PDF Version

April

10, 2014

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVII No. 17

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman):

Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we start today's

proceedings, I want to acknowledge some special guests in our gallery.

To my left, we have today some parliamentarians from the United Kingdom

Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

We are joined today by Lord Faulkner of Worcester, the Baroness Hooper,

and Ms Annette Brooke, M.P.

They are also accompanied by

a Canada Parliamentarian MP for a riding in Nova Scotia, I believe, Mr. Peter

Stoffer. They are accompanied with

Elizabeth Kingston, who is the Executive Secretary, International and

Interparliamentary Affairs of the Parliament of Canada.

Welcome to Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

All our members will be on their best behaviour

today as representation from the Westminster Parliament, so welcome.

We are also pleased today to

welcome to the Speaker's gallery, to my right, last night's successful candidate

in the by-election of Virginia Waters, Ms Cathy Bennett.

Welcome, too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I trust the power interruption we experienced

before the House opened will not happen when someone is speaking in your zeal

and zest of great delivery of a wonderful speech.

If you lose your microphone, the power is off and no one is listening to

you.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today we will have members' statements from the

District of Harbour Main; the District of Grand Falls-Windsor Green Bay South;

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

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

Member for the District of Bonavista South.

The hon. the Member for the

District of Harbour Main.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to rise today

in this hon. House to inform all members and indeed the Province that

Shakespeare theatre is alive and thriving in Cupids.

I had the pleasure of

performing last Saturday night at the Cupids Legacy Centre in a production aptly

called Shake The Leg .

Thespians, both professional and amateur acted the Bard's works to a full

house under the direction of Ms Danielle Irvine, artistic director of New World

Theatre.

The professional actors

which included Steve O'Connell, Alison Woolridge, Brian Marler, Patrick Foran,

Marie Jones, and Greg Malone. The

local actors were brothers Peter and Pat Laracy, twins Roy and Ross Dawe,

Rosalind Dawe, Mayors Harold Ackerman of Cupids and Phil Wood of Bay Roberts,

Kathi Stacey (of the EDMO) and Dennis Flynn, as well as yours truly.

It was a great evening of Shakespeare, well executed by the performers

myself included without a hitch to the delight of a very appreciative

audience.

The production was a joint

fundraiser by New World Theatre and the Cupids Legacy Inc.

All proceeds would be going to these organizations to further their

efforts to make Cupids a destination of choice.

I ask all members to join

with me in congratulating Ms Irvine and the troop of actors for a job well done.

Bravo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor

Green Bay South.

MR. HUNTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this

hon. House today to recognize Terry-Lee Roberts from Dorset Collegiate, Pilley's

Island, the winner of the 2014 School Council Person of the Year Award.

This award is given annually

in recognition of the outstanding volunteer contribution of a school council

member in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Terry-Lee is a parent

representative who works at the school as a student assistant.

She is leader of the 2013-2014 graduation committee, a volunteer with the

Kids Eat Smart Breakfast Program and was a vital member of the organizing

committee for the School Sports Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Table

Tennis Championship hosted at her school this past February.

She is an active member of

Dorset Collegiate's Safe and Caring Schools Committee, co-chair of the Dorset

Collegiate Occupational Health and Safety Committee and the school's Education

Week Committee, where she helped lead a great week of spirited activities.

I ask all hon. members to

please join me in congratulating Terry-Lee Roberts on receiving this very

important award.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the District of Bay of

Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

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

recognize the Cox's Cove Volunteer Fire Department.

On Saturday evening, I had

the pleasure of attending their annual firefighters' banquet.

It was a great evening honouring the contribution and dedication of this

group of firefighters who have given their time and service to the town for so

many years.

Mr. Speaker, the evening was

also an opportunity to recognize firefighter Alex Park for his thirty years of

service with the department. I had

the honour of presenting Alex with the Governor General's Exemplary Service

medal and the provincial Firefighter Long Service award.

Alex was also presented with the Fireman of the Year award.

Firefighter Martin Barnes was also recognized for his ten years of

service.

Mr. Speaker, I would also

like to recognize the Cox's Cove Firettes for their continued commitment and

support. Firettes play a pivotal

role in supporting volunteer firefighters, and this was demonstrated again

Saturday evening with their generous donation to the fire department.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all

members to join me in congratulating the Cox's Cove volunteer firefighters and

firettes on their continued service to the town, and to all volunteers who

contribute in making their communities a better place to live.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Norman and

Phoebe Clarke, long-time residents of St. John's North, who celebrated their

sixty-second wedding anniversary on February 25.

The Clarkes have lived in

St. John's since 1965, having moved here from Dunfield in beautiful Trinity Bay

North. When I visited them recently,

their son John told me his mom and dad can best be described as hard workers.

After their retirement from

the public service, where Norman was a tradesman and Phoebe worked as a clerk,

they went on to spend thirteen summers operating Clarke's Bed and Breakfast back

in Dunfield.

Mrs. Clarke shared a

beautiful story with me about their wedding day, about how the minister who

married them at the church arrived at the church on a horse and slide after

travelling there over the frozen bay.

Those were the days when travel in Trinity North was not done by car or

truck as it is today.

Birthday greetings are also

in order for the Clarkes. Phoebe

recently turned eighty-two and Norman has just celebrated his eighty-eighth

birthday.

I ask all hon. members to

join me in wishing a very happy sixty-second wedding anniversary to Norman and

Phoebe Clarke.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is my

privilege to stand in this hon. House to recognize the tremendous success which

was the thirty-second Annual Frosty Festival in the City of Mount Pearl.

Once again, this year's

festival included various activities for citizens of all ages and interests

including: an opening extravaganza featuring some of Newfoundland and Labrador's

greatest talent; two community breakfasts; an indoor and outdoor family fun day;

a lip sync contest; a hypnotist show; an Irish pub night; a seniors' bingo; a

Jiggs' dinner; and variety show and dinner theatre, just to name a few.

Mr. Speaker, as I am sure

you can appreciate, any festival of this magnitude would not be possible were it

not for the hard work and co-operation of a number of community partners.

I would, therefore, ask all members of this hon. House to join me in

congratulating the City of Mount Pearl, the Frosty Festival Board of Directors,

the various community groups and organizations, the corporate sponsors, and all

of the community-minded volunteers who contributed to the great success story,

which was Frosty Festival 2014.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Honourable colleagues, I

rise today to recognize Graham Keats, resident of Lethbridge, for the countless

hours of volunteer work that he has given to our Province throughout his life.

Mr. Keats is highly devoted to his community and its residents.

Graham graduated from

Memorial University with a Bachelor of Education, and graduated from Acadia

University with a Master of Education.

Graham committed twenty-six years to our children's development, both as

a school teacher and the last seven years of his career as the high school

administrator.

He was a Kinsmen, who held

offices of secretary and president.

Graham was also secretary of the Parish Council of Brooklyn Parish.

He has volunteered in various coffee house fundraisers and concerts.

Graham chaired the steering committee to set up a local service district

in the area, and was successful in establishing a local service district that

encompasses eight communities in the area, of which he is presently the

Chairperson.

He serves as the Director on

the Discovery Regional Service Board, and is the community representative on the

Heritage Collegiate School Council.

Mr. Speaker, hon.

colleagues, please join me in honouring Mr. Graham Keats for his dedication and

contributions to the communities in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and

Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH:

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

acknowledge and applaud the continued efforts of our winter maintenance crews,

who work tirelessly to ensure our highways and roads are safe during winter.

The Department of

Transportation and Works is responsible for maintaining close to 10,000

kilometres of primary and secondary highways and community access roads

throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Our winter maintenance team consists of 820 dedicated employees, who work

diligently, often in treacherous conditions, to ensure roads are safe for the

travelling public.

Mr. Speaker, our winter

maintenance operators view snow clearing as being integral to their communities

and regions, and work hard to get roads plowed quickly and keep equipment in

good working order. They take great

pride in their work and I am grateful for the opportunity to be able to thank

each and every one of our employees for their hard work and contribution during

this long, cold winter.

Our provincial winter

maintenance program represents an annual investment of $65 million, providing

for the operation of 570 pieces of equipment including 310 plow trucks,

twenty-nine snow blowers, 153 loaders, thirty-two graders, forty-two backhoes,

and four brine tankers. More than

200,000 tons of salt and 275,000 tons of sand will be distributed on our

highways this winter.

As Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, we are very aware that weather and road conditions can change

quickly and that snow reduces visibility and stopping distance.

We can all help make our roads safer by driving defensively and adjusting

our speed to suit weather conditions.

Safety remains our top priority.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon.

members to join me in acknowledging the important work that our winter

maintenance team continues to do on our behalf.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an

advance of the statement. We on this

side of the House also want to thank the men and women of the winter maintenance

crews who help keep our highways safe.

The weather was particularly nasty this year, Mr. Speaker.

It certainly put a challenge to the winter maintenance crews and they

stood up to that challenge. It is

not easy with winter conditions such as we have had this year to ensure that our

highways are safe.

I would like to make a

couple of recommendations, though, to the minister, and that is looking at

expanding the snow-clearing efforts, especially on our major highways, such as

my colleague from Burgeo La Poile has been asking for.

We see people in this Province travelling the highways around the clock.

They have to travel highways around the clock, and if the highways are

not clear, it is not safe to do so.

We should also, in addition

to commending the highway crews, Mr. Speaker I know during the most recent

storm down on the Southwest Coast, Route 470, the City of Corner Brook lent some

of their resources and manpower to our provincial highway crews to help keep

that clear. That is another example

of the fact that it is government's responsibility to provide the equipment

and to provide the manpower and the resources that are necessary.

We need to ensure we have enough resources to ensure that our highways

are safe.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I remind the member his time

has expired.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MR. MURPHY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the

minister for the advance copy of his statement, as well.

I have to place emphasis on the words work tirelessly in this

particular release because we know, and we are thankful for the hard work that

our winter maintenance crews are doing, but we have to look ahead.

