Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 3 April 2012 (47th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLVII No. 18)
2012-04-03
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
April
3, 2012 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVII No. 18
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
The Speaker is pleased today to welcome to our galleries, from the District
of Topsail, eighteen Grade 6 students who attend Paradise Elementary. I had the
pleasure of meeting with them over lunch. The students are accompanied today by
their principal, Linda Pike, and their teacher, Norma Linehan.
Welcome to our Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: Today we have members' statements from the Member for the
District of Bellevue, the Member for the District of Baie Verte Springdale;
the Member for the District of St. John's Centre; the Member for the District of
Lake Melville; the Member for the District of Kilbride; and the Member for the
District of Fortune Bay Cape la Hune.
The hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today congratulating fire departments in my
district. On Saturday, March 3, I had the great privilege of attending a
fireman's annual dinner at Dildo. This dinner marked the thirty-third year of
the Seaside Volunteer Fire Department that provides services to Blaketown, Old
Shop, South Dildo, Dildo, and New Harbour. With a total of thirty-three active
members, this department does a fantastic job volunteering their services to
this regional area.
I also want to say thank you to Don Bishop, who is a long-time member of the
Seaside Fire Department for the past thirty-three years. Prior to this, he
served with the Heart's Delight Fire Department for two years, totalling
thirty-five years of service.
Mr. Speaker, there is also another fine gentleman, Mr. Melvin Newhook, who
has served thirty-three years with the Seaside Fire Department. Melvin is
currently disabled, but still makes it out to the meetings and holds the
treasurer position within that department. I would like to thank him for his
much-dedicated services.
I ask that all members of this hon. House join me and thank each and every
volunteer firefighter throughout our Province for their countless hours of work
they do each year to serve their communities.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Baie Verte
Springdale.
MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At its annual conference held in St. John's on February 9, 2012, the
Newfoundland and Labrador Construction Safety Association revealed that
Springdale Forest Resources Inc. was the 2011 winner of the Award of Excellence
in the large established company category.
I rise today, Mr. Speaker, in this hon. House to applaud this remarkable
achievement. It speaks volumes of the company's commitment to safety.
Mr. Speaker, the award recognizes a company's outstanding commitment and
dedication to occupational health and safety in the construction industry.
Located in the vibrant Town of Springdale, an ISO 9001:2008 certified
company, Springdale Forest Resources strives not only to foster a safe work
culture, but also strives to protect the environment in its daily operations. It
is a proactive company that employs people in the construction, forestry,
trucking, and diamond drilling sectors, contributing immensely to the regional
economy.
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask all hon. colleagues to join me in
congratulating Mr. Dennis Young, President; Mr. Harvey Rice, safety officer; and
all employees of the Springdale Forest Resources for capturing the Newfoundland
and Labrador Construction Safety Association Award of Excellence.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Vera Perlin
Society. For more than fifty years, it has provided exemplary service to the
community.
After years of planning and fundraising, last Friday the society celebrated a
milestone with the grand re-opening of their newly refurbished headquarters on
Pennywell Road. What a joyous celebration they had!
Since 1966, that building has served the society well. The much-needed
renovations have made it even more able to serve its clients.
The society's ultimate aim is to see that everyone with a developmental
disability is provided the best available service to lead productive and
meaningful lives in our community. What this means, Mr. Speaker, is that they
empower the people they serve.
They do it through various programs: the Perlin Pre-Vocational Training
Centre, the Work Oriented Rehabilitation Centre, business opportunities and
supportive employment, plus respite programs and summer recreation. Also, how
many of us in this House have benefited from the work of the Button Shop during
our campaigns?
I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the staff, volunteers,
and members for their vision and commitment.
May their work with its focus on self-help continue for many more decades.
Bravo!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to rise today in this hon. House to congratulate a sports icon
in Lake Melville, and a personal family friend, Mrs. Winifred McLean.
Winnie was invited to referee in Port au Choix by daughter Claire on March 1
at the Senior Provincial Broomball Tournament. Winnie and husband Clayton
quickly packed up and made the trip.
March 3, at the banquet, what came next was described by Winnie as a pleasant
shock, Mr. Speaker, two years in the making, kept secret by all family and
fellow players. Winnie made history as the 13th person inducted into the
Newfoundland and Labrador Broomball Hall of Fame, and it is my deep honour, Mr.
Speaker, to say that she is the first Labradorian to be inducted.
She is a true ambassador for the sport, with accolades including provincial
and national titles, and an eight-year provincial winning streak for the Goose
Bay team. For her forty years as a player and a coach in this Province, and in
recognition of her induction into the Hall of Fame for her outstanding
contribution to broomball in the Province as an athlete/builder, I ask all hon.
members of this House to recognize and pay tribute to an amazing woman of
Labrador, Mrs. Winnie McLean.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for District of Kilbride.
MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have a
reputation for helping those in need. A clear example of this was displayed in
the recent actions of the students at Hazelwood Elementary, a school that many
of my young constituents attend.
On November 9, 2011, Mr. Newton Atela, the director of a small orphanage in
Kenya, Africa, visited Hazelwood Elementary and told the children there about
the children who live and go to school at this orphanage. He told them about the
many needs these children have.
The Hazelwood Elementary students and staff were very touched by this story
and keen to help the Kenya Orphanage. A Pennies for Kenya drive was begun, and
when it was over, a cheque was presented to the orphanage for $3,185.
Hazel Elementary students have shown their great generosity and care in other
projects as well. Last March, they raised over $12,000 for cancer research in
their Shave for the Brave Campaign. They also participated in the annual VOCM
Coats for Kids project, food drive for the St. Vincent de Paul Society, and the
Christmas Shoeboxes for Children Campaign.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of this House to join me in commending
the generosity of these young children at Hazelwood Elementary.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to deliver accolades to Cindy Cox, Volunteer of the Year for 2011 in
St. Alban's. Cindy is a dynamic, energetic and committed individual who gives
endlessly of her time and talent to help others.
A mother of six, she holds many volunteer positions, such as Treasurer and
Secretary for the Heritage Society and Tidy Towns, and supervisor for summer
students and JCP, Job Creation Partnership programs.
Cindy also led a fundraiser that raised over $30,000 to install a monument at
our cemetery, and she has organized numerous charity events for organizations
such as the Knights of Columbus, Cecilian Singers, and Moms for Play. In
addition, Cindy can be relied upon to arrange potluck dinner theatres to raise
funds for sick children and families in need. She also organizes cleanups for
the St. Ignatius Parish and town council.
Cindy is now in the process of establishing a heritage museum in the
community centre. She has collected over 1,200 photos dating back to the early
1800s as part of preserving our past.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in
congratulating Cindy for her outstanding dedication to volunteerism, and we look
forward to her continued commitment and initiative for years to come.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to rise today in this hon. House to congratulate Newfoundland
and Labrador Housing Corporation on being recognized for providing a Canadian
first in accessible design.
This recognition comes from the Canadian Housing Renewal Association an
organization accepted as the national voice regarding affordable housing and
homelessness issues. Recently, Mr. Speaker, in its national newsletter, the
association recognized Newfoundland and Labrador as the first Province in the
county to make universal design features mandatory for all new affordable and
social housing constructions.
Mr. Speaker, this is a progressive move. The Universal Design principles are
internationally recognized and used for establishing accessible building
standards, codes and regulations. Universal Design makes living spaces more
accessible for many people, with or without disabilities, at as many stages in
life as possible.
Requirements such as level entry, wider doorways and halls, and washrooms on
the main floor create housing that leads to more inclusive neighbourhoods for
the tenants, friends, neighbours, and family members with mobility disabilities.
Including Universal Design principles in future affordable and social housing
construction supports the goals of the provincial government's Social Housing
Plan for Newfoundland and Labrador Secure Foundations. The plan, which was
established in 2009, places a high priority on developing affordable housing for
persons with disabilities, seniors, and those who require supports to live
independently. Mr. Speaker, the decision to make Universal Design features
mandatory for new construction is also cost-effective as it creates living
spaces that suit a wide variety of needs, thereby reducing further renovation
costs. In addition, this new direction for accessible housing construction is in
keeping with other efforts to enhance inclusion, such as the establishment of
the Disability Policy Office, the creation of the Provincial Advisory Council on
the Status of Persons with Disabilities. It is also supportive of our Healthy
Aging Policy Framework and the work of the Provincial Advisory Council on Aging
and Seniors.
Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation is
demonstrating national leadership in the development of affordable housing
options for the people of our Province, and I ask fellow members to join me in
and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I will even go
back, Mr. Minister, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing was leading the country in
1992 when they developed two disability units in Newfoundland. The first two in
Canada were developed here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and that was initiated
by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.
As a member of the Canadian Paraplegic Association for over twenty years and
with the council of disabilities, one of our major concerns in the Province was
a universal design for housing throughout Canada for people with disabilities. I
applaud the minister and Newfoundland and Labrador Housing for being the first
in Canada, because this was an issue for all people for disabilities all across
Canada. It is a proud day for me personally when you can stand up and say
Newfoundland is leading the way.
Just to give you a bit of background, Mr. Speaker, when a person moves into a
unit, one of the most frustrating things is that if he has some disability or
becomes mobility impaired, he has to move out and move into some other unit.
This will allow people to stay in their own units and stay in their own home for
as long as they can. It also gives the people with disabilities more
independence. As we all know with people with disabilities, with more
independence they become more productive citizens in Newfoundland and Labrador.
