June

22, 2010 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 41

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today the Chair welcomes the following members' statements:

the hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port, the hon. the Member for

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

Bonavista North.

The hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House of Assembly to

congratulate the 708 Stephenville Biathlon Female team: Tamara Head, Sabrina

Muise and Hannah Stokes, for winning the Provincial Cadet Biathlon Championship

in January of this year, which led to representing the Province in the National

Cadet Biathlon Championship in Valcartier, Quebec in March 2010.

Mr. Speaker, the 708 Air Cadet Squadron has a history of producing

competitive biathletes and this year was no exception. The female team won the

gold in the provincial cadet biathlon championship earning them the right to

represent the Province nationally, with Tamara and Hannah also winning

individual gold medals in their respective age groups.

In Quebec, the 708 biathlon team won two silver medals, one for the female

team relay race and the other for the female patrol race in March. It was very

competitive at the national level with representation from ten provinces and

three territories, with some biathlon teams having twenty-four members. The 708

Stephenville Female Biathlon team with its performance proved itself to be a

force to be reckoned with. The months of training, discipline and hard work were

well rewarded.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members of the House of Assembly to join with me

in congratulating Tamara Head, Sabrina Muise and Hannah Stokes for earning gold

and silver medals at both the provincial and national levels in the Cadet

Biathlon Championships this year and in wishing the 708 Air Cadet Squadron

continued success with their Biathlon teams.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate and recognize a young

resident of Mount Pearl and recently named Male Youth of the Year, Brian Peach.

Brian is a role model for all youth in Mount Pearl. Not only has he been

named Male Youth of the Year, he has also been awarded the Memorial University

of Newfoundland Alumni Entrance Scholarship valued at $25,000 and was successful

in winning the Rotary Club of St. John's Northwest "Adventure in Citizenship

Speak Off earlier this year. For his efforts, Brian received a trip to Ottawa

along with 200 other Canadian youth.

Brian graduates this year from O'Donel High School and will attend Memorial

University here in the capital city. I have no doubt that his successes in his

secondary studies will follow him to Memorial.

To add to this very impressive list of accomplishments, Brian has been named

the winner of the Wendy's Crew Classic Achiever Scholarship, which will be

presented at O'Donel's closing ceremonies. He also placed first in the Blundon

Institute Provincial Competition at MUN and has most recently been awarded

The Telegram's 2010 Award of Excellence.

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

Brian Peach on all of his accomplishments thus far and wish him all the best as

he begins his post secondary studies in the fall. I am certain we will be

hearing of future achievements for Brian Peach in the years to come.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, individuals who dedicate their time, energy,

and spirit to the development of opportunities for the youth of our Province are

certainly worthy of our recognition and appreciation. Today, I stand in this

House to acknowledge the efforts of one such individual.

On Friday, June 4, Mr. Gerald Wheeler of Musgrave Harbour was honoured at the

School Sports Newfoundland and Labrador Annual Awards Banquet for his dedication

and commitment to the youth of our Province. Mr. Wheeler was presented with the

Honour Award, the highest award given by School Sports Newfoundland and

Labrador. The award is reserved for individuals who contribute to school sports

in a variety of ways over an extended period of time.

For the past thirty-one years Mr. Wheeler has served in almost every capacity

with School Sports Newfoundland and Labrador including Zone President, Vice

President, and Regional Director. He attended his first AGM in 1978-1979, and

still sits today as a member of the Board of Directors. He has represented the

Province four times at the Canada Games as an athlete, coach, and as a member of

the mission staff. He has served on many district and provincial committees for

physical education curriculum development and throughout his tenure as a

volleyball coach at Gill Memorial, his teams have won ten provincial titles and

two team sportsmanship banners.

For more than three decades Mr. Wheeler has had a positive and lasting impact

on the youth of our Province. The time he has spent unselfishly giving, and the

care he has shown for the young people in the Musgrave Harbour area, certainly

makes him a role model who is worthy of our recognition and appreciation.

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

congratulating Mr. Gerald Wheeler on receiving the Honour Award and to thank him

for his continued contributions to the youth of our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, research, innovation, and advances in technology touch all areas

of our lives, and every sector of our economy. Whether it is fisher people

seeking new ways to maximize their catch or farmers identifying a better means

of growing crops, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are no strangers to using

innovation to advance their objectives. In recent years, a progressive business

community has forged the Province to the forefront of many exciting industries

we are leaders in ocean technology, in energy, and in genetics research.

To foster continued excellence within our local industries, the provincial

government is aggressively implementing its provincial innovation strategy,

entitled, Innovation Newfoundland and Labrador: A Blueprint for Prosperity.

A central component of the innovation strategy was to engage the Province's

youth and capture their interest in science, engineering and technology. To make

the gains that we envision for the Province, connecting today's youth to the

opportunities that exist in science, technology, and engineering is paramount.

An important step in achieving this goal was made in December 2009 with the

commencement of twenty-one projects in schools and organizations across all

regions of the Province, totalling more than $460,000.

As the academic school year nears its end, many of the projects have been

completed. I am pleased to report that the projects have been highly successful

and created valuable learning experiences for our students. For example, Women

in Science and Engineering held workshops involving activities to foster closer

relations with several Labrador communities and to initiate mentoring of young

Aboriginal women.

In Harbour Grace, St. Francis School launched SMART Schools Sharing Space

an on-line initiative intended to inspire students to become involved in science

and technology projects while developing problem-solving skills. Students also

make valuable connections with the Canadian Space Agency and their peers in

Grand Falls-Windsor.

I personally, Mr. Speaker, had the opportunity to attend St. Matthew's

Elementary Energy Fair. Upon entering the fair, I was immediately engulfed by

projects extending from the gym out through the corridors, as well was engulfed

by many enthusiastic students. Their enthusiasm was unmistakable as they turned

static materials into innovative applications such as a solar powered oven

called the Shake and Bake and calculators that were operated by a mini wind

turbine.

Mr. Speaker, our investment was well served as students across the Province

were exposed to how science, technology and engineering can be fun and how it

also a part of their daily lives.

I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the important role

that the teachers and the project administrators had in this valuable

initiative, and thank them for their support and their leadership.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

Certainly, it is hard to argue with the idea that innovation is good.

Innovation is a process of translating knowledge into economic growth and social

well-being. Yet, lots of times it does not really come from government money or

programs or bureaucrats or whatever, but it really comes from the individuals

who are involved in the innovation itself. It sounds new and complicated, but

really I guess it is not, innovation comes from looking at new ways of filling

an existing need and so on. It is a very old idea; yet, the newest part of it is

the name.

It is good government policy to capture student interest in science, but I

believe it is more important to make sure that science is taught properly. It is

good government policy to encourage schools to develop on-line science and

technology initiatives and so on. Yet, the government investment represented by

these and other projects have to be able to be weighed, quantified and measured

so that we know that we are getting the success that we are looking for there

because without weighing, quantifying or measuring the results, then we really

do not know that is really what the results are, what science is all about, I

should say.

So, again, it is good to see the success in the schools that are mentioned in

this statement and it is nice to be able to speak to it this afternoon.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

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

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

These were great projects that ITRD has funded, and I am really glad to hear

that they have taken place. Groups like Women in Science and Engineering and, of

course, many of our high schools have over the years shown how creative they can

be and the ideas they come up with in encouraging young people to get involved

in science and technology. Of course, with WISE, which is based at Memorial

University, it is a group that is particularly concerned about getting young

women into science and technology.

So, it is good that government is putting money into these projects,

recognizing the creativity out there in the community and in our schools and

supporting them with the money as they have done this time. I hope that this is

something that is going to continue, that it is a program that will continue.

One of the ways to retain our skilled workers, especially our young people, will

be by giving them these types of opportunities while they are in the educational

system.

I was interested in some of the projects, particularly the two at St.

Matthew's school, and I hope that the government will learn from these

innovative, energy-based projects that were done by the St. Matthew's students.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform hon. members of the

progress that we are making to execute on a significant industrial benefits

agreement that our government negotiated as part of the acquisition of the four

new water bombers from Bombardier Aerospace announced last year in October. Our

colleague, the Minister of Transportation, announced the arrival of the first

one. I think it was in April.

The agreement with Bombardier maximizes the return to the Province from the

water bomber procurement. It sets out commitments for industrial benefits worth

some $30 million and generating a minimum target of 200,000 person hours of

direct employment in Newfoundland and Labrador. These benefits will be realized

through the awarding of direct contracts to Newfoundland and Labrador firms to

supply services or products to Bombardier and its partners, and through the

company supporting initiatives, such as the targeted education and training that

build capacity in our Province's aerospace and defence industry.

Mr. Speaker, our businesses have already tapped into Bombardier supply

opportunities. Provincial Aerospace, for example, is modifying aircraft on

behalf of Bombardier for a key international customer of theirs.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that we are building on those

achievements to date and advancing other initiatives under this agreement.

The next of these activities is happening on June 24, when Bombardier, in

partnership with the Department of Business, will host a suppler forum here in

St. John's. This will be a unique opportunity for a number of Newfoundland and

Labrador companies to gain direct information on how they might access the

contracts and add value to Bombardier's extensive supply network.

The companies attending will receive an overview of Bombardier's supply chain

and the procurement requirements, as well as a profile of activity and

opportunities in Newfoundland and Labrador's vibrant aerospace and defence

sector. In addition, Bombardier will hold several one-on-one meetings with local

firms to explore potential business partnerships. This will allow Bombardier to

scope the capabilities of Newfoundland and Labrador companies, which can help

identify potential opportunities for them to do business with their company.

Mr. Speaker, this is a tangible and a productive early step in the agreement

with Bombardier. We anticipate that through our ongoing work, additional

initiatives will be developed in the near future, and that future benefits to

businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador will play a role in further elevating

our aerospace and defence industry. The progress being made under this agreement

is another example of our government's commitment to supporting business

development in the Province, and ensuring that the maximum economic benefits are

achieved from investments and initiatives that we undertake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

It is indeed good to see any opportunity that comes to this Province which

allow our industries to take advantage of new work and new contract

opportunities. Particularly, people who have sometimes a tough time getting

started in the aerospace industry in this Province - going back to 1999-2000,

for example, when they first started up in Gander. This is an opportunity for

people like that and provincial airways, for example, to take advantage of these

opportunities. All the best to them.

