent at this
stage?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we have been able to justify the need
for power in this Province. We need almost 500 megawatts just to replace
Holyrood and to take us off our dependence on Bunker C, of which the cost is
going through the roof.
Right now, we are the lowest energy cost, in this Province, in Atlantic
Canada. We are one of the third lowest in the country. We want to keep it that
way, Mr. Speaker. That is why we are developing Muskrat Falls.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier likes to grandstand and make all of these statements about vision
and hope, big projects, and all the rest of it. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing
wrong with that except we need answers, I say to you, Premier. We need you to
back up the information that yourself and Ed Martin are putting out there in the
public. So far you have not been able to do that.
Will you table for the people of the Province the demand statistics that you
are using to get to the conclusions that you are for the Muskrat Falls Project?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, not only are those figures out in the
public domain, I have tabled them twice twice here in the House of Assembly.
Because they cannot do the analysis, Mr. Speaker, they do not have that
capacity. I just wish they would not put that out on the rest of Newfoundland
and Labrador. Some people know how to read and analyze, Mr. Speaker.
Now, Mr. Speaker, their plan not once, but twice, was to give all of the
power from the Lower Churchill to Quebec and let them to continue to reap the
rewards of development on the Churchill River, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the plan that she brought in here
several weeks ago, hooking up sixty ponds for 172 megawatts of power, not
feasible, but even if it was it would be over twenty cents a kilowatt hour. What
is your plan?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If the Premier thinks she is going to sell Muskrat Falls because she stands
up in the House and insults the Opposition every day, I would suggest to her she
better start changing her tactic. Mr. Speaker, she has not tabled the
information in this House of Assembly, and I challenge anyone to find it, where
it is going to show the predicted demand of power in this Province. In fact, Mr.
Speaker, it has been the complete opposite.
We know that it is locked up somewhere in the Department of Finance. We know
that the only factors contributing to power growth in the foreseeable future is
whatever was provided by your government through the Department of Finance, and
we ask you to table the information.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, every statistical agency in this country
is talking about Newfoundland and Labrador and the growth that is here and the
growth that is expected.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: We are the envy of the country, Mr. Speaker. We are
slated to have the largest growth in GDP in the country. The only people who do
not have any faith in our capacity to grow and to attract investment,
particularly in Labrador, are the members of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier is grandstanding again, and she knows that. She knows, Mr.
Speaker, that we see the tremendous potential in Newfoundland and Labrador, but
we also see a Newfoundland and Labrador that does not gouge our own people, does
not sell out Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to achieve our own agendas. That
is the fundamental difference that we are dealing with here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the other thing that Ed Martin said, because as I
said there are mixed messages, always mixed messages between the Premier and the
Chair of Nalcor. He said that there is a good chance that none of the excess
power from Muskrat will ever reach New Brunswick or New England, that it will
probably never go beyond Nova Scotia.
Mr. Speaker, we know that Nova Scotia is mandated to come off coal which is
its main energy source.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to pose her question.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question for the Premier is this: We know they are getting 20 per cent of
our Muskrat Falls power for free, how much are we going to be selling them the
other 40 per cent for, I say to you, Premier?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the day when the contract with Nova Scotia
finishes after thirty-five years and we never sell more than the 1.2 megawatts
of power. I believe that we will have the capacity to use all of that excess
power in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. That is because we do have a
vision.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: We do have a plan. We believe in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, the salient point that she misses is that by 2016 if we do not
do anything different than we are doing -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I ask for your protection from the
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, in 2016-2017 we will be paying 14.3
cents a kilowatt hour for our electricity in Newfoundland and Labrador without
Muskrat Falls.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, this is from the government opposite that voted
against the Voisey's Bay Project in the Province, who closed down two pulp and
paper mills in Newfoundland and Labrador, who expropriated a paper mill and did
not know they had expropriated a paper mill, and this is the same government
that we are not supposed to ask questions of, of Muskrat Falls, because they are
supposed to know all, Mr. Speaker. Well, we know what they know and we have seen
what they have done.
I ask you today, Premier: Why should the ratepayers in Newfoundland and
Labrador have to pay for subsidized power for the people of Nova Scotia? Stand
in your place and tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with the Opposition asking questions, I just
wish they would listen to the answers. That is the problem: Providing
information that they have no capacity to analyze or understand.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, let me say again, remaining on the
isolated system, as we are today, continuing to operate Holyrood and Bay
d'Espoir, ratepayers in this Province will pay 14.3 cents a kilowatt hour in
2016. Now, we can develop Muskrat Falls and we can let the excess power run down
the river and continue to pay 14.3 cents
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: a kilowatt hour, and do nothing to monetize that
excess value to the benefit of the people of the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Government's decision this week to close depots and lay workers off this
summer completely contradict the 2009 Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador
decision. The court's decision forced the Province to rehire laid off workers
and reimburse lost wages in excess of $6 million. If government proceeds with
the depot closures this summer, the union already indicates it will be going
back to court again.
My question is for the Minister of Transportation and Works: Why is
government proceeding with its decision, when it flies in the face of the 2009
Supreme Court decision? What is government's plan, or are we simply prepared to
pay another $1 million based upon that decision?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not know if the premise to the hon. member's question is correct. What
that decision of the Court of Appeal did do is reaffirm a government's right to
organize its workforce, to organize its work organization. What happened is that
in doing the layoffs, the process that government followed was not done in the
manner that the court considered appropriate. So, the PSS and the Department of
Transportation and Works is working with NAPE to ensure that proper redress is
being provided to those employees whose bumping rights and recall rights may
have been affected. I understand meetings have taken place, and that more
meetings will take place if more information becomes available.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am well aware of the consequences of the 2009 court decision. Maybe one of
the government ministers, maybe Finance or Transportation and Works, would like
to answer my question now.
Who is prepared - or are we just simply going to stand and pay another $1
million of taxpayers' money because you have not resolved the seniority issue?
You have laid four more people off, and by doing so, you have walked into
another $1 million bill for the people of this Province. What are you going to
do to stop spending this $1 million every time you lay the public union off when
it comes to the depots? Can someone answer that?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as I said, officials from Transportation and
Works, officials from the Public Service Secretariat, have been meeting with
NAPE and have been reviewing what has happened here to ensure that anyone whose
rights were infringed in any way gets proper redress. That process has been
going on for some time, meetings have taken place. Again, as I said, as more
information becomes available they will be meeting further. I am optimistic this
matter will be resolved before it has to go to any further arbitration, which is
always an option to NAPE if they wish to pursue that option.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We realize it is an option of NAPE, and they did it before. They did it to
the tune of $6 million in cost to the taxpayers of this Province. It is not
simply enough for the minister to say they can take us to arbitration. They know
they are going to win, they have done it already before. That avenue has been
exhausted. How many millions of dollars do we have to burn in this Province
simply because you have not ironed out the seniority issue?
Well, Mr. Speaker, not only are the layoffs a problem, but in this Province
we have a tremendous amount of highway maintenance and repair work needed in
communities, particularly in the aftermath of Igor. Government has surpluses,
major maintenance work is required, they are laying off these depot workers
when, at the same time - in my District of Burgeo, for example, on the Burgeo
road, we are seeing government contract out work to put signs up.
Can the Minister of Transportation and Works explain the logic of us closing
down depots, laying off workers, and contracting the work out to others?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, when it comes to maintenance of the
roads we take it very, very seriously and want to make sure part of the reason
for our seasonalization was to gather together a core of workers with the proper
resources to carry out the maintenance that is required. That is the procedure.