To me personally, it is a proud moment. I congratulate Newfoundland and
Labrador Housing on their initiative. I think it is a great move and I think it
is a great day that Newfoundland and Labrador again is leading Canada. I am glad
for all the people in Newfoundland and Labrador with mobility issues, seniors or
anybody who is going to need units, social housing, that now they can become
productive citizens and lead a more satisfactory and enjoyable life.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS: I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
Congratulations to the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation for being
recognized by the Canadian Housing Renewal Association as a first province to
make universal design mandatory in affordable and social housing. I know this
must feel like a great achievement to people in the disability community who
began pushing for universal design a decade ago against great odds. Now what we
do need is an annual investment in the Budget to build more affordable and
social housing, especially during the years 2012-2013 to make up for the gaps in
federal funding so that everyone has access to suitable, universally designed
affordable housing, they are certainly needed.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to highlight the provincial government's
after school physical activity pilot initiative introduced this past December.
We are guided by the recreation and sports strategy, Active, Healthy
Newfoundland and Labrador, as we provide young people in Grades 4 to 9 with
opportunities to be more active after school. Twenty-five school-community
partnerships throughout the Province are participating.
Mr. Speaker, physical activity is an important component of health and
wellness. Research has shown that the after school hours are sedentary time for
many young people. Our two-year pilot initiative helps offset barriers to
participating in after school physical activity programs, such as transportation
and costs, and is inclusive for all student populations.
I am pleased that we are hearing lots of positive feedback on our initiative.
For example, in my district New World Island Academy and the New World Island
Regional Recreation Committee are offering students a variety of indoor and
outdoor activities including orienteering, skiing, basketball, and softball. On
the West Coast of the Island, Hampton Academy and the Dove Memorial Recreation
Committee have students participating in skating, skiing, hockey and bowling.
Here in St. John's, Holy Cross Junior High, along with their partner the Froude
Avenue Community Centre, has provided students the opportunity to participate in
swimming, ball hockey, and Zumba fitness.
These are only a few examples of the great community partnerships that have
been forged through this exciting project. I commend all partners for their
commitment as they work together to encourage young people in this Province to
be more active and aware of the importance of leading active, healthy
lifestyles.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I am particularly
proud, I guess, that he mentioned one of the schools in my own district, that
being Hampton Academy and the great work that they are doing in promoting the
healthy lifestyles; and indeed, all the schools across the Province, the
twenty-five that was mentioned there.
We know that our statistics are showing that we have just 41.3 per cent of
our population that participates in physical activity. These are numbers that we
need to improve on to prevent and reduce the amount of obesity. We already know
that one in four of our preschool children are already overweight or obese.
These are alarming statistics that we really need to make improvements on if we
want a healthier and active lifestyle for our children.
I would encourage the minister this is a two-year pilot project that we
would encourage extending this program, because I do believe that in the future
it can produce some great results. In particular, we really need to thank the
teachers and the volunteers at the school for the great work that they do in
helping make sure that those programs are successful.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS: I too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his
statement.
I am pleased to see that twenty-five schools and communities are taking
part
in this after-school physical activity project. These pilots are giving children
no matter what their income or circumstances opportunities to try out sports
and other activities that they would not necessarily otherwise be exposed to.
It is essential, given our high rates of obesity, sedentary lifestyle, and
diabetes among our children, that your department partner with education and the
school districts to offer such programs in every school permanently.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday, in response to the report of the PUB, the Premier pulled what some
media called a Muskrat about-face, and is now promising additional studies on
energy alternatives and a debate in the House of Assembly, all things we have
repeatedly called for in the House.
I ask the Premier: Since you are finally agreeing to the study of
alternatives such as natural gas and wind, will you also commit to studies on
conservation and demand-side management as well as sourcing Upper Churchill
power in 2041?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to share with the Leader of the Opposition that
we commissioned a study on wind five weeks ago.
AN HON. MEMBER: No, natural gas.
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Excuse me, natural gas, five weeks ago. That is to
counter you know, one of the most disturbing aspects of this whole debate here
in the House of Assembly has been the complete denigration of the expertise we
have in this Province, Mr. Speaker. If there was somebody on the mainland saying
about Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and specifically about Nalcor, what the
Opposition Parties are saying about Nalcor, we would be in an uproar. Mr.
Speaker, we have an expertise at Nalcor that is not only the best in the
Province or best in the country, but probably the best in the world.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I understand that Ziff is back. The number of times in March we asked
about Ziff, we understood there were just discussions, chats, and maybe brief
conversations that were going on with Ziff. We now know there is a study
commissioned on natural gas.
When we questioned about Ziff Energy, why did you not disclose that they were
indeed hired and completing a study on natural gas? Will you immediately table
the terms of reference and the cost for this study?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I indicated in the past, we met with a number of advisors: Wood Mackenzie
in New York on a couple of occasions and PIRA in New York. That led us then, Mr.
Speaker, to Ziff Energy out of Calgary in terms of natural gas.
Mr. Speaker, Ziff were met with, certain discussions took place, and they
were asked for a report. Part of that report was to look at the building of a
pipeline from the Grand Banks to Holyrood, but secondly the importation of
natural gas. It is as a result of the highlighting of the natural gas that we
simply outlined that we wanted a report done.
Mr. Speaker, there are terms of reference. I do not have the cost yet,
obviously, because we have not finalized the work.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: I would imagine there is some cost attached, how much they are
charging per hour, or something. So that information we would like to see.
The PUB is our only legal referee on energy matters. Mr. Speaker, the PUB has
only asked to be able to do their job, to have access to all of the up-to-date
information, and to make an informed decision, just as the utilities board in
Nova Scotia would be able to do with the Maritime Link.
So my question is for the Premier: Will you now allow the PUB the opportunity
to analyze the final numbers, to explore other alternatives, and to determine
the effect this will have on ratepayers?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this project has been in planning by different administrations
for over thirty years. Our government has been engaged in the discussion of the
development of the Lower Churchill since we came to governance in 2003, Mr.
Speaker. Time and time again, day after day in the House of Assembly, the
question was asked: Is this the least-cost alternative if we really need the
power? Do we need the power?
Both of those questions were referenced to the PUB to determine an answer
based on Decision Gate 2, which is the feasibility study for the development of
the Lower Churchill, Mr. Speaker. Nine months later, $2 million later, Mr.
Speaker, the PUB has refused to give an opinion on feasibility two numbers.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: We all know why they refused to do it; they were not satisfied
with the information, and that is what we expect from a utility board like that.
The regulated utility, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, will be asked to sign a
fifty-year power purchase agreement on Muskrat Falls power.
I ask the Premier: Is the PUB going to decide what the rate of power will be
to the people of this Province, or is it their mandate?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I want to address the Leader of the Opposition's
preamble. The
PUB understood clearly what was being asked of them. At the end of December, Mr.
Speaker, the PUB asked for a six-month extension to the end of June, knowing
full well that Decision Gate 3 or sanction numbers would not be available until
June. That has been well established and spoken about any number of times, Mr.
Speaker.
They did not indicate at the end of June when their own experts had
completed the majority of their work that they needed sanction numbers. Mr.
Speaker, even if they had thought and not said that they needed sanction
numbers, how could you get sanction numbers in June, have MHI do an analysis,
and present a report by the end of June? This is very puzzling, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: Again, Mr. Speaker, it was no surprise, because Manitoba Hydro
highlighted that as one of the significant gaps in this whole process. They said
that themselves, that they expected these numbers to be available in Decision
Gate 2. They were not there. Mr. Speaker, it is apparent that the government is
completely cutting the PUB out and are now determined to set electricity rates
unilaterally.
I ask the Speaker: In the future, who will set electricity rates in this
Province? Will this no longer be the mandate of the PUB?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Why would any inquiry that was mandated to make recommendations around
feasibility two numbers demand feasibility three numbers numbers that they
were aware that were not going to be available for another year? That does not
make any kind of sense whatsoever, Mr. Speaker.
There was always going to be a review of sanction numbers. Those numbers are
not going to be available until June, Mr. Speaker. We wanted to ensure that the
people of the Province knew that in terms of what the work had entailed up to
Decision Gate 2 was built on a solid foundation. Funnily enough, the PUB agrees
that based on Decision Gate 2 numbers, feasibility numbers, we do need the power
and it is the least-cost alternative.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: What we do know is that Decision Gate 2 numbers could be either
30 per cent less or 50 per cent more. That is outlined right in that report.
Mr. Speaker, a major issue facing the Premier's Muskrat Falls plan is the
accuracy of energy demand forecasting. During the PUB review, Nalcor failed to
provide the 2011 load forecast. It has limited the PUB's ability to perform the
review.
I ask the Premier: Will you now table Nalcor's 2011 and 2012 load forecasts?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think the report itself referred to the fact that the load forecast would
be available later on but I want to talk, is the member opposite saying that
we do not need the power? Because, Mr. Speaker, we have always said that 40 per
cent of the power would be used for the Island, and then 40 per cent for export,
20 per cent for Nova Scotia.
Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is we are using the power for the Island, we
are allowing for industrial, commercial and residential growth. Also, Mr.
Speaker, we are then eliminating the volatility of oil, which is 70 per cent of
the Holyrood or isolated option, and then what we are looking for and I
pointed this out the other day. Do you want the Labrador mining projects to
proceed or not? They cannot proceed without power. Without Muskrat Falls they
will not proceed.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What we fail to see in this House is when it comes to the exporting of energy
we have not seen one power purchase agreement, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, two months ago, since the death of Burton Winters - and the
government opposite has done very little to find answers of what went wrong. Now
we know the federal government will co-operate and will bring forward
information to an inquiry.
I ask the Premier: Will you now use your power under the Public Inquiries Act
and launch a full inquiry into the death of Burton Winters?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest this morning as
different media reported outcomes of the meeting with Minister MacKay yesterday
by members of the Opposition party. Mr. Speaker, I have immediately put in a
call to Minister MacKay to have him confirm that the federal government is
prepared to engage in a joint inquiry because that is what we would need, Mr.