Yesterday was a shocking

example to this minister about the monies that have been put into roads over the

last ten years. The Auditor General

has commented on how much money needs to be put into roads and bridges in this

Province. It amounts to somewhere

near $800 million. How many people

are driving around tireless as a result of hitting the potholes and everything

with the disgusting road conditions that we are faced with?

Government needs to revisit

this and make sure there are going to be strategic investments in roads so that

they can be done and our crews will not have to be working tirelessly as much as

what they were.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY:

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

highlight our Province's participation at the Prospectors and Developers

Association of Canada's international mineral convention and trade show recently

held in Toronto.

Newfoundland and Labrador

was well-represented and garnered significant interest in our Province's mining

investment opportunities. The

provincial government hosted a reception attended by over 300 leading

representatives of mining companies, explorationists, and investors, and managed

a high-traffic booth on the convention floor.

The provincial delegation included officials from the Department of

Natural Resources, Mining Industry NL, exploration companies with projects based

in the Province, prospectors, and supply firms.

During the conference, I met

with Vale Canada, Labrador Iron Mines, and Teck Resources Limited to discuss the

status of their projects and long-term development plans.

On the convention floor, I had the opportunity to talk with officials

while visiting the booths of many companies including Marathon Gold, Rambler

Mines and Metals, Altius, Canadian Zinc, and Duralite Drills.

Meetings were also held with

officials from the China Ministry of Lands and Resources on existing and future

opportunities for involvement in the mineral sector.

This builds on previous discussions with the Chinese government to

promote our Province's mining potential.

Mr. Speaker, in an

international survey released by the Fraser Institute, Newfoundland and Labrador

was ranked as one of the top ten most attractive jurisdictions for mining

investment worldwide. We have a

proven record of discovery and development of world-class deposits, including

Voisey's Bay, Buchans, and the Labrador Trough.

Our government's decision to

proceed with the construction of a third transmission line between Churchill

Falls and Labrador West will ensure power for new mining developments planned in

the region, fuel further industrial growth, and improve reliability for all

customers.

This multi-billion dollar

industry is significant for the Province, with annual shipments forecast to be

near $3.8 billion, and highly-skilled jobs for more than 8,000 people.

With a total of fourteen commodities produced or mined here, there is a

keen interest in our exploration and development potential which will contribute

to the long-term industry growth.

Our government is committed

to the sustainable development of our mineral resources and we continue to make

strategic investments in our Province's mining sector to build on the tremendous

prospects in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister

for the advance copy of his statement.

To the members of the House of Assembly here, we had our own MHA from St.

Barbe who attended the conference as well.

He actually held three prospecting workshops in his own district, as an

interest that he has. So

prospecting, of course, is alive and well in the Province.

Of course, the mining sector is a major contributor to the provincial

economy, and it will be that for years to come, I am sure.

Even though there has been

optimism within the mining industry, like many industries in our Province, it

also has some challenging times.

Just recently, of course, with the closure of Wabush mines and the visit we made

there, there are obviously a lot of people in that area very anxious to get the

Alderon site and the Kami project started, as that would obviously provide

long-term employment for people in that area.

In recent days, we have also heard that Duck Pond will be closing in

Central Newfoundland, putting some 300 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians out of

work. That just speaks to the

volatility we see within that industry.

Members of this side of the

House, and I know myself, we were very vocal and publicly supported the

construction of a third line into Lab West because we understand the security of

getting that for future developments in Lab West.

That is an important piece of the infrastructure that is required there.

Mr. Speaker, this was a

prospectors and a developers association.

All of us from time to time would dream about two young guys who were

actually flying over what potentially and eventually became a huge resource at

Voisey's Bay. Of course, we all know

as a Province right now, the financial impact to our economy that the opening of

Long Harbour will have on the future of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank

you for the opportunity to present to the statement.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I want to

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

The mining boom is truly to a great degree a success story in

Newfoundland and Labrador. There is

no doubt about that. It is great to

see that we are one of the top ten most attractive jurisdictions for mining

investment in the world.

I point out to the minister,

that indeed it is a multi-billion dollar industry there is no doubt, that now

has some of the largest multinational corporations in the world involved in the

exploitation of our mineral resources.

Indeed, Vale is the largest mining company in the world.

I am not sure why this

government then has to give companies that come here financial assistance and

call it an investment. In light of

companies that do not understand our workplace culture, we do need to protect

our workforce and our environment. I

think that is where we should be investing, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The injustice to the shrimp

quota cuts speaks to the need for our Province to have more say into our

fisheries. In 2002, our Province

formed an all-party committee to respond to the failure of the federal

government to manage our cod resources.

I ask the Premier: Since the

cuts to the shrimp quotas are so devastating to our Province, will you follow

the 2002 example and establish an all-party committee to prepare a common

position on recommendations to the federal government?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER MARSHALL:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition continues to ask

questions about us encroaching upon federal jurisdiction.

Under our constitution there are certain things where they have control.

There is nothing we can do other than encourage them, other than

advocate, other than inform them and convince them of our position and the fact

that these cuts, even though scientifically they may have been required, are

disproportionate in the way they virtually harm the inshore harvesters and

people working in the fish plants.

An all-party committee working together to make a recommendation, I would be all

in favour of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To simply say that it is

federal jurisdiction, we already know the federal Conservatives are on record as

saying in 2006 and to a letter to the previous Premier in 2007 or 2011, if the

Province is interested they are willing to work with the provinces.

That is the reason why we are asking for the all-party committee.

In 2002, the all-party

committee involved leaders of all parties in this House of Assembly as well as

members from Parliament and our Senators.

It was formed in 2002. They

presented a report in March of 2003.

So, I agree with presenting the united front.

I ask the Premier: Will you

write your Prime Minister and ask for this to be put in place?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, over the past

number of years, we have engaged with the federal government with regard to as

the Premier said, it is federal jurisdiction asking to engage in a process

where we would have joint management and have more control of the fishery of

coastal communities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Indeed, it has always been a priority for us.

Mr. Speaker, in light of

that and their unwillingness because that is what it has been.

Prior ministers, prior to me, have engaged with the federal government

and they were not open to joint management.

Even in that light what we have done as a government is continued on and

driven economic opportunity in the fishery through leading innovation programs

like FTNOP, which we invested $14 million over the past number of years.

We have worked with the

federal government in opening up new trade agreements, new access, and new

markets. We have invested in

marketing over the past number of years to a tune of $10 million.

Through all of that, we are driving the industry with or without the

federal government, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, the minister says that

if you are interested or they have been interested he talked about what they

have done for the fisheries, but what you have not done is based on a letter

that came from the Prime Minister in 2006 and his commitment in 2011.

I ask the minister: Have you

even asked for a joint management commission?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the hon.

member wants to politicize this issue; it is so important.

This is not about one party or another; this is about Newfoundland and

Labrador. It is about those involved

with the industry. It is about those

communities and about businesses that support the industry.

It collectively is about Newfoundland and Labrador.

I was at a demonstration the

other morning, as other members were as well, and there at that time,

collectively with the harvesters and everybody that was there, the FFAW and all

concerned, it was recognized that this should not be politicized; this should be

one group speaking one voice for Newfoundland and Labrador to have the changes

made that are needed, but as well to go forward and look at joint management

which is needed, which was shown in the past.

I ask the hon. member to go

back and check a former leader of his party, Premier Grimes.

In 2013, in May, he recognized at that point the executive

summary of a

report he did, that for a quarter of a decade this has been an issue that has

been driven by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and continues to be driven

today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Any time I stand in this

House representing over 2,000 plant workers who could potentially be put out of

work, talking about devastating cuts to the shrimp quotas in our Province, that

is not politics; that is representing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BALL:

I ask the minister: Have you even asked to put a

joint fisheries management committee in place?

Have you asked for that?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, the Premier just said we are welcome

to go with a joint committee from the Legislature here in regard to that.

I have indicated that prior ministers who have been involved with this

portfolio have asked the federal government in regard to joint management,

setting up a procedure to move that forward.

It has not been productive to date.

As I said before in this

House, based on the inventory that we have built in this Province, this

government has built, in regard to science and technology, in regard to

innovation, in regard to working with the inshore fleet, and all of the things

we have done, as well the $400 million fund we have, we believe the time is

right to engage the federal government.

We need shared jurisdiction; we need management of that industry as we

continue to grow the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, which we believe in,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

This is now an open government and you are

listening to the people of the Province; that is what we have been told.

I ask the minister: Will you

table those documents and will you go ahead, take the Premier's advice, and put

the all-party committee in place?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, I usually do take the Premier's

advice, I tell the hon. member.

Often, I do; I am guilty of that. I

have to say that I do take his advice most of the time.

I will be happy to provide

any documentation we have to the hon. member and what he has indicated, and I

will certainly be happy to present it to the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Minister of

Justice said he would sign off on an appointment of a conciliation officer for

negotiations for our teachers when he received the request.

We know that the request was delivered two days ago.

I ask the Premier: Has a

conciliation officer been assigned to help the stalled negotiations for our

teachers?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to offer a little tiny

bit of clarification to that request, there are two types of requests that come

in: some that I am responsible for on behalf of the Labour Relations Agency;

some go directly to the Labour Relations Board.

For the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition, in this particular case

it has been approved and signed off but it is by the Labour Relations Board, not

by me personally.

A conciliator has been

appointed. I was copied with a piece

of correspondence this morning. I

forget who the name of the person is.

I am told that the NLTA is in receipt of this correspondence and it will

be moving forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Carbonear Harbour

Grace.

MR. SLADE:

Mr. Speaker, over two weeks ago, we asked

government for their plan if the fishing season is delayed by heavy ice.

As you know, this is the heaviest ice conditions we have seen in decades.

Government said they are aware of the situation and they were monitoring

it.