As well, Igor, we know, basically was an event that did a lot of damage; but
again, the repairs of that, Mr. Speaker, are tendered out and will be done. It
is not about maintenance, it is about repair and going back over it.
As well, with the signage, I think when you are referring to the signage;
that is an area where we are doing the TODS system. After Igor last year, it was
delayed. We are going forward with that this spring to make sure it is in place
for the summer season.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is a government who are in control. They lay workers off, contract out
the work, and cost the taxpayers $1 million a pop because you laid them off and
you are in violation of a court order. Good stuff, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe I will ask another question of the minister. Mr. Speaker, on November
23 last year, the Bailey bridge at Searston Gut in the Codroy Valley closed
after thirty-three years due to general deterioration. Thirteen communities have
relied upon that bridge. It is an essential ambulance route and provides quicker
access to health care and employment for the people of the region. The bridge
was essential to conduct local business and to develop tourism.
I realize the minister and the member for the area met with the committee who
is responsible for trying to get this bridge restored and replaced. Nothing has
come to date. They are very concerned if this government takes this matter
seriously.
Will funding be made available this year to see that Bailey bridge replaced?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Again, I say, Mr. Speaker, anything to do with roads and
road safety this government takes quite seriously. Myself and the local member
went out and we met with the committee, explaining fully to them that it is a
significant amount of money to replace that bridge that was not part of last
year's Budget. We did not have the money, but it is into our priority list as we
go forward this year. Of course, we will await the Budget decisions to see if
indeed it can be replaced.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White
Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday
[Disturbance in the gallery]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair is going to respectfully ask hon. members if they would be kind of
enough to leave the Chamber. The Chair is going to respectfully ask visitors in
the gallery if they would be kind enough to leave the gallery.
The House will take a recess until we deal with a challenge that we are faced
with here.
I respectfully ask all members to kindly do that and we will continue with
Question Period after.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!
Honourable members and visitors in the gallery, there are nine-and-a-half
minutes left in Question Period. I refer back to the hon. the Member for the
District of The Straits & White Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House I questioned the Minister of Fisheries on
a lobster licence buyout proposal that was presented to this government by the
FFAW. The minister did acknowledge that he had received it. The minister also
stated he would respond when he has something before him and it is the right
thing to do.
I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Are we to interpret his remarks to mean that
this proposal is not the right thing?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Certainly not, Mr. Speaker. That indication was that when we
receive proposals we weigh them on their merit. When we all come to an agreement
that it is the right thing to do, we will do the right thing.
Mr. Speaker, right now my understanding is that the FFAW are out speaking to
their membership about some issues that they have to resolve on their own. We
will await the outcome of that. As I indicated yesterday we have the proposal
and it is under review.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White
Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, our rural communities are in need of a viable
fishery and this government has been talking about restructuring and here is a
restructuring proposal. Mr. Speaker, the FFAW suggests to us that the
membership, in terms of the particular areas of the Province they are talking
about, are well in favour of this proposal and they are awaiting a timely
response from government.
I ask the minister: When can the FFAW and the lobster harvesters expect a
positive response from you in terms of restructuring this piece of the industry?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we in this government are very interested in
the restructuring of the entire fishery in this Province. That is what the MOU
is about. I have written both parties who were involved in that and, Mr.
Speaker, there seems to be some indication that we might be getting some
responses to it. That is very, very positive.
The lobster piece that he is speaking about, as I just indicated, the FFAW
are out doing some work that they have to do. We are in discussions with them,
they are in discussions with the federal government, and when it all
collectively comes together, Mr. Speaker, and we do our due diligence on it, we
will have a response, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White
Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this government has pushed for a licence buy-back from the
federal government on a 70-30 sharing arrangement. That has had no uptake,
basically, from the federal government. This proposal that is in front of us
today from the FFAW is one where the federal government, and the provincial
government, and industry basically plays three ways.
So I ask the minister: Are you willing to make the commitment here today that
when the FFAW has done their final surveying, or whatever they are doing right
now, are you prepared to help the fisherpeople rationalize their industry?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have said several times on my feet here,
there are two parts to this. There is the rationalizing, and there is the
restructuring. I cannot commit to where we are going to with funding, Mr.
Speaker. As I have already indicated in the previous answer, we are working our
way through a process with this proposal that has been submitted by the FFAW.
There is a partnership there that would have to be exemplified on the part of
the federal government, and as we follow our way through this, the announcements
will be made, Mr. Speaker, when final decisions are made, Mr. Speaker. At this
point, they have not been made.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White
Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, it is a play on words. This is restructuring, and
the proposal that the FFAW has put forward is very straightforward; the feds are
onside, the union is onside.
My question, very simply, is: Is the government onside?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a lobster proposal here;
that is a thing that we are working through with the parties, as I have said. I
still contend, Mr. Speaker, that in order for us to make the changes in this
industry in this Province, we better all collectively get our heads around the
word restructuring, as to how we are going to change the structure, so we can
attract and retain young people in this Province, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education.
When school reform was proposed in the 1990s, a key government principle was
that the new system would be based on community and neighbourhood schools. Mr.
Speaker, there was wide-spread support for this idea at the time, as evidenced
in the referendum results, and it has not gone away.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Education: Why is this government turning
its back on the strong mandate that was given to it by the people of this
Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, this government has invested and has made
significant investments into the education of our children. One thing we have
done, Mr. Speaker, is we have built many new schools, we have renovated schools.
We have also been tasked with setting up schools using a declining enrolment and
our present capacity to make sure we provide the best environments for our
students. Mr. Speaker, we are doing just that.
At this point in time, sometimes we cannot have a school in every
neighbourhood, but we need make sure that our buildings are the best they can be
and they serve our students.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the parents of Macpherson Elementary, a school that is being
closed in June, have asked for a meeting with the Minister of Education. Her
letter of response said she was not in a position to address their concerns.
However, in the by-election of 2005 she was in a position to address the
concerns of the parents of Leo Burke Academy in Bishop's Falls by
single-handedly stopping the closure of the school.
Mr. Speaker, I ask: Why has the Minister of Education in the current
situation refused to meet with the parents of Macpherson Elementary?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, for the record and for the hon. Member for Signal
Hill-Quidi Vidi, I would like to clarify that I was not the Minister of
Education in 2005 when there was a decision made regarding Leo Burke Academy in
Bishop's Falls.
Mr. Speaker, the school board has been going through a process to determine
how they are going to have schools reconfigured in the St. John's area. At this
time, it was best for the school boards to go through the appropriate process
that they had which included consultation so they could hear concerns from the
parents or from other stakeholders. Mr. Speaker, that was my intent; to allow
the process to unfold as it should.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the parents of Macpherson Elementary do not feel that they were
given a fair hearing at the time of the so-called consultations. That is the
reason why they have gone to the minister, to try to make their case to the
minister.
One of the things they would want to talk about is the role of the Daybreak
preschool program that gives preschoolers, especially from low-income and new
Canadian families, opportunities for structured play and preparation for entry
into the K-6 school system. The program is needed in this neighbourhood but
there is no place for them to relocate.
So, Mr. Speaker: Why is the minister allowing the Eastern School District to
get rid of schools without proper consultation and why will she not listen to
this group of parents to hear what their experience has been?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I know that certain residents and parents in St.
John's would love to see every school maintained as it is presently, but we are
investing millions of dollars in St. John's to ensure that the students in St.
John's have the proper facilities to attend. Mr. Speaker, we are replacing
Virginia Park. We are putting a new high school in the west end, we are
replacing St. Teresa's, and there will be some other schools that will have to
be moved around to accommodate the students in the best possible facilities that
we can have.