Speaker, you need to be able to call witnesses and verify the accuracy of
information. Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to hearing back from him, as well
as hearing back from him on the questions we posed to him in our letter. Once
that is received, Mr. Speaker, I will have more to say on the matter.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Official Opposition House Leader.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, will the Premier admit that she has neglected to lead the file
on search and rescue in this Province and really has done nothing more than
write a letter to the federal government in the wake of a death of a
fourteen-year-old boy in this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that I do find this line of questioning
offensive. We have a young man that has been lost to his family, to his
community, and to the people of this Province far too early, Mr. Speaker. We
have pressed that case at every opportunity, from the Prime Minister's office,
to Minister Ashfield's office, to Minister MacKay's office. We have talked to
Rear-Admiral Gardam, Mr. Speaker, and every other minister, Minister Oliver.
Every other meeting we go to federally, provincially, it does not matter under
what opportunity we have a meeting with federal ministers, Mr. Speaker, we make
the case and we are looking for answers because that young man deserves nothing
less nor does his community nor do people of the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
One thing I will agree with the Premier on, and that is this boy has been
lost to his family at far too young an age. That is the reason, Mr. Speaker,
that we are bringing this to the House of Assembly asking you, Premier, to do an
inquiry into this matter. It was confirmed to me yesterday by the Minister of
the Department of National Defence, Peter MacKay, that he never ever received a
phone call from you on this particular issue.
I ask you today, Premier: Why are you not leading this issue as the Premier
of this Province and why are you doing nothing more than sending a letter to
Ottawa?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I was not privy to what happened in the fifteen minute meeting
with Mr. MacKay. We all saw the Twitter pictures, Mr. Speaker. We saw them stood
up all over Ottawa, taking their pictures, them and their MPs, Mr. Speaker,
outside of Parliament. I did not see you in any meetings.
Mr. Speaker, I had an extensive telephone conversation with Minister MacKay
on this issue and if he is going to come, then I encourage him if he
MS JONES: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: If he has something else to say about this issue, Mr.
Speaker, then I would like to hear from him directly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the Premier of the Province I would encourage her, I would beg her, Mr.
Speaker, to go and meet with him. We were told that he called you, Premier; you
never, ever phoned his office on this particular issue. What we do know now is
that the federal government is prepared to be forthcoming with information if
the Province chooses to do an inquiry into this matter. We know that the
Province has the jurisdiction to do it. We know that you have the authority to
do it. You did it with the Cougar crash, I say to the Premier, in which they
were forthcoming with the information. Now, today, we are asking you to once
again do the inquiry into the tragic death of Burton Winters and search and
rescue in this Province. You are the Premier, act like one.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to stay to the high ground even though, I have to
tell you, some days it is challenging in this House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we do not need any lessons from across
the way on leadership.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: If anybody wanted lessons on poor, bad, distasteful
politics, you could not have a better lesson than you are getting here today.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to press for answers because that is what
the people of the Province want. You want a grandstand. We want answers, Mr.
Speaker, and we are going to continue to press the federal government until we
get those answers.
Mr. Speaker, if Minister MacKay confirms because all we have is her word,
Mr. Speaker, and that will not be enough in this circumstance. When we hear from
Mr. MacKay we will have more to say.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier knows the real way to get the answers into what happened with the
Burton Winters tragedy and search and rescue in this Province is to do an
inquiry.
Premier: Why will you not do that inquiry? Why will you not use the authority
that you have as a Premier to go out and launch the inquiry into this tragic
situation in our Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I do not have the authority to launch an inquiry into federal
government jurisdiction and the deployment of federal government resources. The
instances that she refers to all fall under different authorities, Mr. Speaker,
like the C-NLOPB in terms of the Cougar helicopter crash.
If Minister MacKay has indicated to you that he is prepared
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, if Minister MacKay has indicated to
members of the Opposition that the federal government is prepared to participate
in a joint inquiry, make information available, make witnesses available, we
will be very interested to hear that, Mr. Speaker. I have contacted his office;
I am waiting for confirmation.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier should not be afraid to talk to the minister on an important
issue like this. I am just appalled to find out that she never, ever made a
phone call to him until this morning, which is absolutely disgusting in my
opinion. To laugh at it today is even more disgusting.
Mr. Speaker, it is imminent that the Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre in St. John's
will now close. According to meetings we held yesterday
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: with high-level officials inside of Coast Guard and DFO, that
was what they have confirmed. It is unfortunate that the Premier has done
nothing to save the sub-centre in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Today I ask if you have done any analysis at all to find out what the impact
will be on the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians once this centre is
closed on April 25?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Time and time and time again in this House, the Opposition tries to portray
this government as not only being responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador, but
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: as well, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: She wants me to be Prime Minister and Premier. While
I thank her for her confidence in my ability, Mr. Speaker, my responsibility is
to the people of the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, on both the Burton Winters issues as
well as the marine sub-centre, calls have been made to every
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: ministry, including Minister MacKay's, Mr. Speaker
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Opposition has an opportunity to ask questions in the House. Government
has an opportunity to answer. As each are asking the questions and the answers
are being proposed, I ask members to respect the person standing and has the
recognition.
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we have advocated very hard on behalf of the marine sub-centre.
We do not support the decision; we feel it will have a negative impact. We
continue to try to press that point home.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources has said in the House, most
recently last week, that natural gas is not an option as an alternative source
for generating electrical power.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS MICHAEL: Yet the minister revealed yesterday that government
commissioned a study of this option some time ago.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why the secrecy? When was she going to inform
the House and the public of this study?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a study; it is a report. We have an expertise within
Nalcor on oil, gas, and hydro generation. Mr. Speaker, there are some points
that when you are considering in a project like this size, the same as if you
were building a house, is an example I use, Mr. Speaker that if you had a 200
by 200 piece of land, and you were going to build a 400 by 400 square foot
house, you would know that that house could not fit on that piece of land. You
would not go out and commission a great big study to prove that point. Now, that
is as simply as I can put it. We understand that gas will not work in this
instance; wind will not work in this instance, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, now I have to ask the Premier a question based on some of the
things she said in the House yesterday: What is it that we are going to get,
what is the information we are going to get in the next phase? Are we going to
get the results of studies, or are we just going to get reports with regard to
the next phase of Muskrat Falls?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, let me point out to the Leader of the Third Party that every,
every expert and there have been quite a number of them who have looked at
this project, Mr. Speaker, have concluded that, first of all, we need the power;
we have underestimated the amount of power we are going to need and that this
is the least-cost alternative, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition's response to all of
those experts has been to say, but you got those numbers from Nalcor. Like you
would not know that Nalcor did not know what they were doing, but people on the
street, who have no experience and no expertise at all, Mr. Speaker, are taken
as experts. To get an objective view, Mr. Speaker, we went to Ziff and asked
them for a report.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Public Utilities Board, our experts
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Order, please!
MS MICHAEL: their mandate states that it is responsible for the
regulation of provincial electric utilities.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS MICHAEL: The PUB is tasked with ensuring that rates charged are just
and reasonable, and that the service provided is safe and reliable. Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Premier was quoted as saying the time and money spent on the PUB
review of Muskrat Falls was a waste of time and money.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Does she aim to discredit this institution
simply on the basis they do not agree with her? These are our experts on
electrical utilities.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, members of the Opposition, including the Third Party, discredit
Nalcor every day, and make no apology for it something I find deeply offensive
as a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, Mr. Speaker, deeply offensive.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what I said about the PUB yesterday was that they were
given a mandate to do a report on Decision Gate 2 numbers feasibility study. Mr.
Speaker, nowhere in the nine months of their work did they indicate to us that
they needed sanction numbers. Nine months later, $2 million later, they refused
to give us a recommendation on their mandate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Speaker is standing. I ask hon. members to note that when the Speaker
stands, the Speaker needs to have control of the House and the respect of
members in the House. When the Speaker stands, I ask all members to recognize
and acknowledge the Speaker is standing, and the Speaker will then recognize the
person who had the floor.
The Speaker now recognizes the Leader of the Third Party and I ask all
members to pay attention and listen to the questions being posed.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear from the report that the PUB wants a full review of
the Muskrat Falls proposal. They do not want to back down; they want a full
review.
I ask the Premier: Once government has updated and complete information, will
she mandate the PUB to review the updated proposal?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, nine months ago, $2 million ago, I gave the PUB a mandate to do
a piece of work which they have refused to do, Mr. Speaker. It has certainly
undermined my confidence in the PUB, and no, I will not be doing a further
reference to the PUB.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Harper's plan to
raise the Old Age Security age to sixty-seven will hurt low-wage workers the
most, because they cannot save for retirement and they cannot survive on a
Canada Pension. Mr. Speaker, most of our seniors are living on the brink of
poverty; 65 per cent of seniors in Newfoundland and Labrador receive the
Guaranteed Income Supplement because their incomes are so low.
Mr. Speaker, what will the Premier do in response to the Harper government
downloading responsibilities and costs on to the Province and on the backs of
low-income seniors?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I will do exactly what the Member for St. John's Centre will do.
I will advocate on behalf of the people that we represent.
Mr. Speaker, time and time and time again we step into the space that the
federal government has vacated when they pulled back spending in this Province.
There is only so far we can go with that, Mr. Speaker. We have vital programs
here that we are called and charged to deliver to the people of the Province.