Hopefully, the benefits will materialize, as we thought they would. This

contract was sometimes in doubt. It was announced back in the Budget,

originally, of 2008-2009, got put on the back burner last April in 2009, because

of some difficulties, I would think, in arriving at an actual contract, plus the

global circumstances that Bombardier were facing. So, it is good to see that it

got back on track.

We would certainly encourage all businesses in this Province who might in any

way be able to benefit from partaking in this business opportunity, that they

attend the summit that is taking place. Also, educate themselves, of course,

participate, and hopefully at the end of the day profit and grow their

industries as a result of it.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

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

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement, and echo

the words of the Opposition House Leader in that it is good to see that things

are up and running because we have heard about the contract with Bombardier over

a two-year period. So, it is good to know that things are moving ahead.

I am interested in the partnership. It is a contract, obviously, between the

department, the government and Bombardier. I would hope that the partnership

does not see government offering money to Bombardier to do the work that it is

doing. I know in a contract there were gives and takes on both sides. I hope

this is a partnership where Bombardier is holding its own when it comes to

putting money into these forums, et cetera, that the minister has spoken about

because certainly, Bombardier does not need help from us, the company that it

is, but the partnership is a good one. I look forward to receiving, of course,

from the minister, of the benefits that do come from what is being set up

through the forum and the one-on-one meetings that Bombardier will be having

with companies in the Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, we have been receiving a number of complaints related to delays

in receiving heart surgery in this Province. The most recent incident involves

an individual who has been waiting for emergency surgery for six weeks. Each

time he was scheduled for surgery it has been cancelled at the last minute. He

was even sedated last week when he was advised that the surgery would not take

place. The family has been told that these delays are as a result of the lack of

beds in the intensive care unit.

I ask the minister: Is, in fact, a lack of intensive care beds at the Health

Sciences Centre resulting in cancellation of life-saving heart surgeries?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, one of the areas in which we are doing well in terms of wait

times is cardiac by-pass surgery. Last week, in the Wait Times Alliance report,

there were a couple of areas that we were not doing so well in, but, Mr.

Speaker, what happens, it is my understanding that we try to have the surgeries

completed within the benchmark of 180 days. What will happen is that individuals

are called in, their surgery is scheduled but it may be postponed based on other

more critical surgeries that need to done, whether emergencies arise and the

number of beds available.

Mr. Speaker, I will say however, that in terms of the cardiac surgeries that

we have, the 182 day benchmark, we are certainly reaching our target in that

area and that there are certain influences that result in surgeries being

delayed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the only incident that has been brought to our

attention over the past couple of weeks. It appears that this is becoming a

trend and will become an even bigger problem now that summer hours have started

and heart surgeries will be reduced from four to two per day. Doctors are

frustrated but they have little recourse available to them.

I ask the minister: What is being done to address this growing problem and

ensure that individuals needing this surgery receive it in a timely manner?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Currently, the Province has three full-time cardiac surgeons who perform all

of the cardiac surgeries in the Province. They do it at the Health Sciences

Centre.

Mr. Speaker, for example, I can give you some of the reasons why there have

been, what I will refer to as same-day cancellations over the last period of

time. The hon. member is right, that there were forty-one cancelled due to there

being no ICU bed available. Three of them were cancelled due to no bed being

available on one of the units. Some were cancelled, Mr. Speaker, on the basis

that the first surgical case of the day was too long. One was cancelled due to a

patient refusing surgery. Thirteen were cancelled due to no available ICU staff,

and five were cancelled due to a patient's condition.

So, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of factors that contribute to these

same-day surgeries being cancelled. It is an issue that is certainly being

looked at. I have discussed it with my officials and we are trying to determine

what can be done to ensure that individuals who are coming in to have their

surgery done can have it done on the date scheduled.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the minister talked about wait times and how we are doing pretty

good reaching targets when it comes to cardiac surgery. Well, Mr. Speaker,

having the minister talk about wait times does nothing to help these families

who require immediate surgery.

In light of the fact that these problems will only get worse in the coming

months when we are on summer hours, I ask the minister: Do you have a plan to

ensure that people who need this immediate attention will get such in a timely

fashion, and is government prepared to look at or are you looking at sending

people out of the Province if necessary to address this urgent need?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The department has recently received correspondence from Eastern Health with

regard to the funding of two new cardiac surgeons who have been recruited to

replace two of the existing surgeons who will be retiring over the next few

years.

Mr. Speaker, there is a process, I understand, that takes place once a

diagnosis of coronary artery diagnosis has been confirmed. The patients are

referred to a review committee. Then, Mr. Speaker, the treatment options are

discussed and a decision is made regarding surgery, and a surgical list of

patients is prioritized. The national benchmark that is set, Mr. Speaker, is one

that we try to certainly comply with and we have been complying with that.

However, I do accept what the member opposite is saying, that there are

difficulties; that someone who is waiting to receive surgery is told that it is

going to be cancelled that same day. There is certainly an anxiety there, there

is no question about that, Mr. Speaker, and we will continuously look at new

ways to deal with this. In fact, as of Friday last week, I met with a number of

officials in my department, told them I was not satisfied with the progress we

were making on wait times and I wanted to see further progress and new ideas

brought forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I guess we are no further ahead if we

have two coming to replace the two that are leaving. It is pretty well the

status quo, and that, again, does not give much comfort to those who need the

surgery.

Mr. Speaker, the Wait Time Alliance is comprised of fourteen

Canadian medical specialty societies. Last week they released their report card

on wait times in Canada in which this Province fared very poorly. One of the

issues identified by the alliance is the failure to update wait time data for

more than a six month period. They classified this lack of data as a worrisome

trend.

I ask the minister: Why is your government one of two in

Canada that is failing to update key wait time data figures in a timely fashion?

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

Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I read the Wait Times Alliance report closely and I can

indicate to the member opposite that the issue of the Web site will be rectified

as soon as possible. Mr. Speaker, that also the updating of information is

something that will be - further emphasises will be placed upon.

Mr. Speaker, in Budget 2010 we outlined a number of ways to

reduce wait times in terms of investments of money. Such as, Mr. Speaker,

increasing the number of operating rooms, $1.1 million; $348,000 to help reduce

CT wait times; $150,000 for two new speech pathologists. Mr. Speaker, we have

invested money to operate the MRI services in Central Newfoundland; a $1.15

million to enhance surgical services at Western Memorial Hospital.

So, we invested for this year, Mr. Speaker, $4.7 million in

reducing wait times. There is obvious there is other work that has to be done.

As I indicated on Friday past, I had my officials together, indicated that there

will be a committee put in place within the department, a special division to

address the wait times issues; that whatever resources were required by that

division will be provided to them and that we will continue to address this very

serious issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I guess notwithstanding the investments, we

still fare very, very poorly on the report card. We have a lot left to do.

Mr. Speaker, every day we receive phone calls from

individuals who are very concerned with the amount of time it takes to receive

their treatments and surgeries. Unfortunately, as confirmed by the alliance in

their report, it is very difficult to get information from this government.

I ask the minister: What actions will you now take from this

report to ensure your department's lack of accountability to the people of this

Province when it comes to reporting and reducing the wait times?

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

Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, all of the e-mails that are

sent to my e-mail address come through. None are filtered out, and I can tell

you that a lot of them deal with wait times.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, the frustration, the anxiety, the stress of

waiting to have a surgical procedure performed, but, Mr. Speaker, the situation

is not as dire as the hon. member opposite would have us believe. For example,

in hip and knee replacement where we fared very poorly, in Central Health they

were 94.7 per cent and 89.7 per cent; Western Health, 100 per cent on hips and

93.3 per cent on knees; in Eastern Health we ran into a problem.

Also, I understand, Mr. Speaker, that in Lab-Grenfell the numbers are

suppressed in that we do not have enough surgeries being performed. That is an

issue I am going to have to ask Lab-Grenfell to look at considering we have four

general surgeons in St. Anthony, and apparently, we also have a hip and knee

surgeon. So certainly, we have to look at all of these issues and determine what

is going on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Let's talk about some of the areas that government does report on. Mr.

Speaker, every quarter, this government puts out a press release trying to

convince people that they have a handle on wait times in this Province for

health procedures. The problem with this approach, as identified in this report,

is that the Province only highlights five priority areas, a far cry from the

hundreds of complex procedures offered in our health care system. The alliance

feels that this reporting must be expanded to include other areas beyond these

five priority areas.

I ask the minister: Why doesn't this government report on other areas to

ensure that we receive a true picture and that a true picture is given on the

entire health care system in this Province, rather than the five areas that you

highlight?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is my understanding that the Wait Time Alliance was formed in 2004 and it

is consortium of fourteen national medical speciality societies and the Canadian

Medical Association. The Wait Time Alliance's goal, Mr. Speaker, is to improve

wait times in five priority benchmarked areas, being: radiation, cardiac bypass,

cataracts, diagnostics, and hip and knee replacement.

So, in addition to the national benchmarks which are set, Mr. Speaker, they

have also established consensus-based wait time targets in the following areas,

such as: obstetrics, gynaecology, emergency gastroenterology, et cetera.

Mr. Speaker, the ministers get together, and the federal government, a number

of years ago, said we will provide money, you have to deal with certain what

wait times are you going to address as a priority. In this particular Province,

Mr. Speaker, and you remember earlier this year we signed an agreement with the

other provinces if we could not reach the benchmarks in radiation therapy that

we would send people outside of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, what we have here

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Paediatric Surgical Wait Times Project show that,

on average, one-third of children receive surgery past acceptable wait times.

The report states, and I quote, "delays beyond critical times during a child's

development may result in a lifelong disability."