This exercise is something that has been done throughout Newfoundland and
Labrador. Mr. Speaker, this is all about providing the best facilities for our
children.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, in the study that was requested by the
Department of Education with regard to the schools in St. John's there was
nothing in the report that came out from those consultants that indicated that
the school at Macpherson was not a proper place for students to be. They have an
excellent program at that school.
Why will this minister not sit down and listen to what the parents have to
say? There was nothing wrong with the building. As a matter of fact, it is a
wonderful building. Why won't she listen to them?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, a consultant's report is a guide for the school
board trustees to be able to base their discussions and their decisions. It does
not mean that because something is written in a consultant's report that that is
the way it has to be followed.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a declining birth rate, there have been trends in
demographics, even within St. John's, not just in rural Newfoundland and
Labrador, that changes the demographics and the way that schools need to be
positioned. The board had to look at all the information. They had to make the
best decisions possible to ensure that they used the existing capacity in the
best way possible. That meant, unfortunately, that some schools had to close,
schools would have to merge, and new schools would also have to be built.
This is a significant piece of work that is being done in the St. John's
area, but the primary goal is to ensure our students are (inaudible)
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of Documents
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a copy of the letters that have been sent
to the three federal leaders concerning important issues to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador during this federal election.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
section 5 of the Local Authority Guarantee Act,
2005, I wish to table the annual report of loan guarantees provided to local
governments to enable them to arrange interim financing for capital projects. I
am pleased to report that there were no new guarantees issued on behalf of local
governments during the fiscal year.
Mr. Speaker, the last report under this act was tabled on April 29, 2010 and
included guarantees issued up to and including March 31, 2009 . This
current report covers the period from April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
section 49.(2) of the Financial Administration Act,
I wish to table the list of temporary loans that were raised under
section 48 of
the act since my last report to the House on April 29, 2010.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
section 55.(3) of the same act, I wish
to report that there was one guaranteed loan paid out by the Province since the
last annual report also on April 29, 2010. Therefore, I wish to table the
attached details of this payout.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
section 55.1(2) of the act, I wish to
report that there has been no guaranteed debt of any Crown corporation or agency
assumed by the Province since the April 29, 2010 annual report.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?
Notices of Motion.
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White
Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to be able to stand
and present a petition again on behalf of the residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador really but, in particular, for my district.
I would like to read the prayer of the petition into the record:
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS the people in The Straits & White Bay North area feel it should be
legal to set heavier steel wire to snare rabbits; and
WHEREAS rabbits are bigger and stronger in the spring as compared to the fall
season with many injured animals breaking away from the brass and picture cord
wire, setting injured free to suffer; and
WHEREAS weak wire was implemented to conserve the marten, but this animal is
not known to inhabit our area;
WHEREUPON your petitioners call upon all Members of the House of Assembly to
urge government to address this matter to reinstate the use of heavier wire for
rabbit snaring for this area of the Island.
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this may not seem all that important to some members of
government, and I understand that a lot of things do not seem to be important to
them. It is important to the people of the Northern Peninsula and other areas
where they are very active in the snaring of rabbits. The issue has been brought
forward and lots of cases made as to where animals are getting away with snares
on them because of the size of the wire that is being used. They are being
caught again with sometimes two and three snares around them. Obviously, many of
these rabbits are getting away and they are basically perishing
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There is a lot of excitement about rabbits over there.
Mr. Speaker, it is a serious issue for those who are involved in the sport,
if you want to call it that, and many people do a tremendous amount of snaring
along the Northern Peninsula in the fall and winter. The issue of - it is my
understanding - why the smaller gauge wire is used is to protect the pine
marten.
Mr. Speaker, my first understanding or encounter with the pine marten was
thirty-odd years ago when I moved to Port aux Basques and I remember that they
inhabited the Burgeo road area of our Province. I would suggest that there has
never been a pine marten to the Northern Peninsula unless someone took one up
for a ride sometime and brought them back down again.
The fear of pine martens being caught in snares, if that is the issue as to
why it has been changed, then I would suggest it is an overreaction by someone
to a sensitive and important issue, yet the decision and the policy that has
been put in place across the Province is not a good policy. I would ask
government to reconsider on behalf of those who have signed the petition. I will
be pleased to present this petition over the next couple of weeks. Several
thousands of signatures were collected and it obviously is important to them.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?
The hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and
Opposition Leader.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to present a petition on behalf of the people of Labrador. It
is regarding the Trans-Labrador Highway, Route 510. It says:
WHEREAS the Trans-Labrador Highway is a vital transportation lifeline for the
Labrador communities, providing access, generating economic activity, and
allowing residents to obtain health care and other public services; and
WHEREAS Route 510 and connecting branch roads of the Trans-Labrador Highway
are unpaved, in deplorable conditions and are no longer suitable and safe for
the traffic volumes that travel this route; and
WHEREAS Labrador cannot afford to wait years or decades for upgrading and
paving of their essential transportation route;
WHEREUPON the petitioners urge the House of Assembly to call upon the
government to provide additional funding for much needed improvements to Route
510 and connecting branch roads of the Trans-Labrador Highway.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, this is a petition that is actually circulating
all around Labrador. It is a cause that has been spearheaded by a coalition in
Labrador that is being led by Ida Powell in Charlottetown, I think, who is the
Chair of the coalition.
Basically, Mr. Speaker, they are lobbying the provincial government to at
least give some consideration to paving the highway from Happy Valley-Goose Bay
right on down to the Quebec border. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this morning when I
was on a conference call with a group of people from different regions of
Labrador, some of them were telling me that just recently they have driven over
that
section of road and in certain areas, not in all, but in certain areas the
road is in pretty bad shape right now. Mr. Speaker, it takes a long time
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: to get from point A to point B and, Mr. Speaker, it is having
a lot of wear and tear on people's vehicles.
For example, Mr. Speaker, just in the Labrador Straits alone where there is
pavement - pavement that is very old right now, in fact - last year there was,
on record, dozens of people who damaged their vehicles because the potholes in
the pavement were so big that it was actually damaging the tires and all of the
under gear under their vehicles. They submitted claims to the Department of
Transportation and Works, but the government did not even compensate them.
Although, Mr. Speaker, there were no signs on the road saying there was going to
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: potholes or bumps or anything of that sort, and they did not
receive any compensation whatsoever, which was really unfair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the people in Labrador know, from the meeting they
had with the Minister of Transportation and Works in Goose Bay, there is nothing
on the government's radar to pave that particular highway, and that is wrong. I
think it is time this government started showing some real commitment to the
people of Labrador and started showing them by bringing their infrastructure
inline with other people in the Province, and that means making a commitment to
pave this
section of highway.
This road, right now, is the main transportation link between Labrador and
the Island portion of the Province, and everyone who is going in and out of
Labrador has to use this highway. I ask the government to bring it to the
standards that highways should be in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate an opportunity to present the sixth petition on behalf of the
residents of La Poile, and all users of the provincial ferry service who might
venture down to the Southwest Coast and find their way onto or coming from La
Poile.
The petition reads:
WHEREAS the people of La Poile must use the provincial ferry system in order
to travel to and from La Poile; and
WHEREAS the people of La Poile and visitors are required to wait at the Town
of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou from time to time for ferry services; and
WHEREAS there is no restroom, waiting area at the Town of Rose
Blanche-Harbour Le Cou where users of the ferry service may utilize washroom
facilities; and
WHEREAS citizens of all ages including men, women, children, seniors and
disabled persons require washroom facilities as a basic human need in the course
of their travels and particularly while awaiting the transit system; and
WHEREAS it is an abuse of human dignity as well as health and safety
regulations to allow such degrading and dehumanizing circumstances to continue;
WHEREUPON the undersigned your petitions humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to immediately construct and operate a waiting
room, restroom facility at the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou such that all
users of the provincial ferry service which operates out of La Poile may be able
to utilize such waiting area and washroom facilities.
Mr. Speaker, as I say, this is the sixth time I have raised this petition. I
raise it not because I like to hear myself repeat myself, and I am sure the
members of this hon. House do not wish to hear me repeat myself, but some things
are so important that it bears repeating.
As I said yesterday, it only requires the Minister of Transportation and
Works who is responsible for constructing such a facility, who runs the
provincial ferry service - it does not take a whole pile of money to do this -
to provide the citizens of this Province who utilize this service day in and day
out basically with a common, decent place to use a washroom. We are not asking
for the Taj Mahal. We are not asking for terminals like are in major centres. We
are not asking for any kind of beyond the realm, unnecessary facility here. We
are asking for a washroom, Mr. Speaker. We are asking for a washroom so that
people who are travelling, who need to use a washroom, have a place to go
instead of having to creep behind the rocks, up in the bushes. Now, just imagine
how dehumanizing that is. We provide a ferry service but yet we do not have the
common decency as a government to provide them with a washroom facility. Now I
do not know of anywhere else that exists.
If you go to a concert anywhere in the summertime, at a music festival, it is
a public requirement that you have washroom facilities. You cannot go anywhere
in this Province without a washroom; yet, Mr. Speaker, we are allowing this to
continue. Unacceptable, unnecessary, and hopefully the minister will come to his
senses and fix this.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to present a petition on behalf of the people from the District
of The Isles of Notre Dame. Mr. Speaker, it says:
WHEREAS there were fifteen acute care beds in the Notre Dame Bay Memorial
Hospital Health Centre; and
WHEREAS five of the acute care beds closed this summer and did not reopen in
the fall; and
WHEREAS the availability of acute care beds is critical to the people of
Twillingate and New World Island; and
WHEREAS the shortage of acute care beds is resulting in people being denied
admittance to the Notre Dame Bay Memorial Hospital Health Centre; and
WHEREAS the people of Twillingate and New World Island do not want to see
their health care services cut;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and ask the House of
Assembly to urge the government to reinstate the five acute care beds in the
Notre Dame Bay Memorial Hospital Health Centre.
As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I have a folder full of these petitions that came in with
thousands of signatures on them from this particular district. These are people
in the area of Twillingate and New World Island who obviously feel that their
own MHA did not support them in keeping these particular beds open in their
facilities.
Mr. Speaker, what happened here is this - and we wrote the Minister of Health
on this issue before the government had made the decision publicly. We asked
government why the acute care beds that had been closed last summer - because
there were five beds in the hospital that were closed, which is not unusual in
Newfoundland and Labrador in the summertime to close down some of the acute care
beds in our health care facilities. However, the practice has always been that
these beds will then reopen in the fall.
In the case of the people at the Notre Dame Bay Memorial Hospital, Mr.
Speaker, those beds did not open in the fall. In fact, they stayed closed. What
the government and Central Health decided to do was to take these five acute
care beds and use them for restorative care beds. Now, Mr. Speaker, you have to
understand what is happening here. There is a need in the Twillingate, New World
Island area for restorative care beds just like there is a need in a lot of
other areas around the Province, but there is also a need for acute care beds
and what government did is they made a trade-off. They actually re-designated
those particular beds in the hospital that were designed for people who were of
acute care need, who were sick and needed to be admitted, into restorative care
beds for longer-term care for those patients.
What really makes the irony in all of this is that the member for the area,
the minister and the government actually went out to Twillingate and New World
Island and made an announcement that they were putting five restorative care
beds, making them available in the hospital. When in fact, Mr. Speaker, they
were just closing out five acute care beds and designating them for another
purpose. The people in the area have seen through this ploy by the government.
They find it unacceptable and they are petitioning the House of Assembly to ask
the government and to ask their member, Mr. Speaker, to reverse the decision to
put proper restorative care beds in this hospital and not use the acute care
beds that people depend upon.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We will go to the motions and start with first readings this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, to
ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Crop Insurance Act
And The Livestock Insurance Act, Bill 23, and I further move that the said bill
be now read the first time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded by the hon. the Government
House Leader to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled
An Act To Amend The Crop
Insurance Act And The Livestock Insurance Act, Bill 23, and that Bill 23 be now
read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 23 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.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill, "An
Act To Amend The Crop Insurance Act And The Livestock Act", carried. (Bill 23)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Crop Insurance Act And The Livestock
Insurance Act. (Bill 23)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 23 has now been read a first time.
When shall Bill 23 be read a second time?
MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 23 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice
and Attorney General, to ask leave to introduce a bill,
An Act To Amend The
Judicature Act, Bill 24, and I further move that the said bill be now read the
first time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House
Leader to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Judicature
Act, Bill 24, and that Bill 24 be now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 24 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.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a
bill, "An Act To Amend The Judicature Act", carried. (Bill 24)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Judicature Act. (Bill 24)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 24 has now been read a first time.
When shall Bill 24 be read a second time?
MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 24 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of
Justice and Attorney General, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act
To Amend The Public Trustee Act, 2009, Bill 25, and I further move that the said
bill be now read the first time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House
Leader to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Public
Trustee Act, 2009, Bill 25, and that Bill 25 be now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a
bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Trustee Act, 2009", carried. (Bill 25)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Public Trustee Act, 2009. (Bill 25)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time.
When shall Bill 25 be read a second time?
MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 25 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will now refer to the third reading of bills on the Order Paper.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President
of Treasury Board, that Bill 3,
An Act To Amend The Labour-Sponsored Venture
Capital Tax Credit Act, be now read the third time.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that
Bill 3,
An Act To Amend The Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit Act, 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 Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax
Credit Act. (Bill 3)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 3 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that
the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax
Credit Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order
Paper. (Bill 3)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice
and Attorney General, that Bill 9,
An Act Respecting Correctional Services, be
now read the third time.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that
Bill 9,
An Act Respecting Correctional Services, 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 Respecting Correctional Services. (Bill 9)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 9 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that
Bill 9 do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Correctional Services", read a third
time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 9)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Human
Resources, Labour and Employment, that Bill 10,
An Act To Amend The Labour
Relations Act, be now read the third time.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 10,
An Act To
Amend The Labour Relations Act, 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 Labour Relations Act. (Bill 10)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 10 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 Labour Relations Act", read a third
time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 10)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we will now go into the second reading of bills.
I want to call Order 8, second reading of Bill 13.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.
MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board,
that Bill 13 be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that Bill 13,
An Act To
Repeal The Subordinate Legislation Revision And Consolidation Act, be now read a
second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Subordinate
Legislation Revision And Consolidation Act". (Bill 13)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to introduce Bill 13,
An Act To
Repeal The Subordinate Legislation Revision And Consolidation Act.
Mr. Speaker, this act was enacted in 1995, and that act was part, Mr.
Speaker, of an initiative that was at that time called the Regulatory Reform
project. The act was enacted for the purposes of providing for the expiry on one
year later, June 30, 1996, of all subordinate legislation in force in the
Province at that time, March 31, 1995. Subordinate legislation, Mr. Speaker, are
regulations that are subordinate to the various acts that we have in the
Province. So when we are talking about subordinate legislation, we are basically
talking about regulations.