I ask the minister: Can you

provide an update on the compensation available should the fishery be delayed

this year?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are fully aware in regard

to the ice conditions and some of the challenges.

We have been in touch with DFO and continue to be in touch with them in

terms of ice conditions. To date,

there has only been one region in regard to a delay in the fishery, in terms of

the crab industry. That is the only

one I know.

In 2007 a request was made

to the federal government - it was late April or early May at that time - in

regard to some assistance. At this

stage we are confident that the fishery will move forward, but if it is not, we

are engaged with the federal government.

Certainly if there is assistance to be provided, we will provide that

through the federal government and collectively, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Carbonear Harbour

Grace.

MR. SLADE:

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious situation.

Families depend on this income, and if the fishing season is delayed,

government needs to step in.

I ask the minister: Why have

you waited until so late in the process to even begin discussions with the

federal government? Shouldn't there

be a standard process to follow in a situation like this?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, I will just clarify.

I did not say discussions just started, discussions have been ongoing.

Monitoring the ice conditions and monitoring what DFO is saying and what

they are hearing from the harvesters in regard to the opening of the fisheries,

and if there is delay they will push out the start date.

There has been no delay in

terms of discussions with the federal government.

We are fully engaged with them on the issue.

As I said again, in terms of intervention, if that is required we will be

there to do it. If you go back and

look at other programs we had in regard to plant workers, over the last seven

years we have had $9.5 million in terms of plant work adjustment programs.

So when there is need for us to be there, we are there, and we will

certainly advocate and make sure the federal government is there when the time

is due, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.

MR. LANE:

will be holding a public meeting on the one restrictive recommendation for

school reorganization in Mount Pearl.

This option is not sitting well with many parents, students, and teachers

in Mount Pearl.

I ask the minister: Will he

stop thumbing his nose at the citizens of Mount Pearl and commit a reasonable

level of funding to address the Mount Pearl school reorganization?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN:

Mr. Speaker, I will not dignify a response to

some of that type of questioning.

This is an open process. Is the man

saying that we should be having meetings with them?

If that is what he is saying, ask him to stand up and say that.

Mr. Speaker, I am not about

to interfere in this process. The

school board is carrying out a process, information has been posted on their Web

site, they will engage with the parents, and from that a decision will be made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.

MR. LANE:

Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the minister to

interfere. I am asking the minister

to provide the financial flexibility to the board so they can put forward some

recommendations that work for everybody.

Mr. Speaker, in Estimates

earlier this week the minister indicated that he has not handcuffed the school

board to using all existing infrastructure; yet, the school board says their

hands are tied by government.

I ask the minister: Will he

speak to his hand-picked board before tonight's meeting to clarify this conflict

and get on the same page with this important issue?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN:

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where he is getting

his information from that I have handcuffed anyone from the board.

If he has something, then table it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. JACKMAN:

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly hope the board in

looking at it and the parents in looking at it will look at using what space is

there first. If they decide on

something other than that, they will bring it to us and then a decision will be

made. We are in no way handcuffing

the board.

MR. LANE:

(Inaudible).

MR. JACKMAN:

If he would stop shouting, Mr. Speaker, I will

give him his answer. We are in no

way handcuffing the board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS:

Mr. Speaker, court docket in Happy Valley-Goose

Bay is twenty-eight pages long compared to Grand Bank court docket, which is

just under four pages, all of this with just one Crown attorney on staff.

On the latest Goose Bay docket, there are 225 failures to comply and

breach of undertakings, forty-two sexual assaults, and seventy assault and

resisting arrest charges, all waiting to be processed over several dockets.

I ask the Attorney General:

Will you now admit the justice system in Labrador is under-resourced, and when

will you get serious about these important issues?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS:

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to answer the member's question in forty

seconds because he refers to technical procedures in court that is difficult to

respond to in forty seconds. He

talks about a twenty-eight page docket, for example, last week in the Happy

Valley-Goose Bay court. He did not

say how long it was for. I am

assuming it is for a week. That

includes first appearances, it includes plea dates, it includes dates to set a

date, items that would be taken care of seconds or minutes, some of them.

He has an officer of the court over there who would know that.

Mr. Speaker, that

twenty-eight page document for a week compares favourably with the docket in

Stephenville and the docket in Harbour Grace.

The docket in St. John's for a week, by the way, is ninety-nine pages

long.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS:

Mr. Speaker, when you do not have the resources,

it is hard. This is not about

interfering in the courts' job. This

is about giving the courts resources to do their jobs.

Mr. Speaker, in last year's

annual report, Goal 2 stated, By March 31, 2014, the Department of Justice will

have enhanced its responsiveness to clients' diverse needs and interests..

Clearly, they have not met this goal in Labrador.

Justice in Labrador has gotten worse.

I ask the minister: Why have

you failed to live up to your own goals when it comes to Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the member for

bringing that question to the floor of the House of Assembly once again.

It is a very important question and I acknowledge he is very persistent

in following that issue, as he should be.

I acknowledge the challenges we face in Labrador, I say to the member

opposite.

There are a number of things

happening. We had meetings this past

Friday with Legal Aid. We are

working very hard to try to address some further challenges that they have

identified to us in addition to the investments we made two weeks ago, Mr.

Speaker.

As well, I can tell the

member that we are working hard on the Crown attorneys positions.

I acknowledge, as you point out very clearly, that when we have positions

that are vacant in Labrador, it causes a tremendous strain on the system.

We are moving Crown attorneys from St. John's in to try to assist with

that overburden at this point in time.

We are doing whatever else

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, the minister cancelled the Family

Violence Intervention Court to save $1 per person per year.

A federal Department of Justice study in 2009 estimated the annual cost

of spousal violence in Canada at $7.4 billion or $220 per person.

It has also concluded that children exposed to family violence are more

likely to end up in violent relationships when they grow up.

I ask the Minister of

Justice: Has this Province carried out a comparable study to the federal one?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Environment and

Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS SHEA:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government

wholeheartedly agrees that the effects of violence in Newfoundland and Labrador,

especially on our young people, are something that we need to address.

We have invested in the Violence Prevention Initiative and we will

continue to address in that initiative.

We understand that the

projects and the work that needs to be done can best be done by our community

partners, Mr. Speaker. We also know

that we need to put significant attention into our Aboriginal communities as

well.

We have had the Violence

Prevention Initiative. We are

committed to our regional co-ordinating committees, which are right across

Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr.

Speaker, shortly we will be able to roll out Phase II of the Violence Prevention

Initiative. This is all about

ensuring that the young people and the next generations of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians do not have to suffer the effects of violence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, one of the positive features of the

Family Violence Intervention Court was that participants were required to plead

guilty, thereby saving the cost of going to trial.

The minister cancelled the court to save $1 per person per year.

I ask the Minister of

Justice: Can he advise how many trials were avoided by these guilty pleas and

how much money the Family Violence Intervention Court saved each year it

operated?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague the Minister

Responsible for the Status of Women just said a few moments ago, we take this

issue very seriously. I certainly do

not want to trivialize it by putting the focus purely on some of the issues the

member has raised over there.

We have invested in any

number of initiatives over the last number of years including, as I have said in

this House of Assembly before, the creation of a new Department of Child, Youth

and Family Services. We recognize

the importance of focusing on supporting children and youth, particularly when

children are most vulnerable.

I also want to remind the

member that it is just in the current Budget that we made a significant

announcement of investment to focus on domestic violence, by following a

successful model that has been implemented by the RNC, under Constable Suzanne

FitzGerald, now expanding that model across the RCMP; and, I might add, across

the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador so that everyone benefits from

the service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, here is a part

of the tender document calling for the rehabilitation of 11.75 kilometres of

highway to Fleur de Lys, which was supposed to be completed by September 30,

2014. I have a part of the copy of

the addendum, which was issued a week later, restricting the amount of work that

can be completed this year to $2.25 million, which is roughly four kilometres.

I ask the minister: Why did

you allow the people of Fleur de Lys to believe they would see 11.75 kilometres

of roadwork completed this year, when in fact it is only about four kilometres?

I will table both documents.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and

Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH:

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the member across the

way asked the question again today.

He has gone to Fleur de Lys, then he went down to Baie Verte, now he is gone

back to Fleur de Lys. Our government

decided this year and I explained this on Wednesday and I explained it on

Monday. What we decided to do was

put large projects together. We

worked very closely with the Heavy Civil Association and we decided to put those

projects together so that we could put them out and instead of piecemealing, we

want to get work done. We have the

Heavy Civil Association 100 per cent behind us, backing us on this, Mr. Speaker.

The tenders are here, all of

the tenders. You want to talk about

open government, I am more than happy to table the complete tenders for the four

projects that I have already announced.

I am glad to get the tenders out there to the public and let the public

know that this government is committed to getting the work done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad he tendered both

documents, Mr. Speaker. I have given

copies of these to the media, which does show that he cut it back from 11.75

kilometres to about four kilometres.

Mr. Speaker, the residents

of Fleur de Lys demonstrated last year because their highway is in such

deplorable condition. You have given

them false hope, I say to the minister, by allowing them to think that the

highway would be completed this year.

I ask the minister: Isn't it

time to remove the politics from pavement and deliver what you promised in the

original tender, which is 11.75 kilometres of roadwork to be completed by

September 30 of this year?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and

Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, one of the

stipulations that we put in our tenders is that a minimum amount of work has to

be done. There is no stipulation

saying that there is not a maximum of work allowed to be done.

If they want to do the thirty-three kilometres this year, they can do it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a paragraph if I am allowed from a

letter from the Heavy Civil Association and I will table this also.

It says, Your efforts and

actions here make an incredible difference to our industry by ensuring we are

able to make the most of our short construction season and as you stated,

enabling us

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I ask the member to table

the document, please, and proceed with his answer.