I ask the minister: What is this government doing to address these

unacceptable wait times in this Province in paediatric surgery?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think if the hon. member had read the

report closer he would see that a lot of the criticism in relation to these wait

times are outside the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the paediatric

section of the report highlights that 73 per cent

of children in this country receive surgery within the benchmarks set by the

paediatric group; so that is a B grade. There are more than 17,000 waiting

longer, Mr. Speaker.

In this Province, it is not an issue here with some of these surgeries,

because they undergo surgical treatment - and there are no children currently

waiting for either strabismus, which is wandering eye, or cleft lip-palate.

There is no one waiting at this point in time for either of these procedures at

the Janeway Hospital. So, Mr. Speaker, we are certainly doing well on the

paediatric side, and the issues highlighted are certainly serious, but seem to

be a bigger problem in the rest of the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I say to the minister, I did read the report and read it very carefully.

Actually, the more you read it, the scarier it gets when it comes to some of

these procedures in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, on June 8, we questioned the Minister of Environment relating to

infrastructure in Placentia Bay to deal with oil spills, including tugboat

services that would be required. The minister did not seem to have any

information at that time, or interested enough to challenge the federal

government on their oil spill response preparedness and the infrastructure

needed to react to a spill. We learned last evening, through a CBC story, that

Transport Canada actually relaxed the rules related to tugboat services in

Placentia Bay in April of this year. The FFAW has expressed concern as to what

this could mean in the event of a spill.

I ask the minister: Were you aware of these changes, and if so, why did you

not advise the House of Assembly of that information when you were questioned in

this House three weeks ago?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a concern of ours. Anything that happens in

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly in Placentia Bay for the

fisherpeople and the people who live in and around it, certainly is a concern of

ours.

Mr. Speaker, when I did hear this, I put a call in to the federal Minister of

Transport Canada. They have graciously accepted to take a call from us tomorrow.

They are very receptive to the concerns we have, and I will be speaking with

them on this tomorrow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Over the past several weeks, we have seen the damage that can occur when a

major oil spill takes place. Placentia Bay has been identified as the most

likely place in Canada for an oil spill to take place, and it is predicted that

an oil spill in the range of 10,000 barrels will likely occur there within the

next thirty years.

I ask the minister: In light of these concerning statistics, why would any

changes be allowed that would weaken the oil response in Placentia Bay; and why

have you not been involved in this prior to now when somebody brings it to your

attention?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are very involved. Of course, the Department of Environment

and Conservation and the Department of Natural Resources are very involved in

this. As the hon. member opposite would know, the Minister of Natural Resources

and government commissioned Captain Mark Turner to do a complete review;

included in that review will be Placentia Bay.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in the House before, we also participate on REET,

which is the Regional Environmental Emergencies Team, and that is a very

comprehensive team. There is a lot of information sharing that happens there.

Certainly, if anything should happen, we would be on the ground to help out in

any way possible we can.

The key, Mr. Speaker, is prevention. I have had discussions with the Coast

Guard, with the federal minister's office, and the Minister of Transport

Canada's office in ensuring that all of the policies and the procedures that

they have in place are certainly acceptable.

Mr. Speaker, this review that is being done by Captain Mark Turner will

certainly capture all of that. If there is anything we can do to make our waters

safer here, we will certainly do it (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, the Save Our People Action Committee, it is my

understanding, met with government today to discuss the ways of addressing

issues related to moose-vehicle collisions. I have to say, this is not the first

time that the committee has brought forward issues to the government in trying

to get some concrete action to address this problem.

I ask the minister: Did you commit to any new concrete measures or

investments that will help address the growing issue in our Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Transportation and

Works, and myself and officials did meet with the committee this morning. It was

a lengthy meeting. We had a good discussion for almost two hours.

It was a really good opportunity to share information, to report back to the

committee as to the work we have been doing. We have been doing a lot of

research with other jurisdictions. I gave them some more information in terms of

the moose management plan that we intend to do consultations on in the near

future. We explained some further information in terms of the moose management

and licensing regime. There were also discussions around fencing, and clearly,

the Minister of Transportation and Works highlighted all of the work we are

doing in terms of brush cutting around the Province and he showed them areas

where they have identified as priorities and we have done.

We have listened to them and we have committed to having further discussions

and keeping the communication lines open.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I want to say I am glad the meeting went well.

Mr. Speaker, the committee has brought forward a number of proposals to the

government in the past and my understanding according to the media yesterday

they were bringing forward eight additional recommendations at this meeting. I

was just wondering if any of the issues that have been discussed with regard to

including fencing of dangerous sections of our highway or the establishment of

the 1-800 number to try and bring the report on nuisance moose on our highways.

I ask the minister: Have they committed to implementing any of the options

that have been brought forward by SOPAC?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we spoke on any number of strategies

that would be possible perhaps to make the roads safer with regard to

moose-vehicle accidents.

With regard to fencing, obviously that is under review now as we look at the

success or lack of success in other jurisdictions and, of course, presented back

to the committee today that fencing does entail a lot of challenges, given our

geography, given our snowfall, given the road system that is here in

Newfoundland and Labrador. We did make a commitment, Mr. Speaker, to the

committee that we would be undertaking the proper research to look at the

suggestions that they brought forward. We will keep in constant communication

with them and report back any progress or any information that is applicable to

this particular issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, we have in the past heard a lot of rhetoric from

government on their plans to address the problem of moose-vehicle collisions in

this Province, but I have to say, to date we have not seen a lot of action. I

know each and every week that goes by we hear talk of accidents where people's

lives are changed due to serious injuries.

So, I ask the minister: When will the people of this Province see some real

action from this government on the moose problem in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province are seeing some

action. I received a letter from a family who had been travelling along the

highway, it said: Hi Danny, I just wanted to express my deep appreciation to you

and the workers of the Department of Transportation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to paraphrase the letter or to just sum up the content

of the letter but not to read directly.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They indicated that they were passing along the highway, in the Kona Beach

area when a moose came out. Basically, the bottom line on the correspondence

that was sent to me, the person said to me that it had been on their mind all

day and they felt that they had to contact the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to say thank you, and on behalf of their family and their coworkers and

fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, they expressed to me and to the rest of

the members of government: Please continue to clear the brush along the highway

because today it saved my life.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I have to concur with what the Premier said, no

doubt clearing brush will really help but there is a lot of it that has to be

done in various areas of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the Seniors Resource Centre has been forced to cut two full-time

positions and two part-time positions because of funding shortfalls. As a

result, the Grocery Bus Program, the Lifelong Learners Program, the Seniors

Bridging Cultures Program, and the Friday Friendship Program will have to be

cut. The resource centre has asked government for help in addressing these

shortfalls but has yet to get a response.

I ask the minister: Is government willing to provide any additional funding

so that those programs can be maintained?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my understanding that the Seniors Resource Centre has a budget of

approximately $600,000 to $700,000 per year that we provide them with a number

of different grants. From my department there is, I think a $50,000 annualized

funding and then another $45,000 for a community caregivers program. They also,

Mr. Speaker, I understand receive some other money from government. The

difficulty with it, Mr. Speaker, and I reviewed this with my officials last

week, is that we have no real understanding as to what services they provide and

what services other senior centres in this Province provide.

Mr. Speaker, we have numerous seniors organizations, we have seniors groups

in every district. So what I have instructed my officials to do is to go back to

the - give me a list of all the seniors organizations in this Province, who does

what, what can be done by our senior's office within the department, and to

determine, Mr. Speaker, what exactly the role of the Seniors Resource Centre is

today as compared to what it was when I think they started ten or twenty years

ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a concern, because it was only last year the hon. members, one of his

colleagues and myself attended the opening of the Seniors Resource Centre in

Spaniard's Bay. So it is not going back ten or fifteen years. This is a resource

centre that was only opened last year.

Mr. Speaker, the biggest shortfall in funding comes from the federal

government, and the Seniors Resource Centre certainly recognizes that there

appears to be a change in culture within the federal system in providing grants

to groups such as theirs.

I ask the minister: Is this a concern within the Office for Aging and

Seniors, and if so, what is being done to address this change in the federal

attitude and will the programs just disappear totally?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The member opposite has certainly highlighted one of the difficulties that

the Seniors Resource Centre finds themselves in today, and that is the cutting

in federal funding. Unfortunately, what happens, Mr. Speaker, and I can remember

having the conversation with the Seniors Resource Centre when they were going to

open up a satellite office. I said: now, the federal government are going to

give you funding, will it be sustainable? Of course, it was not, and now they

come to us.

What we are doing to do, Mr. Speaker, in both the Office for Aging and

Seniors, and in consultation with the development of our long-term care strategy

and community service strategy, is look at the services that are provided by

various groups to ensure that there is no overlap. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, we

are committed to our seniors as a government. We have made gigantic strides, Mr.

Speaker, $200,000 recently in Age-Friendly Grants. What we have to do is look

at, how can we deliver the services as efficiently and effectively as possible

to most of the seniors in this Province and not necessarily support one single

group?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Reports on labour negotiations between Nalcor and the IBEW indicate that

talks are going badly. So badly, in fact, that representatives of the IBEW Local

1615 are talking about their first ever strike against Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro. A major stumbling block appears to be Nalcor's refusal to accept

government's standard template offer of 20 per cent. According to government

statements at the time, this 20 per cent template offer was not optional. The

minister was very clear, every public service union was offered this deal and no

other deal would be considered.

Can the minister provide an update on these negotiations, and will Nalcor be

required to abide by government's 20 per cent template offer?

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

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition House Leader is absolutely correct, negotiations

are ongoing. Those negotiations, Mr. Speaker, are arm's-length from government.

They are between Nalcor and their employees. We encourage both of them to work

diligently towards coming to a resolution of the issues. Other than that, Mr.

Speaker, I do not have any comment to make on this matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

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

Mr. Speaker, since 1985 government has received recommendations to make the

Human Rights Commission truly independent by making it an agency answerable to

the House of Assembly. In 2009, the Auditor General, himself the head of an

independent agency answerable to the House, outlined the importance of the

commissioners being truly independent.