Mr. Speaker, we are going to bring down a Budget here shortly and we have
told everyone we are going to have a deficit, and we are going to have a deficit
next year. We cannot continue to move into the space that the federal government
leaves. All we can do is encourage them to live up to their responsibilities.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, one of the priority directions of the Provincial
Healthy Aging Policy Framework was to improve the financial well-being of our
seniors.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: What is the long-term government financial
plan to help our most vulnerable seniors now and in the future? What is the
plan?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Over the last number of years, the last eight years, we have made many
strives, Mr. Speaker, in improving the benefits for seniors, from everything
from the Prescription Drug Program, to making more benefits available, to
improving health care costs, lower taxes. Seniors are a major part of what we
do, Mr. Speaker, as a government in terms of protecting our seniors. We will
continue to do that, Mr. Speaker. Part of the long-term care strategy will be
looking at the improvement of seniors' lives. We have the healthy aging
strategy, Mr. Speaker. There are all kinds of good things happening.
MR. MARSHALL: The dental program.
MR. KENNEDY: As the Minister of Finance just pointed out, we also have
the dental program.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The
federal Budget this time around was very disappointing, I have to say that. It
only has $150 million for municipal infrastructure repair right across this
country, while funds from the Building Canada program have been used up.
Municipalities have asked for a portion of the provincial gas tax, or any other
tax for that matter, to help out with paying for infrastructure and services but
this government, so far, has refused them.
Mr. Speaker, my question is: What will the minister do about the shortfall in
funds that is causing a crisis to municipalities across the Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: If the hon. member had done his homework and hired some
research people up on the third floor, or wherever you are, you would have found
out that we have invested heavily in municipalities for the last eight years and
prior to that
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: to the tune of $500 million gone into municipalities right
across Newfoundland and Labrador in worthwhile municipal projects. That is
exactly what happened.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: In regard to the federal Budget, yes, absolutely I am
concerned in regard to any infrastructure that would
be provided by the federal government to municipalities and to provinces to
distribute right across their provinces absolutely. We will continue to invest
as we have done for the past eight years, I say to the hon. member.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I know that this government has been making some proper investments when it
comes to municipalities. They are playing catch-up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. MURPHY: They are playing catch-up. Guaranteed they will still go
ahead with that, we are hoping.
Mr. Speaker, the government collects sixteen-and-a-half cents a litre in
gasoline tax, which will yield almost $173 million to provincial coffers this
year, according to the government Estimates. If the government gave two cents a
litre to municipalities, they would almost double Municipal Operating Grants by
another $21 million. The disappointment of the federal Budget has created a
sense of desperation amongst municipalities now.
Mr. Speaker, I ask again: Will the minister take a second look now at
diverting a small portion of the gas tax to municipalities to avoid this
financial crisis?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs for a short
answer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say to the gas man that
he should actually be more fiscally responsible when he is talking about gas and
the diversion of funds out of our Consolidated Revenue Fund that enables us to
invest in health care, invest in Child, Youth and Family Services, and invest in
education and schools. That is exactly what it is.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time for Question Period has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the Striking Committee established under Standing
Order 65.(1) is pleased to present its report on the composition of the Standing
Committees of the House.
By leave, I move, seconded by the Opposition House Leader, that the following
members comprise the following committees.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave to introduce the motion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave. Go ahead.
MR. KING: The Standing Orders Committee, Mr. Speaker, will be the Member
for Trinity North, the Member for St. George's - Stephenville East, the Member
for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, the Member for Carbonear - Harbour Grace, and the
Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair.
The Resource Committee, Mr. Speaker, will include the Member for Conception
Bay East - Bell Island, the Member for Bonavista North, the Member for Lake
Melville, the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, the Member for St. Barbe,
the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, and the Member for Signal Hill -
Quidi Vidi.
The Government Services Committee, Mr. Speaker, will be the Member for
Exploits, the Member for Humber Valley, the Member for Mount Pearl South, the
Member for Torngat Mountains, the Member for Kilbride, the Member for Bellevue,
and the Member for St. John's East.
The Social Services Committee, Mr. Speaker, will be the Member for Kilbride,
the Member for Burgeo - La Poile, the Member for Port au Port, the Member for
St. John's Centre, the Member for Bonavista South, the Member for St. John's
West, and the Member for Bay of Islands.
The Privileges and Elections Committee, Mr. Speaker, the Member for
Lewisporte, the Member for Burgeo - La Poile, the Member for St. John's Centre,
the Member for The Isles of Notre Dame, and the Member for Port de Grave.
The Public Accounts Committee, Mr. Speaker, will be the Member for Conception
Bay East - Bell Island, the Member for Terra Nova, the Member for Cape St.
Francis, the Member for The Straits - White Bay North, the Member for Bonavista
North, the Member for St. Barbe, and the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. SPEAKER: The members have heard the motion.
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Motion carried.
Further tabling of reports?
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will move the following motion: that this
House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government, the Budget
Speech.
Mr. Speaker, I further give notice that I will move that the House resolve
itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider a resolution for the
Granting of Supply to Her Majesty. (Bill 16)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?
The Opposition House Leader.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Leader of the Official Opposition:
WHEREAS we have seen many tragedies and many lives lost due to distress on
land and at sea, most recently the death of fourteen-year-old Burton Winters of
Makkovik Labrador; and
WHEREAS ground search and rescue is a provincial responsibility and was the
first point of contact in the Burton Winters tragedy; and
WHEREAS the federal government has announced that the Maritime Sub-Centre for
Search and Rescue Services in Newfoundland and Labrador will close this year;
and
WHEREAS many questions have been raised about procedures and practices of the
provincial government and DND in relation to the Burton Winters tragedy; and
participate in, and co-operate with, a public inquiry into the circumstances
surrounding the death of Burton Winters;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this House urge the Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador to conduct a full investigation into the Burton Winters tragedy and
search and rescue services in Newfoundland and Labrador using a public inquiry
through the powers vested in
section 3.(1) of the Public Inquiries Act, which
states, "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may by order establish a commission
of inquiry to inquire and report on a matter that the Lieutenant-Governor in
Council considers to be of public concern."
Mr. Speaker, in tabling this motion, I also ask for leave of the House to
call this motion for debate tomorrow, as opposed to the motion that was
previously given notice of.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The member has given notice of motion. It is a private
members' motion. The second part of your request is you are asking the House for
leave to substitute the motion you just read into the record, as opposed to the
one that the Acting Opposition House Leader indicated yesterday that the House
would be debating on Wednesday.
MS JONES: That is correct.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the Opposition House Leader have leave to now use
tomorrow's Private Members' Day to debate the motion just now entered, rather
than the motion that the Acting Opposition House Leader indicated yesterday that
would actually be debated, which is one that is already on the Order Paper?
The hon. the Government House Leader, speaking to the request.
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is the first I have heard of this motion. I am not willing to make a
decision on this at this point; however, I recognize the urgency and importance
of the matter, and within the next half hour or so, we will be in a position to
put forward our position on the motion.
MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker would recognize and acknowledge that the
Government House Leader has indicated that before the evening is over, he would
indicate to the House whether or not the Opposition has leave to introduce the
motion tomorrow; we will await his response, rather than make an immediate
decision on the request for leave.
If the leave is granted, then we will ask the member to stand again and to
indicate such of their intent.
MS JONES: (Inaudible)
MR. SPEAKER: Are you speaking to the response from the Government House
Leader?
MS JONES: Yes.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MS JONES: I just wanted to confirm, Mr. Speaker, that I have not had the
opportunity to bring this matter to the attention of the Government House
Leader, and I have absolutely no problem with him taking the necessary time to
deliberate on the motion and to give us a ruling as to whether they are prepared
to give leave or not.
MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.
Further notices of motion.
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a petition.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS there is a vacant former fish plant property situate in the Town of
Isle aux Morts; and
WHEREAS this property was purchased by a private citizen on the 26th day of
July, A.D., 2000; and
WHEREAS this building has become dilapidated, and the current owner is
unwilling or unable to clean up or remove the building from this site; and
WHEREAS this building poses a significant safety issue, both to the public
and to the local environment; and
WHEREAS the Town of Isle aux Morts and its citizens ask that government
assist with obtaining an environmental assessment on this property;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to urge government to support the citizens of Isle aux Morts
in their request to have the former fish plant building cleaned up or removed.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have introduced this motion, and it is
a matter that is certainly familiar to some of the ministers across. It crosses
across the purview of three ministers: the Minister of Environment, Minister of
Municipal Affairs, and the Minister of Service NL.
The issue of dilapidated fish plants is one that extends all across this
Province. It is an unfortunate situation. This fish plant in particular has not
been in use for some time. The private owner has had it for a decade and has
done very little to remove the building. The building is in an absolutely
terrible, dilapidated, unsafe condition. The parents of children in Isle aux
Morts are scared that these children are going to do what many children do. They
go around the property; they might get hurt. We had a situation not that long
ago where pieces of the roof were blowing off.
Not only that, when we talk about the tourism side of it, we have a situation
where this fish plant is located right in the middle of town. This town has done
a lot in terms of tourism and economic strategy, and this is one of the things
that have been identified by their consultant, that they need to get rid of
this. It is a blot on the entire town in terms of the good things they are
trying to do. This is a very big negative.
The town needs some assistance in doing this. The removal of a fish plant can
be very expensive, especially when you take into account the environmental costs
to actually removing and remediating a site. I have been in conversations; I
hope to continue those conversations, in getting an agreement or a decision that
is good to the Town of Isle aux Morts and certainly to the people of this
Province. It affects everyone, especially tourists.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I present a petition to pave Route 434 in Conche.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS Route 434, Conche Road, is 17.4 kilometres of unpaved road; and
WHEREAS the current road conditions are deplorable; and
WHEREAS the provincial government in the 2011 Budget set aside five
kilometres of paving that has not yet started; and
WHEREAS it is the government's obligation to provide basic infrastructure to
all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; and
WHEREAS improved paved roads would enhance local business, especially
tourism, which is vital to the health of the communities affected.