MR. MCGRATH:

I table the document, Mr. Speaker, giving us 100

per cent from the Heavy Civil Association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, naturally the road builders would

commend government for early tenders but to delay the tenders again and again is

unacceptable, and to take a tender which says 11.75 kilometres and reduce it to

four kilometres is unacceptable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister again: Will he

commit to completing the full 11.75 kilometres and not put the cash flow

restriction in place which prevents the contractors from doing the work?

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if he were to

read the full tenders he would realize that we are not putting any restriction

on a successful bidder in the amount of work that they do.

If they want to complete the work in one year, thirty-three kilometers,

which to me would be probably a wise thing to do, then they are a year ahead in

their work.

MR. OSBORNE:

(Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The member has asked a

question; I would ask him to give the minister an opportunity to answer the

question.

MR. MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot be heard when I am

being yelled at like that from the Member for St. John's South.

We are not putting a

restriction on the amount of work that they want to do.

If they want to do thirty-three kilometres this year, please do.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon. the Member for

Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

MS DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Budget 2014 cited the low

income cut-off measurement of a 5.3 per cent poverty rate, celebrating that we

are tied for having the second lowest poverty rate in Canada.

They conveniently ignored the low-income measurement, which poverty

reduction advocates favour. This

measure states 13.8 per cent of our population is living in poverty, that we

actually have the sixth lowest rate of poverty in Canada.

I ask the minister: Why are

you denying the reality of poverty levels and, instead, selectively choosing

lowball numbers?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and

Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN:

Mr. Speaker, there are many measurements in

regard to the baseline for poverty right across Canada and right across North

America. What I do know is that this

government has invested over a billion dollars in regard to poverty reduction to

date when we first tabled that strategy.

As a matter of fact, in this Budget alone, Mr. Speaker, there is going to

be $170 million spent on poverty this year all across other departments, along

with $4.8 million to raise the income rate for vulnerable people in this

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

In responding to questions

in this House, the Premier has been giving conflicting answers about who exactly

will be doing the research for the $500,000 study announced in the Budget on

radiation services in Western Newfoundland.

I ask the Premier: Would he

please clarify who exactly is doing the study, and what the timeline is for the

entire process?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER MARSHALL:

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, there is

$500,000 in the Budget to do a study to look at radiation therapy in Western

Newfoundland, and also beyond Western Newfoundland and other areas because,

obviously, in doing this study for one area you would have to look at the entire

Province as well. The person who

will do the study will be some independent person.

The Department of Health will be examining potential people.

There will be an RFP go out.

The timeline; I hope the

timeline is very quick. Again, when

we get people, independent people to do the work, we have to make sure they have

the time they need to do the work. I

would hope that we would get their response, their answer, their advice and

recommendations in very short order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier, in his answers,

has made reference to external consultants.

He also made reference to the bureaucrats and to the bureaucracy dealing

with it, so I want to make sure he is clear about what the role of the

bureaucrats is. That is my question

to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. I want

to know what the role of the bureaucrats is, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER MARSHALL:

Mr. Speaker, we are very fortunate in this Province to have highly

dedicated and highly qualified public employees who do their work and give

advice, obtain evidence and provide it to us with analysis and recommendations

so that we can do our job that we have been elected to do by the people of the

Province.

From time to time we go and

get some impartial people to come in and take a look at that evidence, and help

guide us and inform us in making the proper decision.

We are elected to make the final decisions.

The bureaucrats, the consultants that we engage, they will provide us

with facts, statistics, and advice.

We will make the decision.

For radiation, if there is a

model that could offer safe, high-quality radiation for the people of Western

Newfoundland, we are committed to find that model.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier: If it is

determined by the study that radiation services should be offered in Corner

Brook, will they be started in the existing hospital or will people have to wait

years for these services in the new hospital?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER MARSHALL:

Mr. Speaker, if the recommendation is to offer this service, obviously,

given the fact that the hospital is about to go to design build, it is important

that we start the construction now so that it is ready for when the hospital is

ready, which will be about six years from now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL:

Is the Premier therefore telling the people in

Western Newfoundland that they are going to have to wait at least six years for

radiation services to happen over there?

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL:

I ask him to clarify: Is he telling the people of

Western Newfoundland that they are going to have to wait at least six years for

radiation services if the study says that?

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER MARSHALL:

Mr. Speaker, we are not going to spend the money twice.

Obviously a new hospital is being built and we are going to make

provisions for the necessary bunkers in that hospital so that radiation therapy

can be provided.

First, there is no place

there are two places in the country that are offering this service with only one

machine. Based on the numbers out of

Western Newfoundland, there will be one machine.

We have to determine first if that is safe.

Maybe there has to be two machines.

We also have to determine

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MS ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Did he consult

with court and legal services including the Provincial Court, the judiciary and

legal aid before he cut the Family Violence Intervention Court?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We continue to have a

dialogue here in the House about the government's commitment to justice and the

family violence in the Province. I

thank members for continuing to ask the questions because I think it is an

important discussion. As I said a

few moments ago, if I go back a number of years it was our department who

recognized the challenges that the Province faced when we created the Department

of Child, Youth and Family Services.

It is also our government

that just announced in the recent Budget, Mr. Speaker, of a significant

investment in family violence through the model being used by the Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary under Suzanne FitzGerald.

That is a model that we are going to take and we are going to move across

to the RCMP. We are going to make

the service available right across the entire Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MS ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Did he consult

with Public Prosecutions before he cut the Family Violence Intervention Court?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, any time we bring in a new

initiative, like I just spoke about a few moments ago with the RNC and RCMP, we

do a tremendous amount of consultation because we are talking about an adoption

of a policy and an investment of public funds in a new policy for government.

We always consult on that, and I was involved in the consultation process

myself with Constable FitzGerald as well as the senior leadership of the Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary.

We recognize that the model

they are using is one that for the first time in a long time will provide a

service with respect to family violence and the prevention of family violence by

identifying potential perpetrators.

It will provide the service across the entire Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and that is what is important to this government: making

sure services are available everywhere to everyone.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

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

quick question without

preamble.

MS ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Why did he

ignore the recommendations of his internal review to institute permanent funding

for the Family Violence Intervention Court?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Justice for a quick

response.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, I can say this again, I have said it

many times in this House, we consult on a regular basis.

We ask for reports on a regular basis.

We seek out recommendations on a regular basis.

Recommendations are just that; they are recommendations.

That does not mean government is bound to follow the recommendations.

It is merely advice that is provided to government in decision making.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for

which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of

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

the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly

sheweth:

WHEREAS current government

regulations deny busing services to students who live closer than 1.6 kilometres

from school; and

WHEREAS parents have

expressed concern that children living within 1.6 kilometres of school face

dangers in walking to school, such as congested streets, busy intersections, and

no sidewalks, especially during winter weather conditions; and

WHEREAS the $75,000 review

of the school transportation system completed by Deloitte recommended the

Department of Education consider reducing the 1.6 kilometre eligibility zone for

Kindergarten and elementary students; and

WHEREAS the $75,000 Deloitte

report also noted that only 10 per cent of those surveyed for the school

transportation system review agree the current 1.6 kilometre policy is

reasonable for students and families; and

WHEREAS parents are

continuing to demand more flexible policies to meet the current needs of school

children;

WHEREUPON the undersigned,

your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge

government to change the outdated 1.6 kilometre school busing eligibility policy

in order to ensure safe travel to school for primary and elementary school

children in the Province.

As in duty bound, your

petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, as indicated, I

would like to present this petition to the House once again.

This is a policy that certainly needs to be revisited, as indicated in

the petition. There was a study

carried out, a report done by Deloitte, to the government recommending that this

be revisited particularly for younger children, elementary children.

Certainly that is something

that I have heard from parents in Mount Pearl; various elementary schools have

contacted me about this issue. I

know my colleagues have received concerns raised to them by their constituents

as well. The Member for St. John's

North has actually raised this on a number of occasions.

When you look at this winter

in particular, you look at all the snowfall we had, you look at the fact that

many of the city sidewalks are not cleared and pedestrians are forced to walk

out on the side of the road. Mr.

Speaker, when you look at those conditions and then you have to picture young

children having to walk in the roads, on the side of the roads in these

conditions, in many cases in busy high-traffic areas, it certainly is a major

safety issue. I strongly urge the

Minister of Education to show some leadership in this issue and to have this

issue revisited and look at reducing that kilometre distance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay

North.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of

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

the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly

sheweth:

WHEREAS Route 430, the

Viking Trail, is the primary highway on the Great Northern Peninsula; and

WHEREAS the current road

condition of approximately sixty kilometres between Plum Point and Eddies Cove

East have sections that are in dire need of resurfacing and/or repaving; and

WHEREAS it is government's

obligation to provide basic infrastructure to all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians; and

WHEREAS an improved road

network on the primary highway is needed to enhance road safety and help with

local commerce, as well as deal with increasing passenger traffic levels in this

section of highway;

We, the undersigned,

petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to allocate funds under

the provincial roads program to pave this

section of Route 430.

As in duty bound, your

petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, Route 430, as

it is a primary highway, it is in a very unique position given the

transportation flow of goods and services.

Also, when we look at tourism potential, we have Gros Morne UNESCO site

in Gros Morne Park; we have the Viking settlement, L'Anse aux Meadows, which is

a UNESCO site; and we also have, in St. Barbe, the Strait of Belle Isle ferry

crossing that goes to southern Labrador to also reach a UNESCO site in Red Bay

three key areas here. Look at the

condition of the road, this petition for Route 430.

Also, on the other side in

the Labrador Straits, we need to make sure that we have good road

infrastructure. My colleague, the

Member for St. Barbe, as well certainly agrees that these are types of things

that we need to do if we are going to advance the flow of goods and services and

allow people to travel safely in our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I put forward

this petition to the House of Assembly.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of

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

the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly

sheweth:

WHEREAS violent workplace

incidents involving convenience store clerks and gas station attendants are a

serious health and safety issue; and

WHEREAS many public and

private sector employees are being left in vulnerable situations, especially in

the opening and closing of their buildings and establishments; and

WHEREAS all workers deserve

protection from danger and harm; and

WHEREAS current government

regulations are woefully inadequate in providing even basic protection for these

vulnerable workers; and

WHEREAS it is the

responsibility of employers to keep workers safe and the responsibility of

government to ensure employers adhere to regulations;

We, the undersigned,

petition the House of Assembly to urge government to immediately enact

legislation and regulations to protect workers in hazardous workplaces,

including late-night shifts in convenience stores and gas stations.