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

to give the Human Rights Commission true independence?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the Human Rights Commission has been

compared to the Child and Youth Advocate's Office and the office of the chief

representative, who report to the House of Assembly. These groups, Mr. Speaker,

are oversight groups that deal with complaints against the practices, services

and policies of government. The Human Rights Commission, on the other hand, Mr.

Speaker, deal with the rights and complaints of individuals. Government is not

necessarily the focus of these complaints.

Mr. Speaker, as far as the government is concerned and the Human Rights

Commission itself is concerned, the system is working fine as it is and that is

the way it will stay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in his 2008 report, the Auditor General spoke to some serious

systemic issues related to the functioning of the Human Rights Commission and to

something that the minister has just referenced.

There were concerns regarding a perceived conflict of interest when the

commission has to hear cases in which government is named as a respondent. So,

while the commission has a broader field of area to cover, it also covers cases

when the government is a respondent.

The problem is that with these new amendments to the act the minister

continues to control the commission's funding, another potential source of

conflict of interest. Mr. Speaker, there still is time to make change as we have

not yet passed this bill.

So I ask the minister if he would do some more thinking about this issue

because the potential for conflict of interest is there and was identified by

the Auditor General.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, if I recall the gist of the report by the

Auditor General dealt with a matter of resources that the commission was

experiencing several backlogs, did not have the resources to do the job and so

on. Since that time, Mr. Speaker, we have invested $500,000 this year alone to

provide two extra lawyers and a human rights specialist. We have also put

$100,000 into public education. The budget now, Mr. Speaker, of the Human Rights

Commission is $1.2 million.

I think, Mr. Speaker, the concerns that were raised by the Auditor General

have now been alleviated. Plus the fact there has not been one complaint to date

about the independence being in jeopardy with that commission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would suggest to the minister that he not cherry pick from the Auditor

General's report. Yes, the resource was one issue but the issue of conflict of

interest was also an issue that the Auditor General spoke to.

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations adopted a new definition of disability which

Canada recognized when we signed a convention on the rights of persons with

disabilities in 2007. This new model recognizes that a disability is not

something that resides in the individual as the result of some impairment but

should be seen as the result of the interaction between a person and his or her

environment.

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows this. He knows that is in the UN declaration,

yet decided not to include this more modern, inclusive definition in the code.

So I ask the minister: Why wouldn't the government adopt this new definition?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the department took its direction on the

issue of disability from the disability office of this government, which is the

proper place to take that direction.

Mr. Speaker, it took the form of several discussions back and forth with the

disability office. We looked at a number of jurisdictions. After a lot of

consultation and a lot of toing and froing, the consensus of opinion was that

the definition of disability that we now have in the act was the best one to go

with, and that is the one we did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am so glad we are better than the United Nations.

Mr. Speaker, transgendered people experience some of the highest rates of

violence and discrimination in Canada. Recent human rights cases demonstrate

that unless gender identity is specifically included as a prohibited ground of

discrimination, the ability of transgendered persons to access employment

rights, parental rights, health care, and even basic safety will continue to be

challenged.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Justice if he will consider amending this

bill to include gender identity as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the

act.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, transgendered identity is an evolving issue,

and it has a long ways to go before we can pin it down to a definition in an

act. In the discussions that we had on this issue, from the other jurisdictions

across the country, there was no way you could pin down and define a

transgendered identity for the purpose of this act. Mr. Speaker, we were also

convinced and persuaded by the Human Rights Commission that any transgendered

identity issues can be done under the provision of sex.

MR. SPEAKER: The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to

section 26.(5)(

a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am

tabling one Order in Council relating to funding pre-commitments for the

2011-2012 fiscal year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under Standing Order 37, I request leave to withdraw the motion respecting

the reappointment of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, Motion 3.

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

MS BURKE: With that, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to

move the following resolution, resolution respecting the appointment of an

Information and Privacy Commissioner.

BE IT RESOLVED by the House of Assembly as follows:

WHEREAS

section 42.1 of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy

Act provides that the Information and Privacy Commissioner is to be appointed by

the Lieutenant-Governor in Council on a resolution of the House of Assembly;

NOW THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that Mr. Ed Ring be appointed as the Information

and Privacy Commissioner.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I have a notice of private member's motion. I guess I require leave.

Normally, it is given on the Monday proceeding the Wednesday, but yesterday

being a provincial holiday we technically need leave of the government to do

this.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Opposition House Leader have leave to

present a private member's motion in lieu of the holiday yesterday?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, by leave.

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

This is moved by the Member for Burgeo & La Poile.

WHEREAS the House of Assembly is the cornerstone of responsible government in

Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the smooth and proper function of the House of Assembly is essential

to good government, effective legislative process and an open democratic

society; and this is seconded by the way by the Member for Port de Grave.

WHEREAS there is a clear, present and pressing need for reform in the

Standing Orders and other rules and conventions which govern the operations of

the House of Assembly;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly instruct the Standing

Orders Committee to recommend changes to the Standing Orders and other

conventions governing Oral Questions and the legislative process, and to

consider, among other things:

1. Methods of elevating the decorum of all members to strengthen the dignity

and authority of the House;

2. Examining the convention that the minister questioned need not respond;

3. Dedicating one question period per week exclusively for questions to the

Premier;

4. Establishing guidelines for the advanced release of Ministerial Statements

and the full text of bills to ensure that members have sufficient time to

examine and analyze their content;

5. Strengthening the operations of standing and special legislative

committees to allow analysis of bills with public hearings if required;

6. Prohibiting substantive amendments to private member's motions; and

7. Streamlining the introduction and consideration of private members' bills;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Standing Orders Committee reports its finding

to the House, with proposed changes to the Standing Orders and other

conventions, within six months of the adoption of this order;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the report be made public immediately by

posting it to the House of Assembly Web site on the day that it is received.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am back again with, what I call a porta-potty petition, I

guess. The Minister of Transportation would be very pleased to hear this. First

of all, I will read it in for the record, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS the people of La Poile must use the provincial ferry system in order

to travel to and from La Poile; and

WHEREAS the people of La Poile and visitors are required to wait at the Town

of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou from time to time for ferry services all of the

time, actually; and

WHEREAS there is no restroom waiting area at the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour

Le Cou where users of the ferry service may utilize washroom facilities; and

WHEREAS citizens of all ages, including men, women, children, seniors and

disabled persons, require washroom facilities as a basic human need in the

course of their travels, and particularly while awaiting the transit systems;

and

WHEREAS it is an abuse of human dignity as well as health and safety

regulations to allow such degrading and dehumanizing circumstances to continue;

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

House of Assembly to urge the Department of Transportation and Works to

immediately construct and operate a washroom-restroom facility at the Town of

Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou such that all users of the provincial ferry system

may be able to utilize such waiting area-washroom facilities.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, the House will recall that some years ago I brought a similar

petition to this House on behalf of the residents of Ramea and Grey River. We

called it the porta-potty petition because the government response not this

minister but the prior minister the government response at the time it was

in the middle of January or February was to put porta-potties outside the

wharf. Now, that is hardly practical, of course, in rural Newfoundland in the

middle of winter when people are waiting on a wharf, waiting for the ferry to

arrive, and the ferry is late.

Of course, the government, in its wisdom I think it was eighty-seven

petitions after we first started they built such a facility down in Burgeo to

accommodate the people in Ramea and in Grey River who use that coastal service.

It is not only the resident; it is any tourist, for example, who comes to

this Province. Nobody arrives at the ferry terminal just in time to drive on

board the boat. Quite often, the boat might be late due to weather conditions

and so on and people actually need to use the washroom. We had embarrassing

incidents previously when children, women, adults, kids, had to use the washroom

out on the side of the dock. That might have been acceptable back 200 years ago,

but it is certainly not acceptable in this day and age when anybody is using a

public transit system.

That is the genesis of this petition, Mr. Speaker. I have gotten several

petitions from the people of La Poile in that regard, and I will be bringing

those forward as time goes on.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

This petition is on behalf of the community of Grey River.

WHEREAS the community of Grey River is an isolated community which is

serviced by the provincial ferry system; and

WHEREAS the provincial ferry service is the only means of travelling between

Grey River and Ramea or Burgeo; and

WHEREAS the Gallipoli from time to time services Grey River for the

purpose of vehicular transportation; and

WHEREAS the Gallipoli has been unable to provide this service to Grey

River for the past number of weeks as a result of mechanical problems; and

WHEREAS the citizens of Grey River are unable to take their vehicles in and

out of Grey River; and

WHEREAS residents of Grey River have medical appointments out of the area and

need their vehicles to travel from Burgeo to Corner Brook and St. John's for

these and other appointments;

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

House of Assembly to urge the Department of Transportation and Works to

immediately provide alternate arrangements for the people of Grey River to have

their vehicles extracted to and from their community;

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, the people on the South Coast of this Province who require and

need the coastal service have an understanding of what weather conditions do to

the service, and certainly have an understanding of what mechanical breakdowns

do to the service. This is not a case of being unappreciative for what exists.

It is a very good rate, for example, when anybody travels, and the minister's

office has certainly been responsive whenever this member has contacted him to

find out what can be done as alternatives; however, they have implored upon me

that I bring this petition to the House of Assembly and that is part of my job

as an MHA, of course.

Regardless of what relationship I have in trying to resolve these with the

minister and his staff, the residents have implored that I do this, and I feel

it is my obligation to do so, and that is why I bring this forward.

For the benefit of those who might be listening, not only will I bring it

forward to the minister at this time which I have done publicly I will also

be speaking with the minister, and he has indicated he will speak with me some

time later this afternoon so we can hopefully find some positive resolution to

this most unfortunate situation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 4, pursuant to Standing Order 11,

that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today on Tuesday, June 22, 2010.