We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge government to
allocate funds in the 2012 Provincial Budget to pave Route 434.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
This is certainly not a new issue, and it is not a new issue to the Minister
of Transportation and Works. This is something that this group in Conche and
residents have presented the issue. It has been through the media. They have had
a Facebook page started, which is the face of disgrace.'
If you see the actual conditions of the roads and what these people have to
drive over, it is really, really frustrating, because they are commuters, to go
to work. They are trying to develop tourism in the region with the French Shore
Historical Society. There are a number of people who are incurring additional
costs and damages to their vehicles, whether it is rims or tires. Right now, the
road really needs some additional work, but because of weather freezing and
thawing there is no additional grading being done, which would cause ruts.
It is really something that does need to take action from the government
here.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House with a petition.
To the House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS there is an identified need for all levels of care in all regions of
Labrador; and
WHEREAS the Paddon Home is suitable for all levels of care;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to conduct
a needs assessment to identify the needs of all levels of long-term health care
in Labrador, and to re-open the Paddon Seniors Nursing Home, located in Happy
Valley-Goose Bay, which would provide for the needs of our seniors, and persons
requiring long-term health care, in Labrador.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I have tabled this petition. During any
campaign for elected office, reference is often made to the care of our elders.
The past election, Mr. Speaker, was no different. The need for senior care seems
to come to the forefront during elections and then seems to slip on the scale of
priorities.
Mr. Speaker, in Labrador we are very limited in care facilities for our
seniors, yet they experience the same needs as other seniors throughout this
great Province.
Mr. Speaker, we need facilities for our seniors and we have a facility that
is done for the very purpose. Mr. Speaker, I refer to the Paddon Home in Happy
Valley-Goose Bay. We again, Mr. Speaker, call upon all members of this hon.
House to urge the government to re-open the Paddon Home for its intended
purpose.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this House today to present a petition regarding needed changes to
the Department of Education's school bus transportation policies.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS school district restructuring has resulted in longer bus travel times
and more hazardous travel for rural students of all ages; and
WHEREAS due to recent school closures, children living within 1.6 kilometres
of school face increased barriers of congested streets and busy intersections in
the walk to school, and parents without cars are having more difficulty getting
children to different schools on foot; and
WHEREAS only those child care centres outside the 1.6 kilometre zone and
directly on bus routes are included in kindergarten noon-time routes, causing
hardship for working parents; and
WHEREAS the 1.6 kilometre policy has been in place since 1975 and school
transportation policies have not been review through public consultation since
1996; and
WHEREAS parents are expressing the need for more flexible policies for school
transportation and school restructuring to meet the current needs of school
children;
We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to
conduct a review of school bus transportation policies and school restructuring
to ensure a safe and quality education for all school children in the Province.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say, one of the outcomes of not having a decent
policy on transporting our younger ones to school is that parents who have
vehicles, who are able, who have the means, end up driving their children to
school and then we have more congested parking lots at schools, and sort of a
mad rush for everybody to try and get their children to school, rather than
having the opportunity to be bused, as do their neighbours close by.
I know that the Minister of Education spoke in debate on the twenty-ninth of
last month, and he mentioned a number of other Provinces Ontario, Manitoba,
Quebec having policies like our own. I say, Mr. Speaker, we often talk about
we have the best record; I hear members opposite talking about we have the best
record in the country on this and that. Mr. Speaker, we should lead the way. We
should have exemplary policies on school bus transportation in Canada. We should
be a model, if not for Canada, for the world, in school bus transportation
policies. That is what we should really be striving for here.
I know the minister mentioned that in Prince Edward Island there is a one
kilometre rule for kindergarten to Grade 6 students, and I think if we cannot be
the best in Canada, then there is a policy we may want to consider adopting:
within 1 kilometre for kindergarten to Grade 6, or something to that effect.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope the House of Assembly will, at some point,
agree to the pleas of these petitioners.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I again rise
MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker -
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KENNEDY: Pursuant to Order 36, Mr. Speaker, I call Orders of the Day.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day have been called.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to do third reading of a bill,
An Act To
Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, Bill 4, Order 2 on the Order Paper.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call third reading of a bill,
An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, Bill 4.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a
third time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 4 be now read a
third time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 4)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered
that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000", read a third
time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 4)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, Order 3, third reading of Bill 6.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the bill now be read a third
time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 6 be now read a
third time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business
Practices Act. (Bill 6)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read the third time and it is ordered that
the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business
Practices Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the
Order Paper.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance,
that Bill 11,
An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act, be now read the third
time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a
third time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 11 be read a
third time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act. (Bill 11)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that
the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act", read a third
time, ordered passed and that its title be as on the Order Paper.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance,
that Bill 13,
An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997, be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a
third time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 13 be now read
a third time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997. (Bill 13)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that
the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997", read a third
time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 13)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance,
for leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Student Financial
Assistance Act, Bill 15; and I further move that the bill be now read the first
time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of Finance
be given leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Student
Financial Assistance Act, Bill 15, and that the said bill now be read a first
time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to
introduce Bill 15, and that the said bill be now read a first time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act To
Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act", carried. (Bill 15)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act.
(Bill 15)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill now has been read a first time.
When shall the bill be read a second time?
MR. KENNEDY: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 15 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance,
pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on
Tuesday, April 3, 2012.
I further move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the Minister of Finance, pursuant to
Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 3,
MR. SPEAKER: The House has heard the motion: that the House not adjourn
at 5:30 p.m. today, Tuesday, April 3; nor would it adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today,
Tuesday, April 3.
All those in favour of the motion, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Motion carried.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 8, second
reading of Bill 5,
An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
MR. MARSHALL: I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that
Bill 5,
An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act, be now read a second
time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 5,
An Act To Amend The
Revenue Administration Act, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration
Act". (Bill 5)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bit of housekeeping to make some technical amendments
to correct some inadvertent errors that took place when the Retail Sales Tax Act
was one of the acts that was consolidated into the Revenue Administration Act. I
think that was back in 2009, and it has to deal with the Retail Sales Tax on
used vehicles which are brought into the Province.
I think, as everybody knows, the Retail Sales Tax of 14 per cent has to be
paid. The amendment has to do with
section 88.(2) of the act.
Section 88.(1) of
the Revenue Administration Act, which is in
Part VIII, the part that deals with
the Retail Sales Tax Act, provides that the rate of tax for a used vehicle that
is purchased at a retail sale in the Province from a person who is not an HST
registrant shall be 14 per cent. In
section 88.(2), which is the
section we are
going to amend here today, it is one of the sections we are going to amend here
today, that when this provision was brought forward from the Retail Sales Tax
Act into the consolidation of the Revenue Administration Act, the 14 per cent
was left out. So the purpose of the amendment is to clarify the fact that a
person who brings into the Province or who receives delivery of a used vehicle
in the Province where that vehicle was acquired from a person who is not an HST
registrant is liable for and shall pay at the time that the vehicle enters the
Province the tax at the rate of 14 per cent of the purchase price of the
vehicle. It prescribes that the tax in that situation shall be 14 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, I think all of us in this House will remember the Retail Sales
Tax Act, I certainly remember it. I remember it was a tax of 12 per cent on
tangible goods and property in the Province. It was 12 per cent, and there were
a number of exemptions. There was no tax on children's clothing, if I remember
correctly, and there was no tax on electricity. Then the federal government
brought in a sales tax, the Retail Sales Tax also being a sales tax obviously,
but the federal government t brought in a type of value-added tax called the
Goods and Services Tax, and that was a tax of 7 per cent. That had a broader
base than the Retail Sales Tax, and there were less exemptions. You had a
situation in the Province that in certain sales you had to pay the 12 per cent
Retail Sales Tax and you also had to pay the 7 per cent GST, and the GST was
also calculated on the RST. You, in essence, were paying a tax at 19.84 per cent
at that point in time.
The Province, at that time, along with the Governments of Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick, and the federal government, agreed that they would harmonize the
Retail Sales Tax with the Goods and Services Tax and it would be done at the
rate of 15 per cent. That tax, of course, is known today as the Harmonized Sales
Tax. The provincial government decided that the provincial proportion of the HST
would be 8 per cent, which would have been a reduction to the Province of 4 per
cent from the previous 12 per cent that they were charging on the Retail Sales
Tax the 12 per cent at the time. The federal government, at the time, would
charge 7 per cent, which has since been reduced down to 5 per cent because the
Harper government did reduce the federal portion of the HST from 7 per cent down
to 5 per cent.
The agreement at the time was to accept the tax base set out in the Goods and
Services Tax. The Harmonized Sales Tax is a federal tax. It is administered by
it, they collect it, and what they do is the federal government collects the
full, it is now 13 per cent, they collect the 13 per cent and they send to us
our share of 8 per cent. That saves us the administration cost with that
particular tax. The problem with that tax, it included more things, such as
electricity and home heating fuel. We were very pleased to pass legislation to
rebate that, the provincial portion of that tax on electricity and home heating
fuel.
When the harmonization took place, because of the fact the Province would
receive 8 per cent instead of 12 per cent, there were some transitional payments
that were made by the government, about $127 million a year over four years. You
would think that the Retail Sales Tax would now be gone, based on harmonization,
but once that happened the Retail Sales Tax still applied to the sale of
insurance and it still applied to the private sale of used vehicles. The RST on
insurance was reduced down from 15 per cent to 14 per cent and then eliminated
by this government, so that leaves the tax on the private sale of used vehicles.
It is interesting, if you buy a used vehicle from a person who is an HST
registrant, you pay the HST, which is now 13 per cent, but if you buy a used
vehicle from a person who is not an HST registrant, then you pay the 14 per cent
Retail Sales Tax.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Retail Sales Tax still existed. It was separate
legislation, but in 2009 the Province decided it would take all its taxes that
it administered, like the Gasoline Tax, the Retail Sales Tax, and metals and
minerals taxes and it would consolidate all the taxes into one piece of
legislation, that was known as the Revenue Administration bill. That bill
consolidated the various separate taxes. Instead of somebody having to look at
all of these different tax laws, they could look at one law. I will give an
example. Under one tax act you might have twenty days to appeal, on another act
you would have thirty days to appeal, another act you would have sixty days to
appeal. What they did is they consolidated it all and everybody would have the
same time to appeal.
Mr. Speaker, when the Retail Sales Tax was consolidated into the Revenue
Administration Act as
Part VIII, as I mentioned, when it came to purchasing a
used vehicle from outside the Province and bringing it into the Province, it
left out the number fourteen. This first amendment here in this legislation will
now clarify that anybody who buys a car and brings it in from outside of the
Province, and buys it from a person who is not an HST registrant, will have to
pay tax at the rate of 14 per cent.
The second section, Mr. Speaker, deals with another technical amendment, it
deals with the valuation. It says in
section 90: Where a consumer acquires a
vehicle from a person who is not an HST registrant, the purchase price on which
tax is required to be paid under this Act is the amount determined by the
valuation system prescribed by the regulations.
Mr. Speaker, within the valuation provision for used vehicles there were
several different terms that can be used and sometimes have the same meaning.
The terms purchased price and the term fair or true market value are used in the
section, which of course can cause confusion. It is proposed that the purchase
price be maintained to be consistent with the taxing provision under the Revenue
Administration Act and to remove the ambiguity that currently exists within the
Retail Sales Tax regulations. In relation to this, under the previous Retail
Sales Tax Act a provision existed allowing the minister to determine the true
value of what is called tangible personal property when it was believed that the
purchase price was not the actual price of that property. When the Revenue
Administration Act was consolidated, this provision was carried over and
"tangible personal property" was changed to the words "used vehicle".
This provision is in addition to a similar provision which provides specific
authority to determine the value of used vehicles as set out in the regulations.
Mr. Speaker, both provisions are not needed, so it is proposed by this amendment
to repeal
section 90(1) of the Revenue Administration Act that previously
applied to tangible personal property.
Mr. Speaker, essentially, as I said, this is housekeeping, technical
amendments, and I would urge that we move second reading on this particular
bill.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to speak to
An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act. I
would like to take this opportunity to thank the minister for his comments and
also for taking the time to speak to me earlier. Sometimes it is great to have a
conversation to make sure we are on the same page here when it comes to the
various changes. I appreciate the minister taking the time to pass this on to
me. Sometimes when you are reading this very dry language, it is hard to convey
what the actual intent of the legislation is.
Looking at it, it seems to make sense. Back in 2009 when there was a
consolidation of the various acts all into one, like in many cases, there were
some oversights and there were some things that were missed. This is an
opportunity to make sure that it is covered off. Looking at the new clause and
looking at the old clause, it basically just looks like we are actually stating
the 14 per cent there.
What I would say as an aside to this, when it comes to the legislation as a
whole, this is just proof of where the Committee structure should really be used
and be exercised here many eyes on this paper, and these changes could
probably prevent these oversights from happening. Again, I am very new to this
House, but it is not something, I believe, that has been used in some time or
has been followed. Government wants to take care of this and put these pieces of
legislation in.
I just think that sometimes it would make sense to listen to what the
Opposition parties have to say, even when it comes to the actual oversight. We
all come from different backgrounds and we have different areas of expertise.
People could pick these things up. So I am hoping that is something, as we move
forward in this new session, that we can avail of. It is there. It was there for
a purpose. It has gone into disuse, and now is a great opportunity with this new
session to make sure we bring it back to something that is used regularly.
What I would say is I think the minister has done a very good job of
explaining the difference here as it relates to if you are buying from an HST
registrant as opposed to buying from a non-HST registrant. You have your 13 per
cent versus your 14 per cent. When it comes to this particular piece of
legislation, I can remember, this did have an everyday change in my previous
life; any lawyer that has handled real estate transactions will remember the
affidavits that were attached to deeds went from listing out all the various
pieces, whether it be the Mine and Gas Tax there was actually the Horse Racing
Tax. There was a number; it was funny, when you went through these affidavits
with people buying a house and you say, you have to swear that you owe no money
to the government under the Horse Racing Tax or under the Oil and Gas Tax. It
was always good for a laugh. Now that act has changed; it consolidated into one
simple piece, so again, consolidation can be a very good thing.
I would note again in the second change that is being made here again, it
is just another, what might be a simple oversight, but it is an oversight. It is
a housekeeping measure. I have no issue with it after examining the old and
examining the new and listening to the purpose for this.
A very simple but important piece of legislation, and I do not believe I have
any more comments as to this today, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the time.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a privilege to be able to stand in this hon. House and speak to the Act
To Amend The Revenue Administration Act.
It is my fourth act, particularly around finance, that I had to speak on;
while they are not overly inspirational and overly riveting from a motherhood
point of view, they are very important because they help drive our economy and
they help drive the thousands of programs and services that we offer to the
people in this Province.
First of all, though, I would like to start by congratulating all the members
in this House on both sides who gave their maiden speeches in the last couple of
days and did a very eloquent job and spoke from the heart and showed that they
are here to represent the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Congratulations
to everybody on my behalf, and on behalf of particularly this side of the House.
I would like to also acknowledge all the important things that are going on
as part and parcel of what we do with this part of legislation. I would be
remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not acknowledge the derogatory statement made by
my colleague over there from St. John's North, a period of time when it was
relevant to the Department of Finance.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the member to focus his comments on the bill. You made a reference to
this being a finance bill, and you have spoken to several finance bills. In the
sense that traditionally, in this House, we have talked about finance bills as
they have been given fair latitude to talk about many things, sometimes in our
districts and others; this is not a finance bill in that context.
I would ask the member to confine his comments purely to the bill before us
and I might, just for the benefit of the House, because these bills this issue
comes up several times as we talk about finance-related bills or bills
introduced by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
Let me read for the members' benefit of the House, if I could, a ruling that
was made by previous Speakers in 2006, 2008, and 2009, relative to this issue.
These words may help guide not only the current speaker but future speakers to
this particular bill.
I will just reference the 2008 comment in particular when the context at the
time was in respect to a pension bill; it said that the bill in fact was not a
money bill, in that context of giving you fair latitude. Money bills are those
that have as their sole objective the appropriation of money, such as supply
bills, and the raising of money through taxation and the loan bills.
That gives you some sense of the kinds of bills that we will deal with in the
House where members have a little more latitude than normal in speaking to the
bill before the House. In this particular case, this is not a finance bill as
the definition that I just shared with you. I would ask members to confine their
comments to the bill before the House today, which is an amendment to an
existing piece of legislation that the minister has described as somewhat
housekeeping in nature and somewhat routine.
MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that clarification.
As has been mentioned by the hon. minister there, this is about doing some
housekeeping, cleaning up and specifically clarifying exactly what this piece of
legislation is all about. Back some years ago, we harmonized, as the minister
had mentioned, with the federal government, our tax regime here. As part and
parcel of that, there were hundreds of pieces of legislation and tax policies
that had to be implemented and had to be put in place.
As we went through the process, this is perhaps one of the last pieces of
administration that needs to be cleaned up and needs to be moved forward. In
itself, it probably addresses a lot of things that a lot of people, particularly
in this area when they are spending money, would be relevant to. We are talking
about used cars, and particularly, clarifying exactly the amount of money that
would have to be paid from a tax point of view when you purchase a used vehicle.
There are two different components to what we are changing here in this piece
of legislation; one is around if you purchase a car from a private individual.
As relevant to the point previously, it was just stated that you would have to
pay appropriate taxes.
What you have to do now is, when you go in to register your vehicle, the
appropriate tax is already registered at 14 per cent Harmonized Sales Tax that
is a part and parcel in this Province. You go in; you register it as part of
that. Fortunate or unfortunate, it depends if you are the purchaser or if you
are the tax collector in our case we are the tax collector; we base it based
on the value of the car from our assessment, not based on what the individual
may have said they sold it to you for at that point. It is revenue generating
from our point of view, from a tax perspective. It makes that valuable to the
actual quality and the actual value of the car being purchased. Also, if you
purchase a used vehicle from a registered entity that has a Harmonized Sales Tax
process, you must pay them the 14 per cent based on the value of the car being
sold at the time.
Mr. Speaker, as has been noted, this is an opportunity for us to bring this
part of the legislation to an end, and clarify all the tax revenue acts that are
part and parcel of the Department of Finance. There is some very diligent work
being done over the last number of years to bring this to a close. As we move
forward, the intent here is to make sure that we are all in sync with everything
that we do across the Province, so there is no confusion when we talk about how
much we pay for various parts of the tax regime in this Province.
Also, while it may not be a money bill, Mr. Speaker, it is a tax revenue
bill. This money still goes back into the coffers to be used for very important
things within the confines of what we do for the people of this Province. In
this process we now clarify with the hundreds of people who consider themselves
as used car salespeople, and the thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
who every year go out and purchase a used vehicle with the intent of making sure
that they have safe vehicles on the road, and they have all their tax regimes
put in place. Mr. Speaker, like all of us, I suspect, over the years we have
bought cars that we would consider the tax probably cost more than the value of
the car in some cases, but that is part of our standard. When you are younger -
you realize, at the end of the day, you will drive anything as part and parcel
of that process.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify the fact that we are now at a point were
this will clean all the administrative parts for the used car industry. All the
dealers now will know exactly what the used car percentage will have to be paid,
and the value of a car being purchased, particularly from a used point of view,
will now be 14 per cent. When you come in to Motor Vehicle, the Motor Vehicle
assessment officers will look at the cost and assess 14 per cent based on that.