This legislation must direct employers to have a minimum of two workers

on site after 10:00 p.m. and before 6:00 a.m., or have a secure barrier between

the worker and customer in place between these hours.

As in duty bound, your

petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad

to stand today and speak to this petition.

I have had this petition presented to me before and I have stood on

behalf of petitioners with regard to it.

I continue to receive this petition.

It is not understandable to

me why the government would not look at its legislation and change the current

regulation which calls for measures which are reasonably practicable and become

specific, Mr. Speaker. It is not

costing the government money to do that.

It could offer an incentive to small businesses with regard to offering

the security; for example, if a business said we are not going to have two

people working during the hours overnight but we would like to put up a barrier

that would keep the workers safe during those hours, there could be an incentive

offered to help small business with doing that.

If government did think about doing something that like, there would be a

very minimal cost, Mr. Speaker.

Something must be done to

make sure that workers who are working overnight from 10:00 at night to 6:00 in

the morning can feel safe. Many of

those workers are students. Many of

them are trying to earn money to keep themselves in post-secondary education.

To work is not a choice; it is what they have to do and these are some of

the jobs that are being offered to them through our economy.

It is not costing the

government. Why will they not put it

forward? Why will they not put in a

regulation that will ensure that our workers are safe?

It is a necessary part of occupational health and safety, Mr. Speaker.

The workers who are doing this work very often are low paid; they very

often have no choice about where they are working.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au

Clair.

MS DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of

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

the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS until 2013 calcium

was applied to provincially-owned gravel roads in and around communities to

suppress dust; and

WHEREAS dust suppression is

very helpful for residents experiencing health conditions like asthma and

allergies; and

WHEREAS the cost of

administering the calcium program is very affordable to government; and

WHEREAS dust suppression is

an effective way of improving safety for the travelling public;

WHEREUPON the undersigned,

your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador beginning in 2014 to reinstate the

calcium application program on provincially-owned gravel roads in and around

communities.

As in duty bound, your

petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I have been up

a number of times on this calcium issue and I will continue to do that.

It is a huge, huge issue.

Every time I am back in the district I am asked about this by constituents.

Are we getting the money reinstated?

It does not matter if it is calcium as long as it is some form of dust

control.

my Facebook I do not know if there is a day, Mr. Speaker, that somebody does not

raise the issue. I think it was just

this week a couple of days ago someone signed my wall and said an elderly lady

in their community was wondering if there was something she could get to put

around her door. How sad is that

when she is probably living on a very fixed income and already does not have

enough money to make ends meet.

There are breathing

problems. There is a whole number of

health things: lungs, respiratory.

In the summertime the dust is really, really bad, Mr. Speaker.

You cannot get out, you cannot walk.

I mentioned before, there

was a child who was medevaced out one night on a flight, while I was in the

community of Cartwright, because of breathing problems.

It is not a lot of money that we are talking about.

I believe it was only $700,000 that was spent provincially.

We see that Budget 2014

called for some upgrades to the Point Amour Lighthouse.

We are going to be enhancing, and so we should, the tallest lighthouse in

Atlantic Canada; yet, tourists are going to have to drive through a sandstorm to

get out and visit. It is a real

deterrent.

We are not talking about a

lot of money, Mr. Speaker. I really

would urge the minister to go back and look at this and reinstate the calcium,

or consider some other form of dust control on this very important issue, at

least to the people of Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the District of St.

Barbe.

MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, a petition to the hon. House of

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

the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS there is no

cellphone service in the Town of Trout River, which is an enclave community in

Gros Morne National Park; and

WHEREAS visitors to Gros

Morne National Park, more than 100,000 annually, expect to communicate by

cellphone when they visit the park; and

WHEREAS cellphone service

has become a very important aspect of everyday living for residents; and

WHEREAS cellphone service is

an essential safety tool for visitors and residents; and

WHEREAS cellphone service is

essential for business development;

WHEREUPON the undersigned,

your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to partner with the private sector to

extend cellphone coverage throughout Gros Morne National Park, and the enclave

community of Trout River.

As in duty bound, your

petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I noted from

the

summary provided by Hansard, that I have presented this petition more than

fifteen times. The residents of

Trout River, while they are appreciative that their cries are being at least

announced and heard, they are disappointed that they are being ignored.

They are disappointed that in the year 2014 and the Town of Trout River

is the third largest community in Gros Morne National Park.

They have outstanding restaurants there, internationally known,

internationally renowned. The Town

of Trout River has a vibrant, small, inshore fishery they are left behind in

technology to the extent that they are unable to access cellphone service.

Mr. Speaker, the residents

of Trout River cannot understand why this government will not partner with the

private sector and begin moving forward to provide them with cellphone coverage

that most residents tend to expect and believe they should reasonably be

provided with.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MS ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of

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

the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly

sheweth:

WHEREAS the Family Violence

Intervention Court provided a comprehensive approach to domestic violence in a

court setting that fully understood and dealt with the complex issues of

domestic violence; and

WHEREAS domestic violence

continues to be one of the most serious issues facing our Province today, and

the cost of the impact of domestic violence is great both economically and in

human suffering; and

WHEREAS the Family Violence

Intervention Court was welcomed and endorsed by all aspects of the justice

system including the police, the courts, prosecutors, defence counsel, Child,

Youth and Family Services, as well as victims, offenders, community agencies and

women's groups; and

WHEREAS the recidivism rate

for offenders going through the court was 10 per cent compared to 40 per cent of

those who did not; and

WHEREAS the budget for the

court was only 0.2 per cent of the entire budget of the Department of Justice;

WHEREUPON the undersigned,

your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge

government to reinstate the Family Violence Intervention Court.

As in duty bound, your

petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy yet

again to stand up and present this petition on behalf of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador about the Family Violence Intervention Court.

I was astounded today, when I asked the Minister of Justice if he

consulted with court and legal services including the Provincial Court, the

judiciary, and legal aid before he cut the Family Violence Intervention Court,

he started to talk about Child, Youth and Family Services.

Mr. Speaker, that has

nothing to do with the Family Violence Intervention Court.

Child, Youth and Family Services is about services for children and the

protection of children, not about women who are victims of family violence or

children who are victims of family violence.

This was a bona fide court that did the work it was supposed to do, as

even the minister said it did.

I cannot believe, Mr.

Speaker, the amount of diversionary tactics.

He could not give me a straight answer.

I asked him if he consulted with Public Prosecutions before he cut the

court. He did not answer that as

well.

I asked him why he did

ignore the recommendations of his own internal review that said government

should institute permanent funding for the Family Violence Intervention Court.

That is how successful the court was.

He did not answer that question, as well.

Why would he not, Mr. Speaker, listen to the recommendations of his

expert panel, of his expert review?

Mr. Speaker, if he is saying

he did consult, that he consults all the time, I want to see the reports of

those consultations because I do not believe those consultations happened.

I believe that he did not consult either with Adult Custody, Community

Corrections, Victim Services. Mr.

Speaker, this has been an uninformed decision, not based on evidence-based

decision making.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a

petition on the hospital in Corner Brook.

WHEREAS we wish to raise

concerns regarding the delay of the construction of the new hospital in Corner

Brook, Newfoundland;

WHEREUPON the undersigned,

your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to commit to the planning and

construction of a new hospital in Corner Brook as previously committed to and in

a timely manner as originally announced without further delay or changes.

Mr. Speaker, I have again

petitions here of people from Pasadena, Mount Moriah, Cox's Cove, all over

Corner Brook, Meadows. Once again, I

raise this concern on behalf of the residents of Western Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the government

now is going to commission a study on the new hospital in Corner Brook, which I

was hoping we would have started two years ago so we would have the information

that they would have to share with the people in Western Newfoundland instead of

denying it.

I heard the Leader of the

Third Party ask questions today. I

am glad, I am so glad. I say to the

people of Western Newfoundland, I will look for support for anybody for the new

hospital, for radiation, but somebody should have told her.

Six years ago is when this started, and now we hear questions being

asked.

The Leader of the Third

Party said, well, they have radiation because they have radiologists.

Let's keep this debate about the facts.

The facts are, just because you have a radiologist does not mean you have

radiation. There is no radiation in

Corner Brook, I say to the Leader of the Third Party.

Now, she agrees. I am glad.

We have to have this

argument, and we have to have this discussion, Mr. Speaker, with informed

information. We cannot stand up here

and say across the House, well, they have radiologists therefore they have

radiation. That takes the debate

down, Mr. Speaker.

I heard the Leader of the

Third Party once again and I welcome everybody.

I will welcome anybody, Mr. Speaker, who wants to support radiation and a

PET scanner in Corner Brook. I will

welcome anybody. I look forward to

it.

When you hear the Leader of

the Third Party: Why don't you put it there now before the new hospital is built

in five or six years? Just to give

you an example, in our research and at no time am I trying to defend the

government, but I have to speak to facts in Peterborough, it took five years

from the time they said yes we are going to do it to the time they went through

the program to actually have radiation took five years.

In Sault Ste. Marie, it took almost six years.

So, when the Leader of the

Third Party stands up and says we should put it in the old hospital, do not wait

for the new; we need to get the facts.

The facts are: We start now, put it in the design, five or six years, and

then we can offer the radiation. So

I say to all members: Get your facts, let's all work together, and let's get

this done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board, to go to Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that we go to Orders of

the Day.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At this time I would like to

call Order 6, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Revenue

Administration Act, Bill 9.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS JOHNSON:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to

discuss the proposed amendments to the Revenue Administration Act

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS JOHNSON:

Sorry.