Mr. Speaker, the act called for the appeal or consolidation or expiry,
whatever, of subordinate legislation that was in force at that time in 1995,
unless, Mr. Speaker, the legislation had been re-enacted, or was to be
re-enacted by the Lieutenant Governor in Council prior to that date. That, Mr.
Speaker, was the Regulatory Reform project. The Regulatory Reform project was
initiated in 1995 and concluded in 1996.
So, all regulations in the Province that were in effect by March 31, 1995,
were all reviewed, Mr. Speaker; unless the legislation was re-enacted by the
Lieutenant Governor prior to 1995, all that legislation was now going to be
reviewed and subject to recommendations made by the Regulatory Reform project.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the Regulatory Reform project, because
the next bill we will be introducing in the House is the revision or repeal of
the Regulatory Reform Act. Both of these were part of the Regulatory Reform
project, which was an initiative of the government of the day. The Regulatory
Reform project, Mr. Speaker, was part of the government's initiative at that
time to increase government efficiency, and to promote economic development. The
purpose of that project was to reduce regulations by government to a minimum
level, but still protect the public interest.
It is carried on today by the elimination of red tape programs. It was a
project with good motives, a good project, Mr. Speaker, to look at all the
regulations in vogue at the time, in force at the time, and reduce those
regulations to the bare minimum level that was required, but not to violate or
not intimidate in any way the public interest. The government's plans at the
time, they did that for the purpose of increasing government efficiency, so the
people applying to government for a business proposal and whatnot, and trying to
get through government red tape, would not be burdened and bogged down by red
tape and regulation by government. That was the purpose of the Regulatory Reform
project.
A working committee, Mr. Speaker, was established at that time by the Clerk
to co-ordinate the examination of all the regulations in all the departments in
preparation for review by an independent commissioner. An independent
commissioner was hired in the person of the hon. Nat Noel to review all of those
regulations. He was appointed in 1994. What he did was an in-depth review of all
the regulations. He examined detailed reports of the working committee with
respect to the viability of the regulations that existed at that time. He
submitted a final report with respect to the whole Regulatory Reform project on
September 30, 1995.
Mr. Speaker, that report included a detailed index of recommendations. In
that report, he listed the regulations that were not to be re-enacted, he
included regulations to be re-enacted but with amendments, and he included a
list of regulations to be re-enacted without amendments. He also introduced an
index of acts to be repealed.
Now, Mr. Speaker, all of the commissioner's recommendations were considered
and addressed in 1995, pursuant to the bill that we are talking about repealing
today, pursuant to the Subordinate Legislation Revision and Consolidation Act.
That was the act that set up this reform project. Pursuant to that act, Mr.
Speaker, his recommendations were considered and addressed.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, the regulations that are intended to be re-enacted
have been re-enacted, pursuant to the revision of that act. Those that were
recommended for repeal have expired, they have been repealed. Therefore, Mr.
Speaker, the mandate of that project, the Regulatory Reform project, has been
fulfilled and is now complete. Now, Mr. Speaker, lying in harmony with that was
the Regulatory Reform Act which we will speak to in the next bill.
The mandate of that Regulatory Reform project, the mandate of the
commissioner is now expired and has been fulfilled and is now complete. However,
Mr. Speaker, even though the mandate of that project was completed some fifteen
years ago, the Subordinate Legislation Revision and Consolidation Act remains a
law of this Province. It is still on the books. That piece of legislation is now
spent. It is no longer utilized and no longer has any continuing effect.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, the government now proposes that the Subordinate
Legislation Revision and Consolidation Act be repealed.
Mr. Speaker, not withstanding the proposal to repeal that act, I want to make
it clear, that the government continues to make improvements with respect to the
Province's regulatory environment. My colleague, the Minister of Business, will
speak to that later on this afternoon.
In 2005, this government set an ambitious goal to reduce red tape throughout
the provincial government at 25 per cent over three years. Mr. Speaker, this
goal has been surpassed. As a matter of fact, in 2009 we had reduced regulation
and red tape by 27 per cent. The initiative now, Mr. Speaker, has been extended
to ensure that moving forward there will be a zero in net growth in regulatory
requirements across this government.
Mr. Speaker, all new legislation, all new policies has to have a regulatory
impact analysis. Every piece of legislation that is proposed, every Cabinet
paper, and every paper that goes to Cabinet proposing any changes in the
legislation or policies has to have a regulatory impact analysis attached to it.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to reducing requirements, the steps being taken are
fostering greater innovation
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): Order, please!
The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, we have often had the issue of relevance
raised in this House and all parties do, of course, abide by your ruling. We are
talking here in this bill about the repeal of a certain bill. The minister has
already given his explanation of it. I will add my comments as to that bill, and
they will be relevant when my opportunity comes. The minister has now elapsed
into a spiel - there is no other way to put it - about the red tape policy of
government today. It has nothing to do whatsoever with the bill that is before
this House right now.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I will ask that all members, both presenting bills and speaking to bills in
debate, keep their comments relevant to the particular bill on the Order Paper.
The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. member, the
purpose of this Regulatory Reform project and the legislation that we are
repealing today dealt exactly with that topic, the reduction of regulation and
red tape in this government. I am saying even though that bill is repealed, we
are continuing that policy, Mr. Speaker, and I consider it very relevant.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, just to clue up, in addition to reducing requirements and
regulation, as this Regulatory Reform project did and as we continue to do with
our red tape program, the steps being taken are fostering greater innovation and
efficiency in the way the provincial government operates, and that was the whole
purpose of the legislation and the project in the first place. Delivery of
services, interacts with the public through streamline processes, improves
regulations, and increases access to e-government and online services, less
paperwork, more efficient service to clients and the public. That is what our
red tape reduction program is about. That is what this initial legislation was
about in the first place and it is a relevant continuance of that issue.
Mr. Speaker, that is a commitment of this government; a long-term commitment
of this government, going back to 1995 when this project was started under
previous governments, to build a better regulatory environment. That is what
Bill 13 is about. I ask for support of all hon. members in passing this bill and
I am sure the hon. member will have his comments on it.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is not often that I agree with the Minister of Justice and Attorney
General when we debate issues or ask questions back and forth in Question
Period. Aside from his comments about red tape committees and policy of
government, which has nothing to do whatsoever about the debate here today, I
wholeheartedly understand, appreciate and agree with his comments about the
rationalization and justification for having this bill here. I do not think I
need to muddy the waters any further than he has in terms of explaining it to
the people. We will be voting for it. It is necessary. If we do not need the law
any more and it has outlived its usefulness, it ought to be taken from the
books. We agree with that and we will be voting in favour of it.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to rise today to participate in this debate on Bill 13. I
certainly appreciate the comments of both the Opposition House Leader and also
the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
I think the minister did a great job outlining the reason for Bill 13 and
indeed Bill 12, which I hope we will have an opportunity to address in this
House today as well. The Subordinate Legislation Revision Consolidation Act was
enacted in 1995, and we will certainly be addressing that here today also.
Mr. Speaker, it is good to see government taking steps to reduce red tape and
to eliminate unnecessary or outdated legislation. I feel that is, in fact, what
has been done in this instance. The Subordinate Legislation Revision and
Consolidation Act was enacted in 1995, and it did provide for the expiry in 1996
of all regulations in force in the Province on March 31, 1995, unless those
regulations were re-enacted by the Lieutenant Governor in Council under the
power that was conferred by the act prior to that date. This initiative at the
time was known as the Regulatory Reform project. It was part of government's
overall initiative to increase government efficiency and to promote economic
development. The objective of the project was to reduce regulation by government
to the minimal level required while also ensuring protection of the public
interest, which, of course, is of concern to any government.