Further, Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 5, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that

this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today on Tuesday, June 22, 2010.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock

today, being Tuesday, June 22, 2010.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: The next motion is that the House do not adjourn at 10:00

o'clock p.m. today, Tuesday, June 22, 2010.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice

and Attorney General, that Bill 31,

An Act Respecting Human Rights, be now read

a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 31,

An Act

Respecting Human Rights, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act Respecting Human Rights. (Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 31 has now been read a third time and it is ordered

that Bill 31 do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Human Rights," read a third time,

ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 31)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I call Order 2, second reading of Bill 3.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000."

(Bill 3)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my duty here today, in my capacity as the Finance Minister, to speak to

second reading and to urge the passage of Bill 3, which is

An Act To Amend The

Income Tax Act, 2000.

The Explanatory Note that is on the inside of the bill states that the

amendments that are contained in the bill would provide clarification with

respect to the amount that the taxpayer may claim for charitable and other

donations. It will also clarify when a claim for the research and development

tax credit must, in fact, be made or filed, and it will remove an ambiguity

contained in the legislation as to whether tax credits may be applied against

capital tax payable.

I know everybody is on the edge of their seats, looking forward to the debate

here. These amendments could be referred to as technical amendments or

housekeeping amendments that we are bringing forward on the recommendation of

the Canada Revenue Agency, which administers and which collects and enforces

taxes on behalf of our government in accordance with a tax agreement.

There is an agreement that is set out between the Canada Revenue Agency and

the Province, and that is a federal-provincial tax collection agreement. Under

section 1.4(

c) of that agreement it says, "the Province will maintain, where

appropriate, the provisions of the Provincial Act similar to the provisions of

the Federal Act that relate to the administration, enforcement and collection"

of taxes.

Article 4.10 of that same agreement says that the federal government

"may specify the amendments and modifications of the Provincial Act that the

[federal] Minister considers necessary."

So what we are doing with this bill today, we have had discussion over the

years with the federal government. They have made a number of recommendations

for particular recommendations to amend the provincial Income Tax Act in order

to have greater similarity, greater conformity and greater clarification with

federal legislation and our own provincial income tax legislation.

As I said, the provincial Income Tax Act is administered, enforced and

collected by the Canada Revenue Agency on behalf of the Province. These proposed

technical amendments will provide clarification, or technical amendments or

housekeeping amendments, that will not change the way that the CRA administers,

enforces or collects our income tax. In other words, what we are doing is

bringing the legislation in line with the manner in which the CRA has been

administering our legislation.

The first change has to do with charitable donations under

section 10 of the

act. That allows someone to claim a charitable donation contribution. You can

claim in any given tax year for provincial donations as well, and the amendment

is to make the amount claim the same. Evidently, what is happening is that the

wording of the legislation does not say that the amount claimed for that

charitable donation under the federal tax and under the provincial tax has to be

the same. I think the words that are used are: up to. The purpose of this

amendment is to provide some clarification here.

Basically, the Canada act, the federal act allows a credit in a tax year for

any donation that happens to be made in that year or in any of the previous five

years if not previously claimed. It is understood that some taxpayers may, for

tax planning reasons, want to claim a different donation amount for the

provincial credit compared to what they are claiming for the federal credit due

to differences in other federal and provincial parameters.

During some discussions in 2001, it was agreed that the same donation amount

would be claimed for the calculation of both the federal tax and the provincial

donations tax credit in a year. The Canada Revenue Agency advised us that the

current wording in our act is not clear regarding the intent of the provincial

donation tax credit because

section 10.(1) says that the amount claimable for

the provincial credit shall not exceed the amount of the federal credit. In

other words, it does not say it has to be the same number, the same amount. It

says that it shall not exceed it. So, the purpose of this bill is to seek an

amendment to the act to clarify and to make certain that contribution amounts

claimed in a taxation year for the provincial donations tax credit is the same

as the contributions amount claimed in that year for the federal donations tax

credit. That is the first one, Mr. Speaker. That is the first of four.

The second amendment deals with the scientific research and experimental

development tax credit. Our Income Tax Act provides for a provincial scientific

research and experimental development tax credit and the federal legislation

provides for a similar tax credit. The program is being jointly administered by

the Canada Revenue Agency. The purpose of the amendment contained in the bill is

to add a provision to our legislation to ensure that the timeline for filing for

the provincial credit is the same as the federal credit.

Under the federal legislation, you must file your application for the credit

- I think it is within twelve months of filing your income tax return. It had

been intended that those federal administrative details in other words, the

twelve month limitation would apply to the provincial credit as well. It has

subsequently been determined that in the case of filing deadlines, the

provincial act does not provide for the twelve month deadline, and our act

prescribes the taxpayer may file for the credit. There is no deadline.

We could have a situation where someone would apply for the federal tax

credit within twelve months after filing an income tax return and then it might

be two or three or four years later the person applies for the provincial tax

credit. So the intent is that the filing requirements under both pieces of

legislation should be the same. That is what the CRA has, in fact, that is what

they have been doing. Without an amendment to our legislation, as I said, a

taxpayer could file both credits at different times, and we want to change this

to support the Canada Revenue Agency's present practice of administering the

provincial credit on the same basis and the same filing timelines that they have

been doing for the federal research and development tax credit.

The third amendment, Mr. Speaker, relates to capital taxes. We do not impose,

in this Province, a capital tax on business other than banks, trust and loans

companies that have permanent establishments within the Province. The capital

tax is applied on the taxable paid up capital that is allocated to this

Province. It includes paid up capital stock, contributed surplus, retained

earnings and reserves.

Now, on November 1, 2008, the legislative authority for our capital tax was

moved to the Income Tax Act. The purpose at that time was to enable the

Province's capital tax on banks, loans and trust companies to have it harmonized

with the federal capital tax. Under our act, under the provincial act, if a

company's aggregate paid up capital is less than $10 million, the taxable paid

up capital, the amount of the paid up capital on which a tax is paid is less

than $5 million.

The Canada Revenue Agency, as the new administrators of the Province's

capital tax, has advised us that the Income Tax Act of 2000 should be amended

relating to the eligibility of the capital deduction for certain groups. We want

to make clear that if groups are related, if there is a related group of

affiliated corporations that make up a group, that the deduction will apply to

the group and there will not be a separate $5 million deduction for each member

of the group. So we are proposing that amendment to ensure that the $5 million

allocated is to the group members and is only available if the total capital of

the corporation and all the related companies is $10 million or less.

The final amendment, with respect to the capital tax, has to do with the

non-deductibility of tax credits. The provincial capital tax is now included in

the Income Tax Act. Formerly, as I said earlier, it was included in the

Financial Corporation Capital Tax Act, but we moved it to the Income Tax Act

because of the relationship between that legislation and our federal-provincial

tax collection agreement whereby the CRA is authorized to administer our income

and capital tax.

Notwithstanding that, the capital tax in this Province is meant to be a

standalone tax within the legislation and is not to be impacted. In particular,

the capital tax we charge is not to be reduced by the income tax paid by

corporations or a group of corporations in this Province. The distinction

between this Province's capital tax and income tax was recognized because when

this was being considered initially - the federal government does it

differently. The federal government allows the income tax to be deducted from

the capital tax and our Province rejected that. Our Province wanted to make sure

that the taxes were separate and that the amount of capital tax paid by a

corporation or by a group, a corporate group, would not be reduced by the amount

of income tax that they were paying. So, it was a conscious decision of our

government to reject the federal model, because in this Province capital tax has

always been paid in addition to any provincial income tax paid.

On this basis, after consultation with the Canada Revenue Agency, the

Department of Finance has recommended that this legislation be brought forward

to clarify that provincial capital tax will not be reduced in this Province by

any income tax credits in the legislation. This is consistent with how the

Canada Revenue Agency has in fact been administering the provincial capital tax

anyway because of a shared understanding between the provincial Department of

Finance and the CRA on how the Province intended that the provincial capital tax

would work.

So, I can see everybody is really interested in these amendments. They are

indeed technical amendments. They are a housekeeping matter just to clean up -

to make sure that the understandings are in fact properly reflected in the

legislation in the law of the land.

I look forward to the debate and would urge passage of this particular

legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I wonder if the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board

would read into the record that the act be now read a second time and who is

seconding this particular second reading.

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

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I would move, seconded by the Minister of

Justice and Attorney General, that second reading now proceed and that the bill

now be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 3,

An Act To Amend The

Income Tax Act, 2000 be now read a second time.

The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to this bill. The minister pointed

out that the bill itself, being an income tax bill, is pretty dry and technical.

He has given a good explanation of why we need this bill, so maybe because it is

a finance bill, I can bring up some issues that can be more interesting than the

technicalities of the income tax bill itself. We all know that when we have

bills that are based in finance and based in issues around government's income

that we can, in the House, speak to any issues that pertain to the running of

government because they all, in one way or another, fit under the issue of

finance and income.

The state that we find ourselves in this Province right now - and it is not

something that I am complaining about - is that we have resources as we have not

had before. We have said that, many of us in the House, both on the government

side and on the Opposition, and both Opposition parties point out that we have

resources that we have never had before because of the oil exploration that is

going on in the offshore. It is wonderful that we have those resources. It is

wonderful that we have a Budget that is well over $6 billion this year. The

income that we receive from the oil industry, as we know, is a major piece of

the resources that the Province gets. Even though other industries, such as the

fishing industry and the mining industry, do contribute a lot to the government

coffers, they pale in comparison to the amount of money that we now receive

through oil development in our offshore.

It is something that we need to think about from several different

perspectives, one of course just from the perspective of the longevity of a

non-renewable resource such as oil. We know that it has a lifespan and that

while we will continue and can continue to explore and the oil companies are

going to continue to explore beyond where they are now, every new well that is

found or every new pocket of oil that is found, is still another pocket of a

non-renewable resource. There is going to be a day when there will be no finding

of any more oil out there.

So we have to take that seriously. We have to take that with great

consideration and we have to be using the moment that we are in as a moment for

planning for the day when the oil does not exist. If we do not do that, we are

going to be in trouble.