MR. SPEAKER:

Is the minister going to move and

MS JOHNSON:

I can do that, too.

I move, seconded by the

Minister of Justice, that we now bring in second reading of

An Act To Amend The

Revenue Administration Act.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that Bill 9,

An Act To

Amend The Revenue Administration Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a

bill,

An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act.

(Bill 9)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS JOHNSON:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, I would

like to discuss the proposed amendments to the Revenue Administration Act today.

This is housekeeping in nature, but important.

This act outlines in law how the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

is to administer provincial taxes under its jurisdiction taxes like the

gasoline tax, health and post-secondary education tax, insurance companies tax,

minerals tax, retail sales tax, and so on.

These taxes are under the

administration of the provincial Department of Finance and provide revenue to

the government, revenue which in turn provides funding for programs and services

for the people of the Province.

The amendments to this act

to be debated today are under

Part I, General, of the act.

The proposed amendments will follow the guidance of the Canada Revenue

Agency and will strengthen the department's administrative position.

I would like to provide some

background to the current language under the act before we discuss the merits of

the amendments. The act currently

provides the minister with the ability to demand the production of books and

records from a person, syndicate, trust or corporation, or an agent or official

of a person, syndicate, trust or corporation for the administration and

enforcement of the act and regulations.

The act requires that this

person is or may become a third party to the taxpayer.

The term third party is not defined in the act, so it is unclear what

type of relationship, if any, is required in order for the minister to exercise

his or her discretion to request information under this provision.

It is necessary to amend this act to remove reference to this undefined

term in order to remove ambiguity from the act, making clear the provision that

currently allows the minister to request books and records.

Review and revision of

legislation is a necessary and regular activity within government.

Such amendments, as we know, are important to ensure the laws that govern

us and that they are up to date, relevant, and concise.

In discussing the proposed

amendment to the Revenue Administration Act, I would first like to outline the

necessity of the provision which provides the minister authority to review books

and records of a taxpayer. Tax

revenues belong to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As stewards of these revenues, it is government's responsibility to

ensure the fair and consistent application of provincial tax laws to provide the

correct amount of tax revenue for the benefits of our citizens.

The Revenue Administration

Act currently provides the minister with the authority to demand the production

of books and records from a person, syndicate, trust or corporation, or agent of

those persons for the administration and enforcement of the act and regulations.

Books and records, as

defined under the act, means any recorded information, an original or copied

form relating to a taxpayer or taxpayer's returns, including every kind of

financial book or record, all purchase invoices, sales invoices, sales tapes or

other documents or original sale of purchase, statement of account, bank

statement or statements of other financial institutions, and so on. It is

clearly outlined in the legislation the type of financial documents to which

government is privy.

Within the

section of the

legislation which references the authority to demand books and records, it

requires that the person is or may become a third party.

This language is ambiguous and must be revised to strengthen our

administrative position.

Whereas

terms such as books and records, among others, are clearly defined in the

legislation, the term third party is not defined in the act or regulations.

A plain language meaning is someone other than the taxpayer that is

involved in a transaction.

Another provision within the

act is named demand on third party and it refers to someone who is or is about

to become indebted to a taxpayer.

The

Interpretation Act says that

section titles are not law and so the implied

meaning of third party in this provision has no bearing on its meaning in the

production of books and records provision.

This amendment is removing the requirement that a person be a third party

to a taxpayer in order for the minister to demand books and records.

It is important to note for

both members in this hon. House and for those in the business community that

this amendment is not expanding the current authority of the minister; it is

simply clarifying the law with respect to the demands to produce books and

records. The books and records that

are being requested under the law have to be requested for the sole purpose of

administration and enforcement of the Revenue Administration Act.

As I mentioned before the act covers various taxes.

Records cannot be requested

for anything that is not related to provincial taxes under the act.

Simply put, the minister and the government has not been allowed under

the law, nor will they be granted under the law permission to request books or

records for a purpose other than in relation to administering and enforcing this

specific tax law.

The powers conferred by this

provision are consistent with and no broader than similar powers existing in the

Income Tax Act of Canada used by the Canada Revenue Agency in the administration

of corporate and individual income taxes.

To conclude, I would like to

reiterate that government has the definitive responsibility to ensure that the

provincial tax system is administered consistently and in accordance with the

law for the benefit of the people of the Province.

In order to accomplish this, amendments are needed from time to time to

ensure legislation is current, clear, and concise.

Our tax regimes will be

better for this. The amendments that

are proposed to the Revenue Administration Act will strengthen government's

ability to administer this legislation and protect valuable revenue for

citizens. That is it in a nutshell.

It is very simple but very important, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the District of Bay of

Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I listened to the minister

very intently and we had a briefing on it a phone call actually.

I thank the minister and her officials for that.

As the minister mentioned in her few words and in the phone call that we

had on the briefing, this is more housekeeping than any major changes to the act

itself.

A few things that we would

like to have on the record is that and to be sure of what the minister has

been saying and we concur, that this in no way gives the minister or the

government any more power under the act.

We want just to make the business people and the people out there

confident that this is not a grab by the government to try to get more powers.

This will keep the same

powers that the government has now.

It is also for the bank statements and books that are related to financials for

the company. I just wanted to put

that on the record also, in our conversation with the minister today.

As we all know in

government, and the minister stated today, routinely you go through acts.

You try to revise the acts and bring it up, take things out and add

things for more clarity. In this one

here, this is just adding clarity to the act.

This is not giving any extra powers to the government or to the minister.

This is just putting clarity in the act as we go through it.

I say to the minister, we

will support this. It is a

housekeeping matter. We just wanted

to be on the record that this is for administrative purposes only.

When you go and look at the books and you look at the bank records, it is

for the administration dealing with the companies.

We will be supporting this bill.

This will provide clarity for the act and for people who are reading the

act. It is not just for the

government and the officials in the Department of Finance.

It is for the individuals and companies that will fall under this act, to

ensure they have clarity also of what needs to be done.

We will be supporting this,

Minister. As I said, this is just

housekeeping. This is going through

the bills, and in this case here, saying that we need and there are other

sections. I think it is

section 11,

reference to third parties in

section 11 is unnecessary.

We are taking that out now for more clarity.

We will be supporting the

bill. This is just part of the

routine to clean up the bills to make sure that people have clarity when they

deal with the government. So,

Minister, we will be voting for this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Verge):

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East

Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed an honour to be

able to address this House as we look at a bill,

An Act to Amend the Revenue

Administration Act.

Mr. Speaker, as the minister

had mentioned, while this is a housekeeping amendment, it is still very

important. Because everything we do

in this House, every piece of legislation and any amendment has an impact on the

citizens we represent and, particularly, in how we govern and how we make sure

that the tax dollars that we use to govern and provide for programs and services

are accounted for. In this case,

this is a particular one also.

I had the privilege of being

with my colleagues, the Member for Lake Melville and the Member for Fortune Bay

Cape La Hune, and with some very competent bureaucrats who sat down and

explained not only that this was a minor housekeeping amendment, but the whole

intent of the act.

The intent of the act, Mr.

Speaker, as all of our acts, particularly under the Financial Administration

Act, is about accountability and making sure every dollar owed to the government

is owed properly and every dollar owed to the government is accessible; but at

the same time, representing the fact that we do not want to infringe on people's

rights. In this case, this is

exactly what it does. It makes sure

it clarifies for anybody dealing with government, particularly around audits,

particularly around financial information that may be necessary for the tax

auditors to be able to their job, to make sure it is legitimate when they get

it.

We do not want people out

there being confused or being threatened in any way.

This is the opposite. It

protects the citizens we deal with, but it also gives the officials the ability

to adequately deal with what needs to be done and to work with the individuals

and companies out there to say: Here is what is owed and here is what it is

based on. If you want to challenge

that, fair enough, but we have the documentation or we would like to proper

documentation, and we have done that here.

I am going to admit the

Member for Bay of Islands did note that.

This is in no way about giving government extra power or control over the

citizens. By far, it is the

opposite; it is clarifying. It is

specifically saying we will now deal with third-party individuals, but only

those relevant to an audit being done and only relevant to the information the

authority, in this case, the officials in the department, would actually need to

do the proper audit.

In this case, while it is

housekeeping, in talking to the officials, the officials have outlined any piece

of housekeeping cleans up what we are doing, makes it more coherent, makes it

more understandable, and puts it in layman's terms and plain ideas so the

average person who might phone in and say explain to me why you are trying to

access this piece of information, will be able to do it.

Tell me what impact it will have on my audit.

Tell me what impact it will have on determining how much money I owe.

In this case, they have very diligently done that.

We have passed hundreds of

pieces of legislation over a period of time here.

A lot of it is a lot of open debate.

Some of it is very controversial.

Some of it is in the best interests of particularly cleaning up the

wording. In this case, this is what

this is. We are just changing it to

make sure which is or may become a third party is moved from this piece of this

legislation and is replaced. The

understanding is now any third-party individual who deals with particular

companies or individuals who are being audited by government and needs

clarification on the piece of financial information, will particularly only deal

with what is relevant to this part of the act.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be

able to say we support this, and I support it personally.

I know my colleagues in the briefing with the questions we had, we now

understand exactly why this is an amendment that needed to be done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, am happy to stand

and speak to this bill and to take

part in saying yes to a piece of legislation

that will bring clarity to our Revenue Administration Act, because it is very

important that our legislation is clear, that there are no ambiguities in

legislation. I think what we have

here in front of us today is something that removes some ambiguity that was

there in the Revenue Administration Act with regard to the definition of a third

party as it relates to the act.

The bill would amend the act

respecting the persons from whom the minister may demand the production of

books and records for the administration and enforcement of the Act and the

regulations. It does relate

specifically to audits, and making it clear from who the minister may demand the

production of books and records is extremely important.