A working committee was established, as the minister outlined, and that
committee co-ordinated the examination of regulations by various departments in
government. It prepared for the review by the independent commissioner that the
minister referenced. Commissioner Noel then submitted a final report with
respect to the project in September of 1995. The report included a detailed
index of recommendations. It covered things such as regulations that should not
be re-enacted, regulations that should be re-enacted with some amendments,
regulations that could be re-enacted without amendments, and acts that could be
repealed entirely.
Mr. Speaker, the recommendations related to regulations specifically was
addressed by the Subordinate Legislation Revision and Consolidation Act;
however, the repeal of certain acts could not. Mr. Speaker, accordingly, the
Regulatory Reform Act was enacted to effect the statutory changes stemming from
the recommendations of the commissioner who looked at regulatory reform. All of
the commissioner's recommendations were considered. Consequently, those
regulations intended to be re-enacted have been pursuant to the provisions of
the Subordinate Legislation Revision and Consolidation Act, which is a mouthful
as I am finding out here this afternoon. Those that were recommended for repeal
have indeed expired.
It is certainly safe to say that the mandate of the Regulatory Reform project
has been fulfilled, it is complete. Both of these acts that I have referenced
here this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, remain laws in this Province. These two pieces
of legislation are no longer utilized and really do not have any continuing
effect today. It makes sense to do the cleanup as the minister is proposing in
this House this afternoon. I am pleased to hear that the Opposition agrees with
the minister on this matter and I certainly wanted to rise in support as well.
Mr. Speaker, the act in question in terms of Bill 13 is the Regulatory Reform
Act; it complements the Subordinate Legislation Revision and Consolidation Act
which addressed regulatory changes. In order to repeal certain statutory
provisions the Regulatory Reform Act was indeed necessary. Both of these pieces
of legislation worked hand in hand. They addressed the recommendations coming
out of the project and ultimately it made government process less cumbersome for
businesses and residents. While this was certainly a good initiative, I would
argue that our government has gone much, much further when it comes to red tape
reduction.
The Regulatory Reform Act is now spent; it is no longer required so the most
reasonable option is obviously to get rid of this piece of legislation. Each
government department does now regularly review its regulations, which I think
is positive and ensures that we are as efficient as possible in terms of our
legislation. I commend this government for its work on red tape reduction, and I
hope that at some point during debate on these bills we will have an opportunity
to hear more from perhaps our great Minister of Business on some of the
wonderful initiatives that we have undertaken to further reduce red tape.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly support Bill 13, I commend the minister for bringing
the legislation forward and I thank you for the opportunity to participate in
the debate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. If he
speaks now, he will close debate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the hon. colleagues, the Opposition and the Member for Mount Pearl
North for their comments on this bill. I now move second reading.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 13,
An Act To
Repeal The Subordinate Legislation Revision And Consolidation Act, be now read a
second time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Repeal The Subordinate Legislation Revision And
Consolidation Act. (Bill 13)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall the
bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
Now? Tomorrow?
MS BURKE: Presently, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Presently.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Subordinate Legislation Revision And
Consolidation Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the
Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 13)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Order 7, second reading of Bill 12.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services, that
Bill 12 will now be read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 12,
An Act To Repeal The
Regulatory Reform Act be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Regulatory Reform
Act". (Bill 12)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Actually, for the presentation of this bill, it is simply a matter of
pressing replay on the previous one.
The Regulatory Reform Act, in fact, complemented the 1996 consolidation of
provincial subordinate legislation, as we just discussed. That, of course, was
authorized by the Subordinate Legislation Revision and Consolidation Act, which
we just spoke to in second reading. So, one act complemented the other. The
first act, the Subordinate Legislation Revision and Consolidation Act - as the
member said, it is a bit of a mouthful - is slated for repeal, as the previous
presentations just outlined.
Now, Mr. Speaker, both acts, the Subordinate Legislation Revision and
Consolidation Act and the Regulatory Reform Act, are directly related to the
Regulatory Reform project, which we also mentioned previously, introduced in
1995. If you recall, from my previous presentation, the objective of the
Regulatory Reform Act was to review all government regulations existing at the
time, with a view to either repealing those regulations which are no longer
necessary or amending those which were somewhat outdated.
Now, when the commissioner presented his final report to government, the
recommendations, as mentioned in the previous presentation, set out the
regulations that were not to be re-enacted, the regulations to be re-enacted
with amendments, regulations to be re-enacted without amendments, and acts to be
repealed. Now, Mr. Speaker, while the changes in regulations, as recommended by
the commissioner for regulatory reform, could be addressed by the Subordinate
Legislation Revision and Consolidation Act, the act we just spoke to, the repeal
of certain acts, though, as recommended by the commissioner, could not.
In other words, the Subordinate Legislation Revision and Consolidation Act
dealt with regulations and the repeal of regulations, and the revision and
consolidation of regulations, but certain acts, it could not address. So as a
result, Mr. Speaker, the Regulatory Reform Act was enacted to reflect those
statutory changes that stem from the recommendation of the commissioner for
regulatory reform, in addition to some consequential amendments that arose from
that Regulatory Reform project.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Regulatory Reform Act was enacted solely to
authorize government to repeal certain statutory provisions, and enact some
consequential amendments to statutes, as recommended by the commissioner, that
could not be done under the Subordinate Legislation Revision and Consolidation
Act.
So, Mr. Speaker, as stated during the second reading of Bill 13,
An Act To
Repeal The Subordinate Legislation Revision And Consolidation Act, the mandate
of the Regulatory Reform project has now been fulfilled and is complete. So,
subsequently, the same applies to the Regulatory Reform Act. This act is also
spent, no longer being utilized; accordingly, this government proposes that the
Regulatory Reform Act be repealed, as it is not longer required.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to any comments that might be
made.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for repeating the purpose of the Regulatory Reform Act.
It was necessary, of course, that he do so in the context of the former bill
that we just dealt with because there is an interlink and was an interlink
between the two.
This particular piece of legislation we are dealing with here today is very,
very specific. It talks only about the Regulatory Reform Act. I agree, by the
way, that this is necessary, because if we are going to clean up the regulations
which we are doing here, this was
an act that existed that no longer needs, it
has been accomplished.
Justice Nathaniel Noel was appointed to do a certain job, he did a certain
job, the minister has acknowledged that the job is complete; we no longer need
it on the books. The only purpose we have here today is explain that is not
necessary and we are all going to vote to get rid of an unnecessary piece of
legislation on our books. Short, sweet, to the point.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the actual bill itself, it is a
two-liner. One sentence says, "This Act may be cited as the Regulatory Reform
Act Repeal Act." The second sentence, "The Regulatory Reform Act is repealed."
The minister put the necessary body and discussion around that as he just did. I
would say again, very well-explained, obviously necessary, nothing there to
debate, common sense stuff, clean up your books which we did here with this. We
will be voting in favour of it.
MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. the Minister of Business, the
Chair would like to welcome Chief Misel Joe of Conne River to the House of
Assembly. He is in the public galleries.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Business.
MR. DALLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will take a few moments to speak to Bill 12,
An Act To Repeal The
Regulatory Reform Act. I appreciate the comments from the member opposite and
the minister today as well. It is obviously, a bill that would address
regulatory issues that were created back in 1996, a part of the Regulatory
Reform project.
Mr. Speaker, it is a piece of legislation that, I guess, is part of the
ongoing work that we are doing as a government to address regulatory issues
across issues across governments. I want to speak to it a little bit about not
so much to rehash as to where we are today as a government, but I think it is
important out there in the general public when we talk about repealing
regulatory reform, to recognize that it was a working committee that recognized
the need in government back in the mid-1990s. They were able to do some great
work to address the issues of legislative reform, to make some necessary
amendments, and obviously that project was successful.