The other part to the issue is, knowing that the oil is out there and wanting

to do development to get more money from that oil is a responsibility that we

have as a Province, a responsibility that we have as a government, and it is

also a responsibility of the industry. The responsibility is not just to find

the oil that is out there. That is one responsibility, but we also have to do

that with care, we have to do that with concern, and we have to make sure that

in doing it we are not running risks that could be of danger to the environment,

of danger to us a Province. It is a very fine line that we have to walk, Mr.

Speaker. A very fine line between wanting to explore, wanting to get as much as

possible and the damage that we can be doing by doing that exploration.

So, as we know, right now we have quite a discussion going on, not just in

this Province, not just in Canada but worldwide with regard to exploration. It

is a major challenge because once you go out into the ocean to do your

exploration things becomes much more difficult. Things become much more tricky.

There is much more risk involved because we are dealing with oil that is at the

bottom of the ocean at depths that are extreme. So, for example, we have the

Chevron well that is being dug in the Orphan Basin, the exploratory well being

dug at a depth of two point six metres beneath the ocean surface. It is the

deepest exploration well that is going on in this country and it is the deepest

that we have dug here in Newfoundland and Labrador in our offshore.

Now I know that Chevron is used to doing deepwater wells and I know that

other companies are doing deepwater wells. We know, for example, that the well

that had the blowout in the Gulf of Mexico that that well was being dug at one

point five metres, which is 1,100 metres less deep than the one that we have in

the Orphan Basin. We know the companies are out there and that they are doing

the work and they do have a lot of experience, but we also know that mistakes

happen. We also know that decisions can be made sometimes based on monetary

considerations, based on the considerations of if something is taking a longer

time to do time means money in any industry, but it certainly means money in the

oil industry when so much money has to be expended per hour when you are talking

about exploration that time means money. You can get decisions that are

sometimes made from a point of view of expediency.

Some of the information that we are getting already from the Gulf of Mexico,

while we certainly do not have anywhere near a final answer on what happened in

the Gulf of Mexico, some of the information that we are getting is information

that is telling us that it is quite likely that BP made those types of

decisions, decisions that were being made expeditiously, decisions that were

being made without careful thought, decisions that were being made based on:

that is going to take too long, and if it is going to take too long it is going

to take too much money.

So we do know that companies are out there drilling at depths that in some

ways they cannot deal with, especially if there is a blowout. Dealing with

blowouts in deep water is very, very difficult. So, companies are out there.

Some have done a better job than others, some have a better track record than

others, but we have learned from the Gulf of Mexico that mistakes can happen and

that if we get a blowout in deep water then we have major problems without a

relief well being dug during the exploration stage.

Now, it is an interesting dynamic going on among the oil companies, and some

of us I am sure I am not the only one who was following this in the media last

week, where you had the other big players in the world, the other big oil

companies who are involved in exploration, and especially in deep water

exploration, you had them all pointing the finger at BP and saying: Oh, BP is a

bad company. BP made bad decisions a few months ago, and those bad decisions led

to the blowout; and BP did not care. BP was trying to save money, and we

definitely would not do that. Now you have the major oil companies on the world

stage vying with one another, trying to convince governments that this happened

because BP was so bad, and we are a good corporation and it would never happen

with us.

What is going on in that dynamic is the other oil companies - and BP

included, but the other oil companies in particular - concerned that the

stoppages that have been put on exploring in deep water by places like the

United States - and Norway has now joined that, temporary stoppages that have

been put on. We have not done it because we say that we can run the risk, but

places where they have put the stoppages, and they are temporary - the

companies, of course, are terrified that they are never going to be able to

drill again in deep water. So they are all pointing the finger at BP and saying:

BP was a bad player on this scene and it can never happen with us. It happened

with BP, but it cannot happen with us.

I guess what I have to say, both to the government and to ourselves as a

people, is that we know there may be some truth to that, but we know that

mistakes can happen with everybody. Mistakes happen all of the time, and we have

had some major disasters that have been extremely costly, that have happened. We

look at the Ocean Ranger disaster; again, mistakes, mistakes of design, mistakes

in operations, all kinds of mistakes that led to that disaster.

Look at something like the Titanic , which is long before any of our

memories in this House but which is part of our history as a people, the whole

reality of the Titanic going down, the Titanic which could not

possibly sink. It was impossible for it to sink, and it sank.

We have to think carefully as we explore. Whether the exploration is under

the water in the oceans, or whether the exploration is in outer space where we

have also had disasters, we always have to look at what else can be done besides

this exploration. Is this exploration the only way to go? Can this exploration

be slowed down? Should the exploration be slowed down? These are the questions

that have to be asked, and we have to look at all of the factors that come to

play.

In the House last week, or the week before, the Premier, in response to a

question that I asked, more or less said, okay, we know there is a risk, that

doing the deep water drilling is a risk, but, you know, risk - if it happens, we

will deal with it, and the risk is worth the billions of dollars that we are

going to make from production, for our social programs.

I, as much as anybody in this House - and we all know it; we all know what I

speak to in this House - I am absolutely committed to our social programs, there

is no doubt about it, but, in spite of that, I cannot say that we run risks in

order to make money, in order to pay for our social programs. We have to weigh

the risks that we are running. We have to look at how the environment is being

impacted by what we are doing. We have to ask questions.

What if, for example, there is a blowout during an exploratory phase and we

cannot get a relief well dug until three months after the blowout? What is the

issue that we are dealing with there? What about the money that is going to be

spent on the cleanup if there is a blowout? We have to look at money from both

angles. I am sure that BP is not happy about the fact that it has had to put $10

billion in reserve in responding to the U.S. government, promised to put $10

billion in reserve in case

I am sure that BP is not happy about the fact that it has had to put $10

billion in reserve, in responding to the U.S. government promised to put $10

billion in reserve, in case $10 billion is needed for the cleanup of the spill

in the Gulf of Mexico. It very well could be $10 billion, when we know how much

oil is still spewing out on a daily basis. I heard 100,000 barrels today, is

what they are saying now. If that is happening every day, and we do not expect a

relief well until August, then we can count on the fact that maybe BP will have

to use all of that $10 billion.

So, whether we are talking about receiving money down the road for social

programs, and the risk of losing that, or whether we are talking about the risk

of having a blowout that could cost us billions of dollars, these are two issues

that have to be looked at side by side. I think it is a rather specious argument

to say that we take risks based on the fact that the money that we are going to

make from oil is going to pay for social programs.

I still bring forward to the House that the income that we are going to make

in this industry down the road has to be income that we have thought through,

and we have to make sure that the decisions that we are making, that the

approvals that we are making, are approvals that are good, both for our economy

as well as for the environment in which the exploration is being done.

We have an example that came up this week in the media, and it is something

that I certainly did not know about until I heard it in the media I am not

sure that the Minister of Environment and Conservation heard about it before

hearing it in the media either but it is the issue of something that the

federal government has just done. I find it extremely shocking that the federal

government has permitted one of the companies in this Province, North Atlantic

Petroleum refinery, has permitted them to change the number of people on the

tugboats that bring the tankers up Placentia Bay.

Mr. Speaker, this is something that is extremely problematic, and it is an

example of government giving in to a request from a company, giving in to a

request that was made by the company itself. Now, we know that companies are

there to make money. We know that. That is their bottom line; it is always their

bottom line. Even though they will pay attention to regulations that are in

place, and as long as regulations are there they will do environmentally what

regulations say they have to do, they will also push the limit. They will also

see what else they can get. Here we have North Atlantic making a request to the

federal government and the federal agency giving permission for them to cut down

the number of people on the tugboats from four to two.

Now, I have not researched this in depth but I have heard the representative

from the fishermen's union, from the FFAW in the media since yesterday speaking

about the major concern of the FFAW - a concern that is quite legitimate, Mr.

Speaker. I do not know how tugboats run, but I am going to repeat what I heard

the FFAW representative talk about. What he talked about was the fact that if

you have the two designated people who are on the tugboat have two very

particular tasks to perform, and if an emergency comes up while those tugboats

are operating you do not have extra hands on the tugboat to deal with the

emergency, whether that emergency is somebody falling overboard, whether that

emergency requires that the tugboat be involved in handling the ropes from the

boat. There are all kinds of things that were talked about by the representative

from the FFAW.

It seems to me that the federal agency made a decision that we will take the

risk. Well, the chances of that happening are small, the chances of all four

people being needed all the time is small so we will take the risk. We will

allow North Atlantic to go ahead and to only have two people on the tugboats. We

will take the risk. It is that attitude, Mr. Speaker, of we will take the risk

that is really bothering me. The role of government is not to take the risk; the

role of government is to protect. The role of government is to have regulations

in place that protect; that protect the people of the Province, that protect the

environment in which we live, and that protects our economy as well. It is

government's responsibility to make those regulations.

We had another example of that in the mining industry with Long Harbour. We

still have real discussions going on and issues going on around the fact that

once again the federal government allowed Sandy Pond to be identified as a place

where tailings or the equivalent of tailings can be put into the water, where

this pond is going to be completely destroyed and an ecosystem is going to be

affected by this pond being destroyed. The bottom line is: Well, it is cheaper

for the company if they do that and we will help them save money.

What bothers me, Mr. Speaker, is that in both of these cases this was a

federal agency that was giving the permit. It was a federal agency that is

allowing exceptions to its own rules but our provincial government has gone

along with the decisions of the federal agency. Our provincial government has

not contested the exception to the rules that have been allowed by the federal

agencies. The provincial government - that says to me - has the same attitude.

The attitude that has been shown with regard to the exploratory well being dug,

yes, I know it costs more money, but, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about - when

we talk about oil development in particular and exploration in the oil

development - companies that have an amazing amount of money. I do not know what

the books say about Chevron. I know it is one of the five largest companies in

the world. I do know that BP was able to say to the US government we agree with

holding $10 billion in reserve so that we have the money to definitely cover the

cost of the clean up in the Orphan Basin. I know they were able to say to their

shareholders not that you do not get your regular money but we are going to put

on hold any extra dividend to you while we try to handle this situation.