Mr. Speaker, while there is not a lot to this, it is a very important part of
how we move our Harmonized Sales Tax process to a conclusion and have everything
under one regime. So, I just want to close, Mr. Speaker, by saying this gives
everybody clarity, and an understanding as part and parcel of what we do here
when we buy used vehicles.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I don't think I am going to be very long on this one, when it comes to a
little bit of a housekeeping measure when it comes to the taxation on vehicles,
but a couple of things come to mind when I look at the numbers here.
I have to note that we are talking about a 14 per cent tax that is being
applied to the sale of used vehicles that are coming in from outside the
Province, but we are talking about a 13 per cent tax on anything that is sold
within the Province, off a car lot. So, there has to be a question here, at the
same time, of tax fairness that has to be brought into this, and I think it is a
matter of concern to some consumers out there when it comes to the purchase of a
used vehicle.
The question has to be asked: Why the difference, for example, between the
sale from a private seller versus the car that is coming off a car lot? The
disparity in taxes there almost makes it - how shall I put it?
anti-competitive, I guess, would probably be a good word when we are talking
about the differences in taxation, and it may be a factor that may, in fact,
drive somebody to go to the used car lot to buy cars. That is one of the things
to come to note when I look at this.
The second thing that comes to note when it comes to this piece of
legislation is we do know it is a bill that is correcting a revenue problem. We
have differences in taxation from province to province in some cases due to the
necessity of that, but Saskatchewan has actually seen, in fact, to no longer tax
used vehicles for the simple fact that, of course, the taxes were paid on them
initially when the vehicles were new. Whether this should be a consideration for
government, based on its fiscal situation today, probably not, but it may be a
consideration for government to hold in its mind for the future. The potential
taxes have already been collected off the sale of a new vehicle in the Province,
and perhaps they would consider in the future, on the sale of used vehicles
within the Province, knowing that the taxes have already been collected on those
particular automobiles, they would probably change their mind on collecting the
taxation on used vehicles. Because, in fact, what we are doing is keeping a tax
upon a tax upon a tax, any number of times, depending on how many times the
vehicles are sold.
It is just another consideration we are thinking about over here, keeping
that taxation measure in mind possibly down the road. Most likely it is not
going to be done tomorrow, but hopefully we can all keep it in mind.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I think that is probably about all I can say on this
one. If the government sees fit that it has to be done, then it has to be done
just in the interest of tax fairness.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Verge): If the Minister of Finance speaks now he will close
debate in second reading on Bill 5.
The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank everyone for taking
part in this debate, all of the parties.
I thank my colleague for taking part as well.
Just to clarify again, this is just some technical amendments. We now have a
situation in this Province where, if you buy a used car from a person who is an
HST registrant, you pay the HST, which is presently 13 per cent. If you buy a
used car from a person who is not an HST registrant, you pay the Retail Sales
Tax, which is 14 per cent.
With respect to our taxes, I know that some members would like us to
eliminate all taxes, but obviously we need tax revenues to do wonderful things.
We provide dental programs, we provide drug programs, and we have to strike a
balance between ensuring people have money in their pockets to pay their bills,
but we also need funds to provide progressive social programs for people in this
Province who need help.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act. (Bill 5)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time.
When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. KENNEDY: Presently, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Presently.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act", read a
second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by
leave. (Bill 5)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Order 9, second reading of Bill 9,
An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act,
1999 and The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I call Bill 9,
An Act To Amend The
Municipalities Act, 1999 and The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000, for second
reading.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs, it is moved and
seconded by?
MR. O'BRIEN: By the hon. Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker.
MR. JACKMAN: Indeed so.
MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.
It has been moved and seconded that Bill 9,
An Act To Amend The
Municipalities Act, 1999 and The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000 be now read
a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act,
1999 and The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000". (Bill 9)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take an opportunity to take a
few moments to offer some comments in regard to this bill and the legislative
amendments that it proposes.
This is really an expansion of a 2007 piece of work and an amendment that we
brought forward back in 2007 in regard to the Municipalities Act 1999 and the
Urban Planning Act 2000 that enabled the Cities of St. John's, Mount Pearl and
Corner Brook to issue tickets and fines in regard to municipal offences.
This enabled them to address such things as poor property management or
whatever it is that they had encompassed in their bylaws. Essentially, what the
project did was permit the enforcement officers of the particular cities to
issue tickets or the property related bylaw offences on matters such as noise,
occupancy, maintenance, garbage and snow clearing offences as well, Mr. Speaker.
Then any unpaid fines associated with unpaid tickets convert to a lien against
the property in question and not the offender. I wanted to point that out too,
Mr. Speaker, that it is a property lien not an offence of the offender itself
because there are certain implications to that as well in regard to legalities.
We believe, Mr. Speaker, that the pilot has been successful. Now we are
interested in expanding that to our next six largest municipalities to have the
same authority to use this program if they wish. They do not have to do it; they
can do it if they wish. Most of them, I think all of them really, have been
lobbying us to enable them to do it in the first place. I think they will all
take advantage of it.
The six communities that will have the opportunity to partake is Conception
Bay South, Gander, Paradise, Labrador City, Grand Falls Windsor, and Happy
Valley - Goose Bay. This process allows for an effective and efficient
enforcement process to issue and collect fines for property related offences. We
often hear of a property in a community which is not maintained and an eyesore
for a neighbourhood, and now those six communities can issue a ticket to the
property owner. Excessive noise complaints for residents or improper care taken
towards garbage could also be addressed under this ticketing process.
To give the Members of the House of Assembly an idea of the success of the
project, between 2007-2011 the City of St. John's issued over 800 such tickets.
That enables a community such as the City of St. John's or City of Mount Pearl
to address any issues because we all would like to believe that each and every
one of us abides by all the bylaws that a particular community might have in
place but there are incidents where they do not. Sometimes, like I just
mentioned, there might be issues surrounding proper maintenance of your property
which makes it an eyesore, brings down the property values of their neighbours.
This needs to be addressed because each and every one of us, I believe, dream
about having their own home, their own property. They believe that that value
should be protected, and this is one way a municipality can do that,
particularly in making sure a person is responsible to their property or any of
the other bylaws pertaining to their municipal process.
We believe that these six particular communities have in place the
administrative capabilities and the enforcement capabilities to be able to carry
this out. A question might arise, well why don't we just extend it out to all
the municipalities of Newfoundland and Labrador? We would like to phase it in,
make sure that each because it is a capacity issue. We should make sure that
each one of them has the proper processes in place, especially the
administrative processes and the people in place who would actually write the
ticket. It is not just a case of being enabled to do it; it is actually a case
of being able to administer the particular right to ticket in regard to their
bylaws.
Mr. Speaker, we also believe that allowing the Provincial Court of
Newfoundland and Labrador to administer these tickets is an appropriate process
as well. I would like to thank the court at this particular time for agreeing to
continue to work with us, following the successful implementation of the pilot
in St. John's, Corner Brook and Mount Pearl. Now, no doubt the Provincial Court
has the capabilities to undertake that role, but it is also appropriate that
they be compensated. In the process of issuing the ticket and a fine thereof,
which is defined under the regulations that are set in the Municipalities Act
and pertaining to the particular bylaws that a community has, the Provincial
Court will be able to charge a small administration fee for the processing of
each ticket. This is not uncommon, Mr. Speaker, and it is similar to those that
are now occurring with parking tickets and that kind of stuff.
In essence, Mr. Speaker, we feel the process is more efficient for
municipalities than the other possible resources, such as court action, and will
hold violating property owners accountable for their actions. Again, when we
consider which municipalities would be included in the regulations of the
Municipalities Act, it would have to have the ability to enforce, to write the
ticket, and to enter the particular data that is needed to track that particular
ticket in their own administrative processes. That being said, Mr. Speaker,
should any of those communities decide or choose to not use these authorities
then they have other recourses under the Municipalities Act, which are available
to all the communities throughout the Province, such as civil debt collection or
prosecution. We feel this is a great opportunity to expand our pilot project to
those larger municipalities located throughout the Province.
I would like to say at this particular time, Mr. Speaker, that Municipal
Affairs, not only in my tenure as the Minister of Municipal Affairs, have worked
closely with municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador. They bring certain
resolutions to the floor of their AGMs each and every year. We take them, we
evaluate them and if they make sense to do it, we try to expedite those
particular amendments to the Municipalities Act, to enable them to run their
communities more efficiently.
We enjoy, and we take it very seriously, working with the 276 municipalities
that we have in Newfoundland and Labrador. This piece of legislation might not
seem to be an earth-shattering piece of legislation on the floor of the House of
Assembly, but it is important for municipalities to be able to administer, able
to deal with the processes, deal with issues such as I just outlined in regard
to violations under their bylaws which are quite defined.
I would like to also say, Mr. Speaker, in the regulations that each one of
the particular communities that will be enabled will be referenced in the
regulations under the Municipalities Act. We cannot do them all encompassing
because each one of the municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador are
empowered to develop and pass their own bylaws. Those bylaws may differ from
municipality to municipality even though they address the issues, such as the
garbage collection issue, or whatever it may be that is not under this
particular piece of legislation or amendment to the current act. We have to
define it for each one of the municipalities in question before it can be law,
for the simple reason, it has to be enforceable, it has to be legal. We will
tailor the particular amendments to the regulations under the Municipalities Act
to the particular municipality in question so that everything is clear.
Mr. Speaker, like I just said, this is not an earth-shattering piece of
legislation that would have me on my feet in the House debating for thirty,
forty or fifty minutes or whatever it may be. Just because it does not take a
whole lot of time to get up in the House and speak to a particular amendment
does not mean it is not important. I want to put that to the House of Assembly
and the people who are out there looking at this particular proceeding on this
particular day. I believe this is important to municipalities across the
Province. Once we have established it in these particular six, we will be
considering expanding the opportunity to other municipalities that demonstrate
they have the administrative ability to enforce and to administer the particular
process of ticketing and thus collection.
So, Mr. Speaker, with that, I would take my seat in the House of Assembly and
I would welcome any comments by hon. members across the floor.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I recognize the hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for his words. As usual, in the spirit of co-operation
and my good nature, I will have some positive comments to say about some of this
also.
First of all, Minister, would you pass on to your officials that the briefing
they gave us was a very informative briefing? I just want to thank the officials
for that briefing, because it was very informative.
As the minister mentioned, Mr. Speaker, this was a pilot project back in
2007. Part of the problem back in 2007 in Corner Brook, St. John's, and Mount
Pearl was there was no processing fee in place at the time. What happened was
there were tickets issued and there was no fee being taken by the courts for the
work of the courts. Of course, this was at times a timing thing for the courts,
and took up a lot of time for the courts. Back then, when it was done as a pilot
project, that might have been overlooked or they did not know how much this
process would be used. So now this is part of it also, to put a fee on this.
Since 2007, as the minister mentioned, there is another six municipalities
across Newfoundland and Labrador who have asked to join in this. CBS, Gander,
Grand Falls, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Lab City, and Paradise, to my
understanding, are the six municipalities who asked now to partake in this also.
My understanding from the municipalities is that a lot of them agree with the
fee. They have no problem with the fee.
The only two questions raised to me, Minister and you can answer this later
are: If the fee is increased by the minister, will the municipalities be
consulted? That is one question that was brought to me. Will they be consulted
if there is an increase in fee, or what the fee will be. That is one thing.
The second thing and this is not a big deal; once the fee came in, is the
fee going to stay in the court system or go back in general revenues? I am
assuming it will be staying in the court system to help offset the cost for the
court.
Mr. Speaker, there is another thing I would like to mention. I am not sure if
the minister mentioned it or not, even though I was listening to him very
attentively; if a person does get a ticket, they do have the right to go to
court. They do have that right. This is not arbitrarily where you get a ticket
and it is put on, saying you have to pay it. You do have the right to go to
court. All the people out there in the municipalities, if some municipal
enforcement officer comes to your location and they issue a ticket or a
citation, you do have that ability to go to court and to fight this in court.
That is one thing that was stressed to us, that was done at the briefing. This
is not carte blanche. You just do not walk in, here is your ticket, sit down;
you have no legal obligation or no legal right to try to address the fine or the
ticket. I am not sure if the minister mentioned it, but I just want to mention
that was brought to our attention.
Mr. Speaker, as we noticed, the municipalities the three that were in 2007
and the six that are there now, as it was mentioned by the minister the reason
why there are the larger ones, because the municipalities need to have the
infrastructure in place themselves to do this enforcement. The infrastructure
that you would need is an enforcement officer, you may need a vehicle to go
around to look at properties. It does come with some kind of infrastructure that
these towns would have to put in place themselves.
A lot of the smaller towns in Newfoundland and Labrador will not be able to
put in that infrastructure. Therefore they will not be able to avail of it. Some
of the smaller towns would not need it because of the low numbers of residents
and properties in their municipalities. They would not be able to, it would not
be worth their while to get into that, and there are other avenues for them.
Also, from my understanding, minister, this will be a direct ticketing
process; the municipalities would have the handheld tickets, and if they print a
ticket, it would go right directly to the courts, which again saves a lot of
time and saves a lot of work for a lot of people to process the tickets. It
would go directly to the courts and then I would assume, just the same as any
other ticket you have a certain amount of time; if you want to fight the
ticket in court, you have to notify the court or the municipality that you want
to fight it in court, then it will be put on hold until you get your day in
court.
That itself also is some infrastructure that some of those bigger towns would
have that some of the smaller towns would not have. That is why we say only
certain towns would avail of it.
As the minister has mentioned, most of this here, for this legislation, is to
do with garbage collection, your property, some kind of eyesore on your property
or something that may be hazardous to your property for example, a dilapidated
building, or something to give notice.
This is my understanding of the bill from the minister and also from the
briefing note that we had, Mr. Speaker. That is what it is centered around more
so than anything.
Mr. Speaker, my understanding of it also is now, if municipalities and some
of the municipalities that I know would have to either hire somebody to come in
now and do the work, and then they would go on and proceed with the courts. My
understanding of this now is that the municipalities will go directly to the
provincial court if there is a ticket issued. That would take out in some
other towns, I would assume, and I am just thinking about one in Humber Arm
South, which is fairly large, out in the Bay of Islands, that does have some
municipal enforcement. I am not sure if they would avail of this, but I know
when they get someone to come in, the process of issuing the ticket to the
person, they may be able to avail of this also, minister.
The good thing about it also is, and we all know it, not so much me, but I am
sure there are a lot of people in the Province it has not happened to me for
awhile that you get a speeding ticket. If you do not contest it in court, it
is put on your driver's license or your registration for your car the next time
you go to register your car or get your driver's license. Once again, that is a
way to ensure that the ticket is paid.
My understanding here again is that this ticket, if you do not contest it in
the period of time that you can contest it, the actual cost of the ticket would
be put on your property tax or some way that when you go pay your property tax;
that is the way municipalities would get their fees for the ticket itself,
instead of having to take someone to court ten or fifteen times, go for a year,
take them to court, and the process of going through the courts. From my
understanding, that is how the payment of the fee can be done, or someone can
just walk in and say: Yes, you are right in what I did. If you did not do it, if
you do not contest it, you can walk in and pay your ticket right away like you
can with a speeding ticket or any other ticket that you may receive in the
Province.
From my understanding of the bill, this is something that is voluntary in
joining. Of the six municipalities that are joining now, they are asking to join
to be part of this system because they see the benefits of it. The three prior
are still going to participate in this program, the pilot project which now will
become permanent for the nine municipalities.
My understanding of it, and from the briefings I had, this is something that
is going to make life easier for a lot of towns. Hopefully, encourage some of
the towns that can afford it with the infrastructure needed to issue tickets and
do their own enforcement that they partake in this themselves to make it easier
for them. It is pretty hard for a town manager, a town clerk to have to hire
some paralegal all of a sudden and start taking it to court for people, to start
having to go back to court. With this here, we are streamlining it a bit.
Mr. Speaker, I again pass on to - I think it was a Mr. Blundon who gave us
the briefing. It was a very thorough briefing on it. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
minister for his words, and if you can answer those questions, Mr. Minister,
later, so I can pass it on to municipalities that mentioned it to me.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives me pleasure to stand up and speak to the act to amend the
Municipalities Act. In this case what the government is doing, what my
interpretation of it is and I have to also thank Mr. Chad Blundon for the
excellent overview of the changes that he brought. He was very clear, very
concise, and my hat is off to him. You have some good people working there under
your guidanceship'.
To the minister; just a few points when it comes to this particular piece of
legislation. I think that it is a good thing. It looks like it was an experiment
that was undertaken in 2007 that will be now an ongoing and permanent nature. I
am glad to see there are a few more municipalities that are joining into the
project. Hopefully this project will be shown more growth as the potential for
hiring municipal enforcement officers would be undertaking this particular
responsibility. No doubt that is going to require more money, but I am kind of
looking at this one in a different perspective. Because not only does the
provincial government pass off to the municipalities the right to issue a ticket
for property violation of any kind, but it also has the potential to open up
doors to other initiatives here too. For example, I am thinking of when it comes
to the need of a service district. Maybe they cannot hire that municipal
enforcement officer on their own to go ahead and carry out some of these
ticketing violations, but perhaps all of these towns that are in a service
district can venture to hire at least one person to look after some of these
areas of the Province. That is probably one thing to look at.
This also has the potential, particularly when you are talking about eyesores
on property and everything. Being able to actually ticket somebody and place a
lien on their property as a form of collection, in some ways and probably in a
roundabout thinking, may in fact do something for provincial beautification of
some properties out there. Of course, when some people have the tendency to let
a lot of junk build up on their property and not do anything about it, perhaps a
financial incentive, a loss of finances to themselves is going to be more than
enough incentive to clean up their own properties, and in fact probably avoid
having to get a ticket in the first place.
There are a couple of things that are very positive about this piece of
legislation that is coming forth. Again, it only takes the government to use
their imagination a little bit when it comes to expanding on such a program like
this. I do not see it as mission impossible for government to do that. I think
that government covering nine municipalities right now, and probably an
essential core of the population can indeed expand on something like this.
Again, I see it as a good thing.
Right now he sees the challenge. Mr. Minister, I think you mentioned
something about a capacity issue when it comes to dealing with small towns and
service districts. It is probably a bit of a challenge but I think it is one
that your department is ready to meet. It only takes some towns to show the
initiative in wanting to have an inclusive role in such a program that they
would introduce bylaws. We would encourage municipalities to get into a venture
like this. We see it as a good thing. It is a good thing. I commend them for
coming out with a program like this which shows a little bit of spark and
imagination when it comes to this.
Again, I think the only challenge that Municipal Affairs has right now in
such a program like this is to get the whole Province to get in there and to
address the challenges provided by space, population, the size of the service
district, for example, and the size of the town. So, hopefully we will see towns
get together on a co-operative basis to see if we cannot meet that need.
The last point I think that I can see here to address on it, just on the
simple fact on the saving in some cases of well, the potential freeing up of
space in the court system when it comes to the challenge of having to drag
somebody to court to clean up their own property, for example, I think has been
probably partially addressed here in the freeing of space when it comes to a
court challenge. Somebody can go ahead and freely challenge a ticket and prove
their guilt or their innocence when it co