The reality is as well, that as we sit in our Legislatures and over the
course of time, we pass a considerable amount of legislation thirty-odd pieces
of legislation each time we sit in this House. Through that process it becomes
cumbersome, I guess, in terms of legislation to manage and so on. The reality
is, as was the case in 1996, there was a need to address the outdated, the
legislation that has basically been spent. What we have seen in response to
that, in the mid 2000s, government was able to recognize the need for continued
regulatory reform.
Similar to what we have seen in 1996 in this case we did not come up with a
working group, we kind of embedded it in the department that I am responsible
for, the Department of Business we are across government. We would bring in
some commitments that we would manage regulatory reform where we were able to
build on the project I guess of 1996 and bring it to a point where we realize we
do need to further pay attention to regulatory reform across government. We were
able to eliminate some 83,000 unnecessary pieces of legislation and requirements
and just as happened in 1996 with the Regulatory Reform project, we too saw fit
that through this process we are able to improve the services for businesses and
for people in the Province. At the end of the day, that was the goal of 1996 and
certainly a goal that we share today in our government.
Mr. Speaker, the process that is ongoing, the repeal today does not reflect
where we are and the need to continue regulatory reform. We put extensive time
and effort into it and I want to say to the public today that we have embedded
it to the point where we are looking at zero growth and we manage it through all
departments and because of that we are certainly recognized nationally by the
Canadian Federation of Independent Business; it is ranking second in the country
only behind British Columbia, tied with Nova Scotia for regulatory reform. This
is an opportunity and recognition by our government to build on what we saw in
1996, to build on the project and, Mr. Speaker, we are having tremendous success
with it.
This particular bill even though we are repealing regulatory reform, we as a
government are committed to recognize the need to clean up legislation and that
if we have a strong, more-efficient regulatory environment we are going to need
to be dedicated to it in the long-term. It is all about fostering a proactive,
positive climate for the people of the Province just as it was back in 1996. We
are continuing it, putting the face of the Regulatory Reform Act and certainly
the bill we are speaking about today.
It is a pleasure as the Minister of Business to be able to stand and support
the bill.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. If he
speaks now he shall close debate.
The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the hon. members for their comments on this bill.
Without further adieu, I will move this bill on to second reading.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 12,
An Act To
Repeal The Regulatory Reform Act, be now read a second time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Repeal The Regulatory Reform Act. (Bill 12)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time.
When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
Now? Tomorrow?
MS BURKE: Presently, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Presently.
On motion, a bill,
An Act To Repeal The Regulatory Reform Act, read a second
time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.
(Bill 12)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, we would now like to call Order 9, second reading of Bill 14.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board, that Bill 14 be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 14,
An Act To Amend The
Proceedings Against The Crown Act, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Proceedings Against
The Crown Act". (Bill 14)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to introduce Bill 14,
An Act To
Amend The Proceedings Against The Crown Act.
Mr. Speaker, for those who may not be aware in this House and those watching
on the outside, The Proceedings Against the Crown Act defines the rules by which
a government participates in lawsuits. It includes both the right to sue and the
right to be sued. Every province in this country has its own Proceedings Against
the Crown Act.
Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General represents the Province in all actions
taken by the Crown and all actions taken against the Crown. The Attorney
General's Office actually, Mr. Speaker, is the law firm for the Province and has
a battery of solicitors that represent part of the Crown and what actions for
and against the Crown. Sometimes we go outside, Mr. Speaker, and hire outside
counsel when certain expertise is required. So from that perspective, Mr.
Speaker, the Department of Justice and the Office of the Attorney General is a
very interesting place to be because you are at the centre of all lawsuits both
for and against the government.
Mr. Speaker, The Proceedings Against the Crown Act would include provisions,
subject to certain exemptions. It would establish, for example, that government
is legally responsible for all the acts of its officers or its agents. All of
the officers, people who work for governments, people who work on behalf of
government, established as officers or agents, the government of the Province is
legally responsible for their actions.
The act also provides, Mr. Speaker, with respect of wrongs that are committed
by any of the government's agents or public servants, the Crown is responsible
and subject to all liabilities that it will be subject to if it were a person of
age and capacity, as the same liabilities as a person who would be of full age
and capacity. The Crown is vicariously liable for all the acts of its servants
and agents.
The act, Mr. Speaker, also authorizes the Crown to use any defence that would
be available if the proceedings were against private persons, or with a private
person. The Crown is treated the same way as a private person in respect to
proceedings against the Crown.
The act also allows the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador to make
certain orders against the Crown that it would make against a person. It is that
point, Mr. Speaker, that brings us to the proposed amendment in this act. The
Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador can make certain orders against the
Crown in the same way it can direct the Crown, the same way in which it can
direct a private person. That is the basis for the proposed amendment to this
act.
The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to Amend The Proceedings Against
The Crown Act to allow orders that are made against it by a dispute panel
established under the Agreement on Internal Trade to be enforced as if such an
order was made by a superior court of the Province.
Mr. Speaker, the Agreement on Internal Trade is a very important agreement, a
very important piece of business for this Province because it affects so many
departments. Basically, it is an intergovernmental agreement between the
provinces and the territories and the federal government, with the exception of
Nunavut. The agreement is between all the provinces and the federal government.
Basically, what it does, it focuses on reducing barriers to internal trade and
promotes the free movement of persons, goods, services and investments within
the country and across provincial boundaries.
Mr. Speaker, in case a government or one of those provincial jurisdictions,
or a federal jurisdiction, is deemed to be not in compliance with that agreement
on internal trade, well a dispute panel can be set up to deal with that
variance. That dispute panel hears the case and makes a decision.
Mr. Speaker, the order that is made by that dispute panel does not have the
same powers and cannot be enforced in the same way that an order can be made
under the Supreme Court. The purpose of this amendment, Proceedings Against The
Crown Act, is to allow an order made by that panel to be enforced in the same
way as if such an order was made by the Superior Court of this Province. That is
the purpose of this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, from time to time government will introduce a bill that may
involve more than one department, and that is the case with this bill. The
Proceedings Against The Crown Act, Mr. Speaker, falls under the Department of
Justice, but the subject of the proposed amendment in this case, having to do
with trade, falls under the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of
Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.
Mr. Speaker, when the hon. minister is recognized she will explain and speak
to this bill in a more detailed fashion. My purpose here today, Mr. Speaker, is
to introduce the bill because it comes under the responsibility of the
Department of Justice, and I look forward to debate by other members of the
House.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words with respect to this. I found
it quite interesting, the minister's comments of course. He is quite correct
when he describes the fact that as Attorney General you are basically the law
firm for the Province in anything that happens. He mentioned, quite casually:
well, sometimes we have to go outside because we do not have all the expertise
that is necessary, I guess, inside the Department of Justice to handle all
matters. We have some very well qualified, very exceptional people there who
look after the legal files of this Province. I had the benefit of working with
many of them, particularly the current Deputy Minister, Mr. Burrage, who has
carried many big files for this Province to the Supreme Court of Canada numerous
times himself. We are very lucky and fortunate to have individuals such as him
work in our Justice Department.
I noticed the comment though, about going outside sometimes. Of course, we
are all aware of the recent case where the minister and Attorney General farmed
out the tobacco file to a local firm which happened to be the same law firm that
our former Premier worked for, unsolicited, potentially millions of dollars in
legal fees and refuses to talk about it publicly. Now, I did not raise the issue
of farming it out to an outside firm, Mr. Speaker, the minister did. That is
exactly what happened and he refuses to talk about it. Anyway, that is an issue
that people will deal with because it is still on the public burner yet, as to
how we spend our money wisely or how we handle cases in this Province. Giving
such potentially lucrative contracts to outside law firms without anybody
knowing about it is just unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker, it also raises the question, because we are talking about, in
here, the Agreement on Internal Trade. As the minister said, that is an
agreement between the provinces, Northwest Territories, Yukon, the federal
government is involved. We have agreed to do certain things under that
agreement, and there is obviously a tribunal set up and people make rulings.
Someone complains because they figure you put up a barrier to trade, and we are
not supposed to do that. When you do, someone can complain, you go to a
tribunal, the tribunal makes a decision.
I am just curious if the minister could tell us, has there been any
particular incident which prompted this amendment? Because that internal trade
agreement has existed since 1994, and we find ourselves now in 2011, years
later, putting this provision in. I am wondering, is this something that the
provinces themselves came to recognize, that we did not have any teeth in our
internal trade agreement when it came to enforcing any judgements and awards and
tariffs and penalties that we imposed, or is there one particular case? I am
wondering if the minister could tell us this, because that is very important.
We are seventeen years out from the date of the implementation of that
agreement and we are putting in teeth so that, for example, if we as a Province
have a complaint against Nova Scotia based under that internal trade agreement
and the panel decides that we should be awarded some tariffs, or there should be
penalties, now we are saying we are going to have the ability, or people
outside, at least, will have the ability to enforce that against our Province. I
am just wondering if there is a particular incident that brought this about.
Have there been no complaints filed under the internal trade agreements in
all that time? What caused this to be recognized by our Province at this date
and time? I am not saying it is not necessary. Obviously, if we are going to be
part of the agreement, nationally and provincially, and we are all going to be
subject to the same rules, obviously, we are going to need to have this in our
law, otherwise other provinces are not going to treat us with the same respect.
How can we expect, for example, to get a judgement against Nova Scotia and
enforce it, or New Brunswick, or PEI, or Quebec, if we in turn do not allow
those provinces to have the same benefits when it comes to us making a mistake
under that agreement?
I am just wondering about the background that brought it to light at this
time to justify and require the amendment. I am wondering as well if the
minister can give us any comments that he might have, because this is very
similar, we have another famous financial trading type agreement in our country.
It is called NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, which Canada, of
course, is subject to, and the United States and Mexico. As we are all aware,
this Province recently, as a result of the Abitibi fiasco in Grand Falls where
they expropriated the properties of Abitibi, cost the taxpayers of Canada $130
million. There was no similar provision under NAFTA and it has been talked
about. I wonder if the minister could give us the comparison because we are here
now setting up today a formula whereby if there is a tariff or penalty ordered
under internal trade, we are saying in this piece of legislation we are going to
allow other participants to that agreement to sue us and have their agreements
enforced and their penalties enforced.
From my understanding, there is no similar such provision in NAFTA, and I am
wondering if the minister can tell us in the context of this here , because
there is apparently some incident or some review that has initiated us dealing
with this amendment. I notice the Minister of Natural Resources was quite quick
to raise the issue of relevance because I mentioned Abitibi and I mentioned the
$130 million mistake. He does not want to talk about that, Mr. Speaker. It is
relevant because there is a great comparison here between the Agreement on
Internal Trade, which we are talking about here today, and our Proceedings
Against the Crown Act, which we are changing, and the NAFTA provisions. I am
wondering if the minister can give us that comparison about what exists there
versus what exists here.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS SULLIVAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to stand today and have a few comments on Bill 14,
amendments to the Proceedings Against the Crown Act. This particular act deals
with or encompasses the Agreement on Internal Trade, Mr. Speaker, or AIT as it
is more commonly referenced. It is an intergovernmental agreement between all
provinces, territories, and the federal government, with the exception of
Nunavut. So, in reference to a comment made just a moment ago by the Opposition
House Leader there, this has nothing to do with one country against another
country. This is the Agreement on Internal Trade only; therefore, NAFTA does not
fit underneath the Agreement on Internal Trade. It is not country-to-country; it
is provinces and territories within a country, the country of Canada.
For the last fifteen years, Mr. Speaker, AIT has focused on reducing barriers
primarily to internal trade and promoting the free movement of persons, goods,
services, and investments within this country. It is an agreement that supports,
clearly, Newfoundland and Labrador's investments on a variety of different
levels, Mr. Speaker. First of all, it creates opportunities for local businesses
to compete on and to secure contracts in other parts of Canada. From a labour
mobility perspective, it provides Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with
employment opportunities over and above those that are available in this
Province. So, Mr. Speaker, that agreement on internal trade which has been
embraced by all provinces and all territories, with the exception of Nunavut, is
very much something that we value as well.
In essence, we believe that this particular agreement is a strong agreement
on internal trade. It contributes, Mr. Speaker, to the economic vibrancy of
Newfoundland and Labrador as well. Over the last number of years, jurisdictions
have collectively explored measures to strengthen the agreement and to make it
more enforceable. That is what this particular amendment is about: It is how to
make this particular agreement more enforceable.
Over the last number of years, jurisdictions have collectively explored those
measures. Allowing monetary penalties is the means that has been agreed upon by
the provinces and territories. Basically, what it means is that, in penalizing
parties deemed to be offside with their AIT obligations, we will have now in
place a strong and a meaningful deterrent, Mr. Speaker, that will ensure a
concrete measure of enforceability. There is not much point to have an Agreement
on Internal Trade if we find that a province or a territory is offside and we
have no way then to make them compliant. So, what was deemed important was to
have some sort of enforceable penalty here. That is the reason that this
particular amendment has come forward.
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador agreed to the
amendment; therefore, were happy to agree to the addition of monetary penalties
for government-to-government disputes, meaning province-to-province or
province-to-territory disputes, under the AIT. We agreed to that in the spring
of 2009, Mr. Speaker.
As part of adding those monetary penalties to the AIT, it is necessary then
for each jurisdiction to make provisions to ensure the payment of monetary
penalties and dispute penal costs. Again, that is the primary reason for the
amendment to this particular act, Mr. Speaker.
In order to make those provisions and to make those amendments, we require an
amendment to the Proceedings Against the Crown Act for Newfoundland and
Labrador. Many other provinces have already made the changes to their respective
legislation to ensure that they are able to meet their obligation, Mr. Speaker.
We are in the process now of attempting to make the same amendment here so that
we, too, can be compliant.
It might be a good point, Mr. Speaker, simply to give you an overview of the
proposed AIT dispute resolution process that would follow, that would ensue. In
the event that one jurisdiction believes that another is acting in
non-compliance, so if the Province of New Brunswick believed that the Province
of Manitoba was non-compliant, or if Newfoundland believed that another province
was non-compliant, what would we do about that? What is the process? Well, the
process is simply that a dispute resolution panel would be established. That
panel would consist of representatives from various provinces. They would hear
the case, they would deliberate on the case, then they would state their ruling:
Yes, this particular province is non-compliant with the Agreement on Internal
Trade; no, it is not non-compliant, it is compliant within the terms and
conditions of the agreement.
Mr. Speaker, if it is deemed non-compliant, then we need something. We need a
measure then, other than simply saying you are non-compliant, you should become
compliant now. It is not very enforceable and not very strong. Instead, we need
something that makes that particular agreement more compliant, more enforceable.
If a government measure is deemed to be in non-compliance by that dispute panel
that I referenced and an AIT party refuses to change - and that is an important
point here. If the party, if the province in question r