The money is there, Mr. Speaker, and these industries, whether we are talking

about oil and gas in particular or talking about mining, are industries where

the companies have to recognize that when they come into an area of jurisdiction

and any area where they are going to be exploring or areas of jurisdiction under

governments, that they have to come in and they have to work under those

regulations. Now we do know, and I have many examples and I will not go into all

of those examples, but we do know that companies in mining, for example, or in

oil and gas, when they go into a country, Mr. Speaker, they look to the

regulations of that country. If the country that they are in does not make a

particular demand on them they will operate under what that country is asking.

Now I know this in particular for some mining companies that are

international mining companies, Mr. Speaker. These mining companies are

companies where they have one way of operating in Canada, for example, but

another way of operating say on an island in the South Seas, in the South

Pacific. The way they operate is not based on: We know that this is the best

practice and no matter where we are, we are going to do this practice. It is

based on we will work under the regulations of a country. That, to me, shows how

important it is that governments think carefully about the regulations that they

have in place, because ultimately, it is government's responsibility.

Ultimately, the companies will do what governments say is the best for their

area, is the best for their people, is the best for their economy. If

governments are not on top of that, if governments are not carefully looking at

what needs to be done, then companies will do whatever the governments ask.

So, we cannot say that we do not have responsibility. The ultimate

responsibility is the governments, Mr. Speaker, and I know that does not make it

easy. It does not make it easy when it comes to decision making because they

know they hold the responsibility in their hands, but that is part of

government. That is an essential part of government. So, government has to have

the freedom, it has to have the ability to say no to companies or to make

demands of companies. I think one of the things that the oil companies are going

to have to realize as they go deeper and deeper under the ocean in looking for

oil, that they have a responsibility that government is going to demand from

them. They have a responsibility to not destroy the environment as they do that.

We will not know for years the full impact of what has happened in the Gulf

of Mexico. We do not know, and this is the concerning issue, what the full

impact is of, for example, a blowout in the Orphan Basin. We do not know what

the full environmental impact would be if there were a blowout in the Orphan

Basin. We do not know how much of the impact would affect what is in the

immediate area of where the well is. We talk about, and we hear about how oil

that comes to the surface - because of wave action and the size of the ocean -

will get dispersed, but dispersal still does not say that something else is not

being damaged. The oil may not come to our shore here in Newfoundland and

Labrador but something else out on the water is being destroyed.

We can have a pretty cavalier attitude to things such as migratory birds,

fish and marine mammals, but every time we destroy something in our environment,

every time we do something drastic to a group of migratory birds, every time we

do something drastic to a group of marine mammals, what is happening is, Mr.

Speaker, we are affecting the whole ecosystem, that things are going into an

imbalance. The implications of that are huge, and this is the kind of thing

government has to think about. This is the kind of thing. We cannot just make

money without thinking about what is happening because we are making that money.

Here in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, for example, one of the

groups of birds that are extremely important to us is the gannets, the northern

gannets. Now, we all know how important the gannets are, if for no other reason

than our tourism industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. Some of our bird

watching tours that take place are specifically because of northern gannets.

Now, for people who are not fully aware of the gannets, the northern gannets

that are here in our waters in the summer along the Atlantic Coast, but

particularly here in Newfoundland and Labrador, they do not stay here in the

winter. I think we all know that, we know that they go. Where do they go? They

actually go to the Gulf of Mexico region during the winter, the area that has

been affected by the blowout.

The gannets who right now are nesting in large colonies on our cliffs here on

the Coast of Newfoundland, the gannets who are off Cape St. Mary's, for example,

that these gannets we all, a lot of us I have a visitor coming next week,

coming to visit me. One of the things I am going to want to do is bring her to

Cape St. Mary's. We will want to see these gannets. They are so beautiful. They

are so precious in and of themselves, even just physically to look at them, but

when you see them together as a group and see how they operate as a colony, it

is absolutely wonderful to think of what exists on our planet and what exists in

our environment.

When these gannets, this year, when in the fall they have to leave the cliffs

of Newfoundland in order to go south, they are going to be quite shocked. They

are not going to know what hit them, because they feed at sea. What happens is

they dive, and they dive into the water to find their food. What is going to

happen in the fall, and they are telling us that the oil is still going to be

there in the Gulf in the fall, that when they go down there and they start

diving, number one, they are going to get covered in oil. Number two, they are

not going to find food because of the devastation to the food supply in the Gulf

of Mexico because of the oil. So we really have no idea of the impact of what

has happened in the Gulf of Mexico is going to have on our gannet population

here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

From just a crass economic perspective, if we see the loss of a huge

percentage of that population over this next year, this time next year in 2011

we will not have that large rock in Cape St. Mary's covered in gannets. We will

not have people wanting to go there when they come to Newfoundland and Labrador

as tourists. We will not have people in the Province saying we have to go to

Cape St. Mary's this year, because of the fact that the gannets will not be

there. So, Mr. Speaker, this is one group that is being affected by what is

happening in the Gulf of Mexico and it is a group that we need to be concerned

about.

Another group we need to think about, Mr. Speaker, and again, it is a direct

connection between us here in Newfoundland and Labrador and the Gulf of Mexico,

and it is the bluefin tuna. The bluefin tuna is already in danger as a species.

It was once a tremendous species here in Newfoundland and Labrador and it

existed in abundance. It actually was a sport fishery in Newfoundland, off the

waters of Newfoundland. I remember in particular in the 1960s and the 1970s,

that sport industry was very, very prosperous. What happened? Governments

allowed the fishing industry to overharvest the bluefin tuna for the sake of the

making of sushi. Sushi became so important that the tuna was over harvested.

So, what we have on a worldwide basis now is that the numbers of bluefin tuna

are dwindling yearly. Now, here is another fish, another mammal, Mr. Speaker,

that migrates to Newfoundland, to the waters of Newfoundland in the summer but

actually comes from the Gulf of Mexico. The bluefin tuna actually spawns in the

Gulf of Mexico right in the region of the spill. So, Mr. Speaker, we have now

the potential of actually losing forever the bluefin tuna, which would be an

incalculable loss to our environment and to our ecosystem.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have to have this broader picture. We have to look at all

of these issues when we are

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

The Chair is having some difficulty hearing the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that.

What we have is a large picture that we cannot ignore when we are looking at

doing exploration in deep water. The exploration that we are doing, has to be

done taking into consideration all of these large pictures. So whether we are

talking about the life of marine mammals, whether we are talking about the life

of seabirds, whether we are talking about the need for money for social

programs, we have to look at all of it in the context of the risk that is

involved. So, we therefore need to question some of the decisions that are being

made in this country from a regulatory perspective.

One of the areas that I have made some reference to in this House over the

past months during our debates has been what has happened with regard to

offshore regulations regulations that are put in place by the federal agency,

but regulations which when they were put in place by the federal agency we

adopted here in Newfoundland and Labrador. There is a major concern that the

offshore regulations monitoring drilling in the offshore have been changed to a

point that they could, in actual fact, be endangering us when it comes to the

drilling that is going on. The regulations that we used to have were quite

prescriptive. That means the technology that would be used, for example, in

drilling, the technology that would be used in actually producing oil, the

technologies were named very clearly and you were actually told how you had to

do something.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I understand that we are in a time in our history as

peoples that change is happening very, very rapidly and that technologies can

change rather rapidly, but they do not change that rapidly. In science, and

whether the science is the science of medicine or the science of engineering,

whatever the science is that we are talking about, it takes time to come up with

new ideas and things have to be tested. So, technology does not change

overnight. Methods of doing things do not change overnight. However, what has

happened with the new regulations is that they are goal oriented regulations now

that have been put in place by the federal government instead of being

prescriptive. What happens is a company can now say: We have a goal of drilling

in deep water without having blowouts happen and we will put everything in place

to meet this goal, but they are not being told what has to be put in place to

meet the goal. They are being trusted to come up with the methods to meet that

goal as long as they have the goal and they show that they are trying to put

methods in place to meet that goal.

What that does, Mr. Speaker, is put a lot of responsibility in the hands of

the industries themselves, in this case the oil industry, and it gives less

specific regulation and direction to the industry. I have heard people -

representatives of the federal government - say that this change from

prescriptive regulations to goal oriented regulations is not a weakening of

regulations. It is not a watering down of regulations.

I would argue, Mr. Speaker, that in actual fact they are, because what they

are doing is lessening the role of government around the regulations, lessening

the role of government in its responsibility around drilling for example, around

exploratory drilling, around production. In other words, if the company can show

that we are really trying to meet this goal of doing it as safely as possible,

government cannot stop them as long as they show they are working towards their

goal. So, in putting their plans together they show what their goals are and

what they are going to try to do. As long as they keep trying to do that,

everything is okay. Government, I would argue, has a role in deciding whether or

not what they are trying to do, in actual fact, is adequate, and government does

have a role in being involved in research and development, and does have a role

in working with industries and coming to a decision about whether or not what is

being argued by industry is adequate.

Mr. Speaker, this whole thing of coming up with goal oriented instead of

prescriptive regulations is extremely problematic and there is a discussion

around the world on this. I would like to point out that this government has

said they looked to Norway, for example. Well, Norway is certainly a place where

they do have prescriptive regulations, Mr. Speaker, and they would not move in

this direction of goal oriented. Yes, you have to have goals but there have to

be prescriptive as well. I think we have moved way too far into the direction of

goal oriented rather than prescriptive.

I would continue to say, in spite of arguments I have heard from government,

that if we are really concerned about the protection of the environment and

health and safety that we do need an agency like they have in Norway, the

Petroleum Safety Authority, with adequate resources given to that authority to

be involved in research in a very in-depth way with regard to environment health

and safety issues. In Norway, the Petroleum Safety Authority is in charge of

risk management, environmental protection and health and safety, but they are

also involved in research in those areas. That means putting resources, adequate

resources in to do that research. I would argue that government and the academic

world have to be involved with industry in doing the research around these

issues. You have to have a body whose one goal and one goal only is safety.

Whose one goal and one goal only is environmental safety, health safety, worker

safety, that they have no other dimension to their concerns. So, making money is

not what they are about, what they are about is safety. I would argue, Mr.