During the briefing the

bureaucrats did note, the officials who took

part in the briefing did note that

it was a minor housekeeping matter.

However, a question was asked in the briefing of whether or not it was related

to anything that was actually happening now, anything that was ongoing.

The official said to ask the minister.

The question was pressed on the official and the official was adamant

that we ask the minister with regard to that point.

Then, in Estimates, the

question was asked of the minister who noted that the amendment had implications

regarding an audit the Department of Finance has commissioned regarding Vale

sale of Voisey's ore. It is rather

interesting that this was pointed out by the minister in Estimates.

There is nothing wrong with that.

We have a particular audit that is happening and an audit that does

involve third parties, obviously, if it is an audit that is related to Vale sale

of ore. It is extremely important

that if there are third parties there, Mr. Speaker, third parties that have

papers that relate to this, it is important that government be able to get at

it.

Mr. Speaker, I am hearing

comments being made to me here, we were represented at the Estimates.

The person who was there representing me at Estimates reported to me what

was said, Mr. Speaker, at Estimates, as is the job of the person who was asked

to represent me there.

Mr. Speaker, I am reporting

what has been reported to me. I am

not saying this is a bad thing. I am

saying this is an example of where the clarity is needed.

Because if Vale, for example, is now being audited with regard to its

sale of ore, and it has to do with another party that was involved in buying the

ore, and there is something questionable there, then it is really important that

those doing the audit be able to get the papers from that third party.

This is an example, Mr.

Speaker, of how practical this piece of legislation is.

I think it is extremely important that this is here.

I think it is extremely important in a case of something like that, an

audit of one of the mining companies who are working in our Province, there be

no doubt the officials were able to access all the documentation, all the

papers, and everything that is available to be able to make sure the audit is

accurate, that the audit completely covers the issue, and that we get a full

answer in an audit.

This is something that

protects the taxpayers in the sense it protects the public purse.

It is a piece of legislation that will ensure due diligence is always

done with regard to the public purse, with regard to monies that are owed to the

government and therefore to the people of the Province, and with regard to those

who are doing business in our Province and who are gaining and that is fine,

they should gain from the work they do and from the exploitation of our

minerals, for example, if that is the case with a company.

We should also make sure we are getting everything we should be getting.

This piece of legislation

will ensure that kind of protection.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I obviously will be voting for it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

MR. RUSSELL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is an honour to stand in

my place here and speak for a few brief moments on this amendment, Mr. Speaker,

to this piece of legislation. It is

fitting that tax season is upon us and if my nan is watching at home today: Nan,

I will have your taxes done shortly.

This is certainly just

considered to be housekeeping, Mr. Speaker, but as the Member for Conception Bay

East Bell Island said, it is very important because we are duty bound in this

Legislature to make sure our legislation is the best it possibly can be.

If that means repealing a small subsection and adding in something that

protects taxpayers and protects us as the government getting our taxes, because

if people owe us money we obviously want that money, it is very important, as

the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island said.

Basically, what we have to

do is make sure if minor changes or amendments are made, we are doing what is in

the best interest of the people of the Province.

In this particular case, it is a matter of one small sentence being

removed, Mr. Speaker, but what that allows us to do is provide clarity, clarity

to anybody who is dealing with the government in a tax situation, clarity to

people who want to make sure if they have people representing them in a tax

situation, that our tax regime is the best that it can be and those people are

protected.

The bottom line here is I am

glad to see everybody stand up and say their piece on how they are going to be

supporting this amendment. Although

considered a housekeeping issue, it is important.

If there is anything that is certain in life, Mr. Speaker, it is death

and taxes. We want to make sure that

anybody paying their taxes is protected.

We want to make sure our legislation is the best for the people of the

Province.

I am going to stand in my

place and support this amendment.

Housekeeping as it is, Mr. Speaker, it is important to make sure that our tax

regime is the best that it is and our legislation is the best that it possibly

can be. With that, I will take my

seat.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

If the hon. the Minister of Finance speaks now,

she will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of

Finance.

MS JOHNSON:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly appreciate the

speakers who have spoken about this particular bill.

I thank the Opposition and the Leader of the Third Party for their

support. I thank the members on our

side of the House for speaking to this bill.

As we all know amendments

are needed from time to time. It is

only good that governments do review the legislation that they have to ensure

that it is up to date, but also to ensure that it is concise and that it is

clear and current, Mr. Speaker.

Again as we said, this is housekeeping but it is important that government has

the ability to administer the legislation.

It is also important that we protect the revenue that comes to the

Province because it is for the taxpayers of the Province.

As I said, this is

housekeeping, but important. I thank

all members for their support to this bill.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said

bill be now read a second time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, nay'.

Carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act.

(Bill 9)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a second time.

When shall the bill be

referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. KING:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

On motion, a bill,

An Act

To Amend The Revenue Administration Act, read a second time, ordered referred

to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.

(Bill 9)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At this time I move,

seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the

House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 6,

An Act To

Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St.

John's Act And The Municipalities Act, 1999, as well as Bill 9,

An Act To Amend

The Revenue Administration Act.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that the House resolve

itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 6 and Bill 9.

Is it the pleasure of the

House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the House

resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Littlejohn):

Order, please!

We are now considering Bill

9,

An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act.

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Revenue Administration Act. (Bill 9)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative

Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR:

Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause

carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act.

CHAIR:

Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, nay'.

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee

report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

We are now considering Bill

6,

An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City

of St. John's Act And The Municipalities Act, 1999.

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City of St. John's

Act And The Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 6)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Bay

of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am just going to stand and

have a few words on this bill. As we

can see, there are some good things in this bill.

One, is allowing people as we all know, there are a lot of volunteers

in Newfoundland and Labrador who sit on the council.

We know that there are a lot of people in Newfoundland and Labrador who

travel away for work. It is a part

of it that when they are away for work, they would love to be able to still

participate in the council meetings and have decisions instead of having to be

absent or not partake.

In this section, Mr. Chair,

in this part of the bill, I agree, because I know people who are on councils who

do travel away, who still want to participate and still want to, when they make

a decision, to know the facts and be able to help their towns.

So, Mr. Chair, in that aspect and that part of the bill again, I am

sure the minister will outline, and he probably already did, how long this can

go on that this person still has to remain a resident in the town.

It is my understanding it is up to the town to set the parameters of the

meetings.

My only question to the

minister and to the government on this: Is it better to have set parameters for

all the towns so that you can have it set so every town would be uniform?

Once you say, okay, you can set a set of rules, you can set a set of

rules, you can set a set, you can see the confusion.

People would always be saying: Well, we are doing it over here, why can't

we do it here? or, they are doing, so we should be able to do it.

That is just something the

minister could speak on when he stands.

If we can set the rules, if it is for three meetings, four meetings, up

to six months. Somehow, that when

you have to (inaudible) municipalities.

I heard someone mention the other day about municipalities, they are

responsible and they are responsible.

They are very responsible.

I just think anything that

we could put in to avoid confusion and avoid conflict among municipalities, we

should do it. If there is some way

to put it in regulations about that, so they would be uniform all across the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I think we should.

I am not sure what

consultations you had with MNL or what consultations you had with these towns, I

am sure the minister could mention that.

If you look under the Municipalities Act, once you get into the

Municipalities Act, it is for all the municipalities in the Province; yet, we

are going to bring in legislation where municipalities can have their own

discretion. I am not saying it is a

bad thing, I am not saying it is a good thing.

I just do not know the justification why it is done that way.

The second part of the bill,

Mr. Chair I will probably have a few words later after the minister speaks,

and I think there are a few of my colleagues who are going to speak on this also

is about selection of youth. Mr.

Chair, at no time does anybody on this side of the House think that you should

not participate in a democratic process at no time, absolutely no time.

I heard it mentioned when

they brought up some of the parameters: well, you can appoint someone who is

young. People say, well, you have

more responsibility than councils.

Mr. Chair, we are trying to avoid any potential problems.

That is our goal.

When you bring in a piece of

legislation in this House, as the Official Opposition it is our role to take the

legislation, go through the legislation, pass on concerns to government so we

could strengthen the legislation.

That is the goal.

There is no one on this side

of the House in the Official Opposition, ever in my presence, ever question the

integrity of a town council across this Province, and I am sure the members

opposite also. This is not just us,

all the members. I know a lot of

members opposite served on town councils, and I give you credit for that.

I give everybody credit, but when we raise a concern here it is not to be

facetious. It is not to try to

embarrass anybody. It is to try to

strengthen the legislation.

When you say, well, you

could pick someone under eighteen years of age at the time of the appointment, I

agree with having youth involved. I

agree. I was vice-president of our

school council when I was sixteen-years-old, so I know the political process.

I understand the democratic process.

I understand that.

I look for youth to be

involved, but some way we have to ensure that the legislation is put in place so

that it cannot be abused and people's rights are protected.

When you see the regulations on this and the legislation to appoint

someone, I am sure some of the councils will appoint youth, and they will do it

in a responsible way. Absolutely,

they will do it in a responsible way.

Mr. Chair, what we have to

be aware of and we all do it here.

We all signed the Oath of Confidentiality that if we have private information

about somebody, we cannot go out and talk about it.

We all agree to that and we all understand that.

My question, how are the rights of citizens going to be protected if

there is someone there who is not elected, who is appointed?

I am assuming they do not: Will they have access to confidential

information? I am assuming they do

not.

What protections are in the

regulations to prevent town councils it is only Johnny, Johnny will not say

anything. What regulations and what

penalties are in place if that ever happens?

I am not saying it will. I am

definitely not saying there would be irresponsible town councils out there, but

it may happen.

We, as an Opposition, feel

confident that there should be some kind of regulation put in place to protect

it as much as we can. Bringing youth

into the democratic process, we all agree.

Absolutely, we all agree.

Bringing youth into the democratic process, but to ensure the safety, the

privilege, and the confidentiality of people who are living in those towns is

paramount for all of us in this Legislature.

I am not sure what

regulations are put in place. I am

not sure what safeguards are put in place.

The minister, I am sure, will talk about that, Mr. Chair, when we speak

on it. That is what we have to

safeguard about.

Mr. Chair, I will close in a

few minutes because I know there are members opposite here.

I am assuming I am speaking on behalf of the Opposition, I am very

confident that the minister spoke to MNL.

I am assuming, and the minister can stand, MNL has voted and agreed to

appointing someone eighteen years old.

I am sure the minister spoke

to MNL. I am sure MNL has endorsed this

100 per cent. I am sure MNL either

passed it at a board meeting or an executive meeting somehow that we support

this. We stand in this House every

day and say we should consult with the group that is affected.

We should consult, we should get their concurrence.

I am confident the minister

did do that. I am confident the

minister does have something that he can stand up and say yes, I will table the

letter from MNL, I will table the minutes of the meeting from MNL that, yes, we

concur, we were consulted. We were

asked about this, we gave our input.

Not only did we give our input is that we said okay, here are some things that

should come around it.

Mr. Chair, I may stand

again, but I am willing to bet here in this House of Assembly that the minister

would not bring in a bill in this House of Assembly without having the

concurrence, full support, and a letter of Municipalities Newfoundland and

Labrador.

That is why when I see that

MNL concurs with this because I am sure when MNL and when you know the people

at MNL and

AN HON. MEMBER:

It was a prior resolution in this House.

MR. JOYCE:

Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER:

It was a prior resolution.

MR. JOYCE:

They may have had a resolution or they may have

had an executive meeting that approved it.

I am sure the minister will table that also, that resolution.

Mr. Chair, I can assure you if the government opposite is saying that we

have to consult, we are open, we have to be part of all the groups that we

represent, I am confident that it was done.

The Minister Responsible for

Public Engagement, I am sure he could even put the letter or put the minutes of

the meeting that MNL sent the minister or the letter, I am sure you could put it

on the Web site so we all can see it.

When we go back to our municipalities and we say how can we vote against

this, how can we talk about this, MNL supported it.

Mr. Chair, I feel very confident that we will have that; and, once we get

that, then we can carry on with the discussion a bit more.

I will sit down.

I see my time is up now, Mr. Chair.

I am sure there is members on this side also who would like to speak

about that. We are all going to have

a few words on that.

I just ask the minister: Do

you have the concurrence from MNL? I

am not sure of the meetings that you had, the discussions that you had, because

if I go back to the City of Corner Brook and say you may appointment someone

eighteen-years-old, you may go ahead and appointment them, you may bring them

into a meeting

AN HON. MEMBER:

Under eighteen.

MR. JOYCE:

Under eighteen-years-old they have to be under

eighteen. If I go back and they say:

What are you talking about? I say:

Well, MNL, your governing body went ahead and approved this.

Mr. Chair, I am confident we have it.

I am confident the minister does have it.

If we do not have it, I think we should take this bill, put it aside,

have discussions with MNL and bring it back at a later date; but if the minister

has it, no problem because that is the governing body and if that is what they

want they are the ones that know what is best for their municipalities; they

are the ones in consultation with the towns

MR. BENNETT:

They are elected (inaudible).

MR. JOYCE:

They are the ones who are elected in the towns.

That is right, I say to the Member for St. Barbe; they are elected in

their towns. They know what they

want. They are representing the

municipalities that are being affected here, Mr. Chair.

So they are in consultation with their towns on a regular basis.

They are going and saying here is what we would like to bring forward;

here is what we agreed to, and here is what we want.

So, I ask the minister to

table that so we can all, with a clear conscience, say we support MNL.

We concur with MNL. We had

discussions with MNL. We have a

motion from MNL saying that yes, we agree with this and we think this should be

brought forward.

I am sure there are other

members, so I will sit and let the minister answer some of those questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the Member for Bay

of Islands for his contribution to the process here today.

I had no doubt that he would participate in this debate and have some

things to say. I appreciate his

constructive comments.

I was pleased to hear him

acknowledge that there are some good things in the bill.

I certainly agree. I want to

address several of the points that he has raised here today and I look forward

to hearing from other members opposite, as well.

He raised the question of

whether it is better to have concrete parameters set and really clear, specific

guidelines. I understand his

concern. It was raised by other

members during the course of debate yesterday, as well.

What I can assure him and what I can assure members opposite and all

members of the House is that, as a department, we will provide very clear

guidelines and we will provide best practices and we will provide lots of

support, orientation, and training to make sure those parameters are available

and there is lots of guidance and support available to communities that want to

pursue either of these options we are creating.

They are options.

We recognize many of our communities are

unique. They are all unique.

We also know municipalities in the Province are very concerned about the

fact that their legislation is very prescriptive.

What we are doing here is creating a couple of enabling provisions.

We are not forcing anybody to do either of these things.

We are not forcing any community to allow people to participate in

meetings electronically. We are not

requiring anybody to appoint a youth representative in their community should

they not with to do so. We are

simply creating options; we are creating flexibility.

I think they are provisions communities will be interested in exploring.

Regarding the issue related

to youth, it is much the same. We

will provide lots of guidance; we will provide lots of support.

The member is correct that the intention is not that youth

representatives will participate in privileged meetings or Committee of the

Whole. The intent is they would have

an opportunity to participate in public debate and in public discussion in the

council chamber.

We have to respect the

democratic process. These young

people will not be able to vote.

They are not elected to vote.

Therefore, they would not be participating in that portion of the public

process, nor would they participate in privileged meetings.

To the issue of

consultation, as I am sure the member is aware, we have had discussions with MNL

and MNL is not in complete support of everything that is in this bill.

We first consulted with Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador in 2012

on this when changes were first being explored.

Officials in my department met with staff of MNL to discuss potential

amendments. No concerns about either

provision were raised at the time and we would have expected they would have

been at the time, and that was the express purpose for engaging them early in

the process.

Mr. Chair, I can tell you I

have great respect for the folks at Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador.

I consult with Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador on lots of

issues. They are a critical

stakeholder for my department. We do

not always agree. We will not always

agree, but we have a good working relationship.

Knowing there are questions and concerns related to the youth provision

specifically, I have offered to meet with the board of directors of MNL, and

that is being scheduled, to further explore the issue.

I really believe through the guidelines and through the support, the

advice, and the training we will provide, we will be able to address those

concerns.

The good news is, and I

sense from the members' comments as well, we all agree on the importance of

engaging young people; it is just a question of how to do it, and that can vary

from community to community. We do

not want to be prescriptive. We want

to give communities options. This is

just another tool in the toolbox, as I said yesterday.

When the original

legislation was placed on the Order Paper back in the fall some concerns were

expressed and they were similar to some of the points that were raised in the

debate yesterday. I feel we have

adequately addressed those concerns and we clarified, for instance, in terms of

other groups like seniors or persons with disabilities.

They already have the ability to run for council or sit as elected

members, so they would not necessarily need special seats on councils, of

course.

Anyway, I look forward to

ongoing dialogue with all our stakeholders.

We have consulted with youth organizations as well and there are a number

of youth organizations that are very excited about the possibilities here.

I acknowledge the concerns

of members opposite. I acknowledge

the concerns of MNL. I look forward

to further discussions. The key

point I wish to reiterate is we are not forcing anybody to do anything; we are

simply creating some options that are going to be available to our 276

municipalities.

I hope we are going to do

more of that, Mr. Chair, because I believe we need legislative reform.

We need to look at the Municipalities Act.

We need to look at the cities acts.

We need to look at the Urban and Rural Planning Act.

There are changes needed and I hope in the future our legislation for

municipalities will be more enabling.

This is, I believe, a step in the right direction.

I hope that addresses some

of the point the member raises and, again, I thank him for his participation in

the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will just stand again.

I just want it to be on the record.

If MNL does not agree with this, why is the government bringing something

forth that the governing body of all municipalities in the Province is not in

agreement with? Would it not be more

common sense and would it not be a more rational approach to say let us just

take this off the table?

Let us just split this bill

so we can bring the parts in that everybody agrees with, MNL also, the

Opposition agrees with the Third Party can speak for themselves and the

government agrees with about allowing town councillors, the people in

municipalities who serve on the town councils free of their own time, I might

add. A lot of them do this because

they want to give something back to their towns.

We are enabling those town councillors to participate in municipal

events, vote on things, get full information, and I think we all agree with

that. We all agree we should make

accommodations because a lot of Newfoundlanders do go away to work and may miss

a meeting. They can go on

teleconference, Skype, FaceTime, whatever other means that they can have and

whatever is approved by the town council.

I ask the minister: Why

would someone bring this part of the legislation in about picking someone under

eighteen and just say okay, here, you are on the town council now and you are

going to sit there as advisory, without the full concurrence, without the full

consultation, and without the full approval of MNL who oversees, who is the

umbrella?

Mr. Chair, you take yourself

when you were a mayor out in the town.

You would go to MNL and say: Okay, here is what we want; MNL will speak

on your behalf. In this case, the

minister is saying: Yes, they do not agree with it, I never had full

consultations with them, yet we are going to go ahead with it anyway.

Now, most municipalities

would like to be consulted. Most

municipalities would like to say we do not want that, and hopefully but not in

this case government would listen.

So, MNL, in my opinion now I have not spoken with MNL on this, I have to say.

I was shocked when I heard the minister say he did not come out totally

and say yes, MNL is in full concurrence.

I assumed that he would stand up and say that, but obviously he never.

So, Mr. Chair, I am very

confident and I never spoke to MNL that MNL are looking at some issues that

can arise out of this that can cause a lot of problems for the towns, that they

will have to deal with, that their municipalities, their town councillors, their

mayors will have to deal with in the future.

I would assume that is why they are saying: No, we are not in total

concurrence with this. So, I do not

know if the minister wants to delay this bill until he has time to consult with

MNL so we can try