Speaker, that we really do need an agency like that here in Newfoundland and

Labrador, an agency that makes those arguments to government, and for government

as well but to government.

There are a few more points I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, and it has to

do with spills that are happening in the Province, things that are going on

because we have a concern not just for exploration drilling, we also have a

concern for what is going on during production as well. In 1997, the Terra Nova

development project, the environmental assessment panel for the Terra Nova

development project recommended that the board routinely require - and that is

the C-NLOPB - seabird observers on rig platforms, especially the Terra Nova

platform, and shuttle tankers to gather more data.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that this is not happening adequately. Our

lack of seabird observers on platforms has been very strongly criticized by Bill

Montevecchi from Memorial University who is an expert in this area that

sometimes the people who are doing this work are not true monitors, observers

who can make observations about what is really happening to the birds and to the

sea life. Very often, they do not have adequate experience. So, it is not enough

to actually have seabird observers on the platform, they have to be seabird

observers who have experience in what they are doing.

Now, I do understand from talking to Chevron that with regard to the Orphan

Basin, in actual fact, the Stena Carron does have observers on that rig

twenty-four seven; they are always there. This is not happening on all of our

rigs out there, Mr. Speaker. The oil companies tell us that they have a good

spill response, but we know that people who have analyzed the regulations and

analyzed the responses with regard to spills say that we have not had any

improvement from 2004 to 2008 in terms of the plans for how deal with a big

spill. Whether those plans are plans for what would happen in Placentia Bay, or

whether those plans are what would happen in the deep waters in the offshore, we

know that the plans are inadequate, the plans have not been revised, and I would

suggest that because of what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico that we do need

a revision.

Now, the Premier did say, on May 5, that he wants a study of our spill

response capability. I am glad to hear him say that because I think we

absolutely do need a study of our spill response capability. It would be very

interesting, now that we have this change in the rules with regard to North

Atlantic refinery in Placentia Bay, the change with regard to the number of

people on a tugboat, I would now like to know what would happen with fewer

numbers of people on tugboats, what would happen with regard to spills out in

Placentia Bay with fewer people on the tugboats.

Talking about Placentia Bay, one of the things that I am interested in is the

way in which the fishing industry and the workers in the fishing industry are

being used in the Gulf of Mexico doing the cleanup because of the blowout in the

Gulf of Mexico, and they are doing it because they have no industry, they have

no work now. They cannot go fishing because where they fish has been destroyed

by the spill, by the blowout. So, they are making money, they are being paid by

BP, and they are earning money by being involved in the cleanup. The FFAW has

said, and I think it is a really good point, that in actual fact there should be

intensive training of people in the fishing industry in Placentia Bay in

particular, so that if we did have a spill they are ready and trained adequately

to be able to help with that spill.

So, we do not have a good plan in place. There is much more that needs to be

done, and I would hope that when the Premier says that he wants a study of our

spill responsibility capability, that he is going to follow up on that and we

are going to hear that this study is being done.

There are a couple of more points that I would like to make about spills

offshore, Mr. Speaker. We have had a number of spills, and some are fairly

minor, but on November 21, 2004, there was a spill at Terra Nova of 1,000

barrels of crude oil or 165,000 litres. The Canadian Wildlife Service and I

think we all agree that we can trust the science of the Canadian Wildlife

Service estimated that up to 2,000 seabirds died from the Terra Nova spill.

Now, when the government was talking here in this House about a spill offshore,

it said that a big spill offshore would not have the same kind of impact as the

spill in the Gulf of Mexico because the oil will not come ashore. Well, the

thing is, that is not the issue. The concern is the effect of a spill on the

local environment, and in this case, with Terra Nova, the local environment

meant 10,000 seabirds dying.

So, it is not just: Is the oil going to come to our shores if there is a

spill offshore? It is a question of: What is happening to the local environment?

If something negative is happening to a local environment that impacts the

environments that the local environment interacts with. That is how it works.

In 2008 there was another big spill at White Rose, and the biologist, Ian

Jones, says that oil companies and federal authorities have not yet released

details of the environmental impacts of that 2008 spill. So, Mr. Speaker, we

sort of are being lulled into thinking everything is all right out there in our

offshore, and things are going okay, that we do not have major spills going on,

that all of the spills are small and we do not have to worry; but, Mr. Speaker,

we are now being told that there are many spills going on, on a regular basis,

and we now know more than the amounts predicted in the environmental impact

statements for White Rose and Terra Nova. They gave an idea, they gave an

estimate, of what their spills would be when the environmental study was done,

but what they predicted was actually low, and they have actually now had spills

that have added up to more than what they had in their environmental statements.

So, we have to stop thinking that small spills are not bad. Small spills

accumulate and, when it comes to the seabirds, a few drops of oil will kill a

seabird in the water because it loses its insulation and will die of exposure.

We can say, oh, well, it is a few birds. It is not just a few birds, number one;

it has been thousands of birds; and, number two, affecting our environment in

any way negatively affects us, affects us in that environment, and it affects

our economy.

With regard to Terra Nova, Mr. Speaker, between 1999 and 2006 there were

thirty-three small batch spills; so, each spill was under fifty barrels. Half

were spills of one to forty-nine barrels, and half were less than one, so the

average annual rate was five point four spills, but the predicted number for the

lifetime of the whole project was five point three, and already, in just the

short lifespan, they already have gone over what they said was going to be their

average spill for the whole lifetime. So the companies out there are not

predicting well, Mr. Speaker, what they are going to be doing to our

environment.

White Rose has a similar track record. White Rose said, in their

environmental assessment, that they predicted two point three eight spills under

fifty barrels for the whole project lifetime, that they would have no more than

two point three eight spills; however, between 2003 and 2007 they already had

three spills of under fifty barrels.

Mr. Speaker, what this information tells us is that in many ways what is

going on out there is unpredictable. In many ways what is happening in our

offshore is predictable, and I certainly want us to earn money from what is

happening in the offshore. I want us to have money that is going to help us live

better as a province, that is going to help us have better social programs, that

is going to help us be on par with other parts of Canada in terms of our

standards around taking care of people; but, Mr. Speaker, neither can we do it

at the expense of our environment and at the expense of safety of workers

either, Mr. Speaker. I believe that we do need to slow down. I believe that we

do need to say to industry: Show us the research that you are doing to deal with

a blowout, if a blowout happens in deep water.

They certainly have the technology, because one of the best ways of doing it

will be to have a relief well in place during exploration. I know the industry

has said, well, nowhere are they demanding that; that has not been demanded

around the world. I would like to suggest, because of what is happening in the

Orphan Basin, the industry is probably going to see that demand coming in, Mr.

Speaker, that the demand is going to be there for the relief well. I can see

that coming.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, that we have to look at is, while we are

receiving money from oil development, which is really important, Mr. Speaker, we

have to not only put money into our social programs, we also have to look at our

own research, and we have to look at our own Crown corporation, Nalcor, and give

Nalcor a stronger direction with regard to research into alternative energy

sources.

I heard somebody, Mr. Speaker, an expert, an expert with tremendous, I think,

qualifications, on the radio on the weekend talking about exploration. I have to

say, I agreed with him with regard to the whole thing of alternative energies.

His point is, and I totally agree, that we cannot expect, say, in ten years

let's just say Newfoundland and Labrador we cannot expect, even if we put all

of our eggs in the basket of alternative energy, say of wind energy - and we

would not do that, but if we put all of our eggs in that basket - it would

impossible, within ten years, for us to run ourselves here just on wind energy.

Because the changes that have to happen in industry, the changes that have to

happen in the things that now use oil, the changes that will have to be made, it

is going to take a good, maybe, fifty years before we can really see ourselves

moving in a serious way with regard to alternative energy resources; but, if we

do not start now, if we do not start putting the things in place now, if we do

not start making the investments now - and that is both for industry as well as

for governments, if the investments do not start now - and we do not start

dealing with the alternative sources, then by the time we start it will still be

another twenty or thirty or forty years down the road. So, if we do not start

now we could see ourselves really in an extremely difficult way in fifty years'

time.

Mr. Speaker, I have exhausted the points I wanted to make here today. I am

really appreciative of having the time to make these points. I hope that as

government continues in putting its budgets together and doing the economic

planning that it needs to do, that it also looks at the risks that we could be

taking that could turn things upside down for us rather radically. I also hope

that government looks at what we want to see in twenty years time in terms of

how we are operating here as a Province, both with regard to how we take care of

our people but also with regard to how we are producing energy in this Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Opposition House Leader.

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

My comments will be very limited with respect to Bill 3. It is a rather

technical bill. I listened to the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board. Of course, it does point out the world we live in. Particularly when it

comes to taxation, the interplay between the provincial and federal governments

is at work to a large extent. Some things we do on our own, retail sales tax for

example, but there are lots of areas where there are linkages between the tax

regime that we as a Province might adopt and what the federal government might

adopt. Because the taxation field is in fact so complicated and complex, you are

going to be back here in the House of Assembly from time to time and making

amendments to accommodate the new changes that are taking place. So it is an

ongoing process. It is not earth shattering that we are here today having this

debate. No doubt, we will back here again next year having more debates when it

comes to income tax matters.

I did notice the minister commented that the Canada Revenue Agency is the new

administrator for the Province's capital tax program. I am not sure exactly how

long that has been in place. Maybe the minister might get an opportunity, either

when he closes debate or in committee stage, to just elaborate on that a little

bit further and give some idea, I guess, to the public of just how many programs

we have that the federal CRA does indeed administer for us. I am assuming there

is a cost factor here. Most provinces, of course, would have their own tax

regimes and different issues and programs, such as the capital tax program, and

it is easier for the feds, who have a national scope, a federal jurisdiction to

administer them rather than each individual province doing so. I am assuming

there is a payback factor to that, and maybe the minister will be able to give

us some information in that regard as well.

Other than that, Mr. Speaker, I have no comments to make here. We will be

supporting this Income Tax Act, 2000, and look forward to any comments that the

minister might have.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill