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!

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.

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 applauding these efforts to enhance accessibility and inclusion in Newfoundland 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.

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 being responsible for the Government of Canada –

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.

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.

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

WHEREAS the Government of Canada has indicated that they are ready to 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.

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.

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, 2012.

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 the Canada Revenue Agency on behalf of the Government of Canada. They administer 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 comes to a particular matter, but in more often than not when they are guilty about it, they do not bother to address a ticket in some cases, and therefore you do not have that need to go to court. I think there is probably going to be a little bit of saving – potentially here, anyway – to the court system out there, and hopefully we will see the court doing more positive things.

Again, I cannot see anything wrong with this piece of legislation, but I can certainly see plenty of reasons why there is potential to expand this program and go from nine communities and to encompass every region of the Province. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will listen to the minister and see if he can address some of these concerns.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor – Green Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see my colleagues, the Member for Bay of Islands and the Member for St. John's East support this bill. Of course, in what they were saying they were well briefed. It shows they have a great understanding of what we are trying to do in Bill 9.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a few comments on Bill 9. We all realize it is an extension of a pilot project that was implemented back in 2007 for the three cities. Of course, in order for the three cities to be in line with the new legislation, then we would have to change the Municipalities Act, 1999, and the Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000 to allow that to happen. Of course, Mr. Speaker, the amount of money that will be realized for the towns is going to be the responsibility of the court.

When a ticket is given, then the court will make sure that the town receives their portion of that ticket, which in the past for the cities was $5 court costs and the rest went to the town. In this case, the court will receive $7, and $93 would go to the communities involved. We have six new communities that are partaking in this new policy. The minister has already alluded to the towns: Conception Bay South, Gander, Grand Falls – Windsor, Happy Valley –Goose Bay, Labrador City, and Paradise.

I know, Mr. Speaker, when I was a young fellow growing up, we had a town constable. The former Town of Windsor was incorporated in 1942; as long as I could remember – not back to 1942, but back in the 1950s – when we had that constable, he used to implement the town bylaws, enforce the town bylaws in the Town of Windsor, and he did it on foot. Of course, most of his work was in the main street area, because there were a lot of parking violations and, of course, that is where most of the trouble in the town was: on the main street. He did travel around the town on foot, walking from one end of Windsor to the other. Even today, Mr. Speaker, we have three constables in the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor.

Not every town can afford to have municipal policing, but we are lucky that we do have municipal policing, and this new law is going to make it a lot easier for our municipal police to do their job, especially when it involves a lot of the town bylaws. I know some of the communities and the cities have more town laws than others, and probably different ones, but some of them do relate to a common law, a common bylaw. Some of them would probably be an anti-litter bylaw or an animal control regulation such as that, snow clearing regulations, some fire regulations, noise bylaws and regulations, and residential property standards. We get that common in a lot of the communities; it is going to make it a lot easier for our municipal police to go out now and to ticket the violators. That ticket will be delivered right to the person right at the time, rather than being summoned and having to go to court and pleading guilty or not guilty in a court battle, which is not the proper way to do it for such small infractions of our bylaws.

We will make the job for our municipal police a lot easier, and it is certainly going to be more advantageous to the communities and the courts. Instead of courts being used up in long, drawn-out court battles, now it will be ticketable; when the time comes for the violator to pay that ticket, it is going to be a lot easier for them. The law states that they can go to the community, of course, if they want to pay quicker, rather than waiting the full length, so there are notices that are given. Of course, in the first notice they can pay a lesser amount than the full $100 ticket. If you pay right away and pay to the court, the fine would probably be a $50 fine; it goes to a $100 fine. Even at the second notice, Mr. Speaker, it would be a lot cheaper to make sure that fine is paid rather than waiting. That makes it a lot easier for the towns too, Mr. Speaker, that they do not have to be following up on fines and making sure that people pay the fines, because if they do not, then the courts have a way to get that fine paid with respect to probably a sale of property, or a sale of a car, or something – the court can make sure that fine is paid, Mr. Speaker.

We are very happy to do this. Even though it is a pilot project, it does have – it can be advantageous to other communities. There can be spinoffs. There can be potential, as the Member for St. John's East alluded to, for other things, with respect to a municipality's enforcement of their bylaws. That is a good point that the member made. Maybe it will someday lead into regional policing, where a lot more communities can avail of police enforcement and law enforcement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HUNTER: Maybe down the road, we will see more municipal policing in three or four communities. That is a possibility. We do have a lot of regional co-operation. We do have a lot of towns sharing the same services, so maybe policing would be one of those services.

We know that some of the larger towns that are close together certainly need municipal policing, especially with respect to environment issues now, Mr. Speaker. We have a lot of old car wrecks and dumping all over the place that municipal policing could keep an eye on, more than our RCMP or even the RNC.

There is a lot of potential that could happen because of this new law. It would mean that the towns can certainly deliver a better service to the public and the communities. Of course, the reason why these towns are freely participating in it is that they are capable of administering the policy of the act. These towns are big enough that they have police enforcement and they have the infrastructure to do it. As the member said, you need cars and you need other things to implement what we are trying to do here. We are fortunate that a lot of communities do have the ability to pay for it.

This venture that we are doing is not fully funded by government. The towns are participating at their own expense, even though our department, our minister will help in cases where they need to combine, streamline the implementation of the laws with respect to computers and other things that the towns need to make sure they correspond with the Provincial Court in an efficient and timely matter.

I congratulate the towns for participating and using their own resources and money to make this law certainly work, and hopefully in the future we will see other, bigger communities either participating with existing communities in a regional way, or going on their own to be part of this program.

So, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I committed to spend only five minutes here, but I can spend twenty minutes here. I leave that up to the members opposite. They can decide.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BENNETT: It can be five or it can be twenty.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, this looks like an attempt by the government to correct a problem that does not exist, and it looks like it is going to add to the size of government, the same government that the Minister of Finance is trying to reduce the size of so it will not cost so much.

Now, my comments on the Municipalities Act will be the same as the Urban And Rural Planning Act, so I do not need to comment on the second, only the first.

This says that when a fine is imposed for a violation of this act, or a regulation, or a bylaw – presumably a municipal bylaw – made under a particular offence, the council to which it relates shall pay to the Province an amount that the Minister of Justice may establish for every ticket processed by the Province. Now, does that mean processed and collected? I suppose if it is processed, the ticket is processed, but it may or may not be collected.

Mr. Speaker, let me give you an example; let us say an old age pensioner lets their grass grow too long, there are weeds in their backyard, and they run afoul of a city bylaw. They get ticketed, and they go off to Provincial Court; I assume we have not suspended justice in the Province, although that would not surprise me. So let us say they go off to court and the judge feels sorry for this person and gives them a $50 fine and six months to pay. So, for a $50 fine and six months to pay, that person has probably had two or three court appearances, and the municipalities had to send somebody down to appear every time at a cost of maybe a half a day for each appearance, coming and going. On top of this, the Province wants to charge the municipality for processing the ticket. The only issue that I have with it is, it only adds to the size of government if the Province is going to want a fee to process a ticket. Why should the Province want anything? On a $50 fine levied on an old age pensioner for letting their weeds grow too long after three or four court appearances and a $50 fine and six months to pay.

The Minister of Justice wants to levy an amount of $5, $10, and $20; to me this is just silly. The Province should have a complete pass through, process it and any money that is colleted should go straight to the municipalities. They are already struggling; they are trying to make ends meet. To add another layer of administration by the government to charge a minimal fee to municipalities to me only increases the size of government. It is a complete waste of taxpayers' money. The bill would be fine if the Province is not going to charge anything. They should not charge anything whatsoever and just cover it for the municipalities and move on. Mr. Speaker, those are my comments.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the Minister of Municipal Affairs speaks now he will be closing debate on second reading on Bill 9.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

It is a great pleasure to get up and speak again in regard to closing debate in second reading to An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 and The Urban and Rural Planning Act, 2000. I would like to first thank the members from across the House and my hon. colleague on this side of the House for the positive comments in regard to this amendment. I think it is a very important piece. I think it is an important amendment that enables the municipalities to ticket for offences under their bylaws.

I, as well, would like to thank the two hon. members across the House who commented on the staff at Municipal Affairs. I do not have a whole lot of staff in regard to Municipal Affairs and public service, and I have staff spread across the Province in our regional offices, but I would like to compliment them myself. With 276 municipalities and just about as many LSDs, unincorporated areas and administering employment programs and whatever, they do some valuable service to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

There are long hours put in by many public servants, not only in my department but in many departments. I tell you, since I have gone into Municipal Affairs I have seen such an amount of hours that is put in, way beyond what was ever expected of them when they were hired in regard to getting the work done, the important work for municipalities in the Province. As the minister responsible and their boss I suppose at this particular time in history, I would like to thank them for that, and I would like to thank you for your positive comments.

In regard to some of the things that have been questioned, I would like to place some answers on those as well. The first one I would like to address is the consulting on any increase. First off, I would like to point out that the fees, in regard to the fee pertaining to the ticket, is actually done by Justice because it is a ticketing process. As well, I would like to say that we would never raise the fees or adjust the fees in any way without consulting with municipalities. We have a history of consulting. We have a history of working in partnership, especially from a Municipal Affairs point of view and also government in general. So I want to bring some clarity to that. We would not go down that path and it would be counterproductive to do such a thing.

The other piece is the administration fee. We had some question there, the administration fee and the good work that has been done by the Provincial Court. They have supported this program. They took it on wholeheartedly back in the pilot project in 2007, have agreed to go forward with it as well and expand it. That fee, yes, would stay with the Provincial Court to help them administer this program. We rely on the Provincial Court from various aspects of government in regard to regulations that we bring in this House and then the enforcement of those regulations, any ticketing, or permitting of whatever it may be. I thank them for that, and that will stay.

In regard to the appeal process, yes, there is an appeal process. It is quite a simple process because it is no different than any other ‘ticketable' offence in Newfoundland and Labrador. Such appeals or examples of that ticketing process would be the parking ticket and traffic violations. At any given time, if any person or property owner in any of these municipalities feels they have been wronged, there is an appeal process in place that they can carry. They are going to be protected in regard to that piece.

As well, in regard to expanding it beyond the nine communities we have now, one of the hon. members referenced that it is no longer a pilot project because the pilot project was really with the City of St. John's, Mount Pearl, and Corner Brook. It is not, because now we are starting to expand it. We hopefully can expand it beyond where it will be today. If any community on its own demonstrates the ability to be able to administer and also to ticket, then yes, absolutely, we would take them into consideration and come back at another session and amend again the Municipalities Act and the Urban and Rural Planning Act in order for them to partake.

As well, it was interesting by the hon. Member for St. John's East, he mentioned that if communities came together. I want to comment on that because since I have been in Municipal Affairs or even prior to Municipal Affairs and also the minister beforehand, we always encouraged regionalization and sharing of services because it is hard to address operating costs and that kind of thing, especially when you have small municipalities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. If they can come together, demonstrate that they can administer, demonstrate they can actually do it, well then I am open to it. That is a piece I would encourage them to do, not only from this piece but any of the regional services, if they can provide to the people where they were elected and went out door to door, no differently than we did to bring those services to the people in those communities, please do. I would be very, very supportive of that. From that point of view, in regard to expanding it, I would certainly consider that.

The revenue that we are talking about, which is miniscule, is not important really to the municipalities. The important piece of this piece in regard to this amendment is the ability to keep their communities working in the right manner; everything from obstructions to land ownership not being addressed in the right and proper manner, whatever it may be. It enables them to run that community; it enables them to enforce their bylaws. That is the most important thing to the municipalities. I would like to put that in as well because in this case they were not lobbying to be enabled to do this just for a revenue stream because it is quite small, but they needed that enforcement piece in order to address the issues they would encounter under the acts.

I think, Mr. Speaker, I have covered everything off that was brought up by the hon. members across the House, from the Bay of Islands and the hon. Member for St. John's East. So, if there are any other questions in regard to the piece, I certainly would address them in Committee stage.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat in the House and wait for this particular act to go to Committee stage. If there are any other further questions, as I said, I will address them at that time.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 9 be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 and The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000. (Bill 9)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time.

When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. KENNEDY: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 9)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bills 5, 9, and 3.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bills 5, 9, and 3.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

CHAIR (Kent): Order, please!

We will begin by considering Bill 5, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act". (Bill 5)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: This is being set at a fixed rate of 14 per cent, and governments are often accused of finding sneaky ways of reaching into people's pockets. I do not believe that is the case here, but why would it be 14 per cent? Why should it not say: the same rate as being charged for HST? That way, if HST changes, it changes over time, instead of being frozen at 14 per cent and lagging behind.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Chair, as I understand, the way this happens historically is that the Retail Sales Tax was originally 12 per cent, and that when the GST came in and the HST came in, the HST was 15 per cent. I understand the government of the day raised the RST from 12 per cent to 15 per cent to match the HST. They are two different taxes, the HST – businesses do not pay it; the ultimate consumer pays it, and there are input tax credits as you go through the system.

Under the HST and under the GST, taxes on used vehicles – there would not be any. There was not supposed to be tax under that system, so the government of the day kept the RST in effect – as I understand it, because I was not around then. As I understand it, they kept it in merely to generate the revenue. Right now there is, I think, $8 million coming in under that; it is merely to generate revenue.

If you were to look at it theoretically or from an academic point of view, there should not be a tax there at all; it is a used item. That is the only used item in the Province that is taxed. I do not know if that answers the hon. member's question, but he can ask another.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Chair, the value is said to be set by regulation. I wonder, why would it not be set in a commercially acceptable way? Auto dealers have blue book values, black book values, and so on, so why would the government want to be involved in setting the value when there is already a commercially acceptable valuation? Then, the commercially acceptable valuation – if the consumer objected to that, then let them provide proof of value in the form of an appraisal as to the value of the vehicle.

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

MR. MARSHALL: I will have to look into what the hon. member is asking and seek additional information there. I will check with officials.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chair, there is a reference here and it is tied to whether someone is an HST registrant or not an HST registrant. I really need clarification on that, because there are also different classes of HST registrants. Some people are registered for HST, but they are registered not to charge HST because their revenue is so small that they have made an election to neither charge nor collect.

Does this mean that someone who is an HST registrant, who has a cottage industry, who sells a vehicle – then that would escape the tax? They are registered, but they are not what you would think of as being registered to either pay or collect.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. MARSHALL: I understand, Mr. Chair, that those whose sales are less than $30,000 do not have to collect the HST in any event. The HST – if you buy from a dealer, a dealer would be a registrant, because he is selling more than one. He is in the business of selling, and therefore he is a HST registrant and he has to charge the HST. If you buy a used vehicle from a private person who is just selling, like if you bought my car – which is a good one, by the way, going at a good price; it is not my car, it is my wife's car, so you will have to talk to her – the taxes, the RST, and it was fifteen; we lowered it to fourteen, but we have not gone any further.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 9, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 and The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 5 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 5 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 and The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 3, An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers Of Attorney Act.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, in second reading of this bill, a number of questions and concerns were raised by the members opposite. I would like to take a moment to address some of these before we get into any detailed analysis of the clauses of the bill. I will go through them. Some of them were repeated by other members, so I will not necessarily go through them question by question.

One of the most important questions that was raised had to do with capacity and the certification of capacity from somebody other than the people who are involved in the designation agreement. In other words, I think it was suggested that the banks might have some problems with certifying capacity or accepting capacity of the designator in meeting the test, as prescribed by section 15. I think it was suggested by the hon. Member for Burgeo – La Poile that there may be some necessity to consider a third-party involvement in the certification of capacity and perhaps even a medical professional.

Mr. Chair, my response to that is capacity determinations are being made all the time by banks, by financial institutions, and by ordinary individuals, without resorting to a requirement for a certificate or for medical certification. If they are not satisfied with the status of the individual coming forth, nothing prohibits a bank, or anybody else for that matter, from obtaining a doctor's certificate or looking for a doctor's opinion or advice in particular circumstances.

In this case, it was not seen as necessary to mandate it as a requirement, because the purpose and intention of this bill, Mr. Chair, is to streamline and simplify the RDSP process to the greatest extent possible. As a result, the government decided not to add any minimal or mandatory additional requirements other than those that are absolutely necessary. They wanted to keep it as simple and as expeditious as possible to allow as many people as possible to access these programs.

We did not want to build in any layers beyond the minimum necessary. We did not want to get involved in a court process. We did not want to get involved in third-party certification. As well, Mr. Chair, we are in communication, at the present time, with the Canadian Bankers Association regarding the operation of these amendments. Obviously, there will be a need for the banks to adjust their practices to accommodate improvements in access for the RDSP programs.

Mr. Chair, this bill has a proclamation clause, and that will give us some time needed to complete our engagement with the banks. We welcome their input. For that reason, Mr. Chair, that is where we are with respect to that particular question. As well, I think the same hon. member who – I believe we gave him some information, that there might have been 500 people who would access these programs. The disability office tells us that number might be significantly low and there might be anywhere from 3,000 to 10,000 people who may be in that category.

Mr. Chair, there is no intention here – when I talked about the contingent of capacity last week, we are not going to get all of those people to qualify for this criteria, there is no doubt about that. There comes a span of time, when we get to a certain stage in that contingent of capacity, where other means are going to have to be sought. The purpose of this bill, this amendment, is to try to make this as accessible to as many people as possible to access those programs. What the uptake will be of the 3,000 or 10,000 at this stage is still open for question.

The question as to why we have two designates and what if a person did not have two trustworthy people – I think that came up, or what if designates had a falling out with one another and could not come to a unanimous agreement. I think the member, as well, pointed out quite correctly that under wills, and as the executor, under the Mentally Disabled Persons' Act, we work with only one person.

Mr. Chair, the RDSP program legislation itself contemplates multiple holders. We are only relying on and implementing this capability in order to satisfy that program. Two designates were part of the overall measures that were designed to the maximum extent possible to protect the RDSP beneficiary. This is a novel arrangement. We want to do this outside the oversight of the court, probate, and guardianship process as a court oversight. We did not want to go too far down that road with this particular amendment.

A number of questions were raised, Mr. Chair, with regard to the recovery of costs by the designates. Section 17.(5) provides that designates may seek compensation from the designator's assets. The questions, I think, that were raised were with regard to confirmation of why there cannot be compensation from the RDSP – I think maybe the Third Party might have raised that issue as well – or what happens if the designator has no assets, or whether the Public Trustee would be instructed to seek such compensation. These were questions that were raised. Mr. Chair, the RDSP fund cannot be used to pay expenses, because the withdrawal of funds from that RDSP fund automatically forfeits all federal contributions for the last ten years, so we cannot use it for that purpose.

Mr. Chair, this legislation is not intended to provide a guaranteed means to recover expense for designates. Instead, it only provides a possibility for such compensation. In circumstances where the designate may be out of pocket as a result of their role – but it is assumed that the expenses in this case will only be nominal, given that the RDSP is a savings program. Instead of at a financial institution, as contrasted, for example, to an estate, where management is necessary – very little management needed in this case.

Also, Mr. Chair, it is assumed that many designates, or most of the designates, will be contributors to the program itself, and therefore, they will be able to offset any expenses against their plan contributions. Mr. Chair, with regard to the Public Trustee, the Public Trustee will not be seeking compensation in this case, and he will not be denying representation as a designate on the grounds that no revenue is forthcoming.

The Law Society was not consulted, is the direct response to the member's question. Instead, our consultation was with the disability office, because that is where the focus of this amendment was.

Some questions were raised with regard to the tests in 15.(2) with respect to relationships, and that it was vague. It is vague and open-ended, but Mr. Chair, we though this was the best alternative over prescribing the relationships, because when you prescribe relationships and get prescriptive about it, someone invariably gets excluded. I think the Member for St. Barbe suggested a home care worker. We left that open, and we think that is the best way to go.

The determination as to whether or not – the question was raised, I think, by the Member for Burgeo – La Poile; the trust relationship that is given in section 15.(2), the financial institution does not necessary accept that the relationship exists, but if the designator has confirmed that this relationship is there, it would be a high test for the financial institution to refuse to accept it. We had discussions with the bank on this. The bank has been supporting these principles as well, and we hope to hear the bank's input back from that.

Someone asked a question, is there a review of what has happened to the funds? There is an annual review of course by the public trustee. That is a review of the act, and the annual reports, financial statements have to be presented every year by the designates and the anticipation they file that annual bank report on investment and all designation arrangements filed each year. If they receive money from the RDSP, there is an additional financial reporting that would be necessary as well.

I think as well, the Member for Burgeo - La Poile raised a question about investigative powers of public trustee, whether or not they might be too draconian, I think were his words, to dissuade people from coming forward to act as designates. Public trustees' powers, Mr. Chair, are outlined under section 20.(4) of the act. It just simply states that the PT can require the delivery of additional documentation to follow up. The individuals are required to provide reasonable help, I think are the words that are used, and shall provide the information that is reasonably required. Past that, the ability exists for the public trustee to go to the court to seek an order for documentation.

The question was also put with respect to a backup on electronic filing. How do we know that electronic filing was – if it was done electronically, whether or not it has been reached by the banks or by the trustee? We agree that is a point well taken and we can prescribe on the form that a copy also has to be mailed. We think that will handle that as a backup against any electronic misdirection, electronic error.

With respect to personal liability; designates have limited grounds, Mr. Chair, in this amendment for potential liability. This is primarily an investment scheme and where payments come out of the RDSP, the use of the funds is prescribed. Personal liability, we do not think is a major issue here.

I think the Leader of the Third Party asked the question, who monitors the public trustee? The public trustee, Mr. Chair, reports to the Minister of Justice. As well, he is subject to having all the accounts reviewed by the Department of Finance and also by the Auditor General. It is the public trustee who would be receiving information respecting all RDSPs set up pursuant to these amendments that the government therefore will be able to monitor the effectiveness of these programs.

What are the structures for monitoring designates? Who reviews or who monitors oversight on the designates? Well, there is an annual review, as I have already mentioned, by the public trustee and the financial statements and any information that has to be filed every year. If they are receiving funds, as I mentioned before, they have to file additional reporting. Another question raised, I believe by the Third Party, had to do with the federal program itself. One of the problems appears to be the difficulty of the beneficiaries, for example, accessing funds once they are deposited in the program. Mr. Chair, our concern with these amendments was not with the program. Our concern is with increasing the abilities of adults with a mental disability to access the program. We did not perform a review of the program itself because that is a federal jurisdiction. We would not be able to make any comments with regard to the program itself. Our focus here is to give you more accessibility.

I am getting the hook here. I think that is the main questions that were asked, Mr. Chair. There are a few more that might have been covered already, and if there are any other questions I will try to respond to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Burgeo - La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly, I thank the minister for taking the time to address these right away. I do not know the proper procedure here. Last night we went point by point, I can certainly ask my questions if you prefer that way.

CHAIR: I would remind the hon. member that there would have to be intervening speakers. Provided the minister responds, then that would perhaps be acceptable. That is up to you.

MR. A. PARSONS: Again, a lot of my questions have been answered. So if it is okay, I will just continue on. I do have some questions and the minister can respond to those if he chooses.

I would like to put on the record, Mr. Chair, that I appreciate the response to the section 15 question which is who decides capacity? I guess just because I do not like the answer does not mean that it is not good enough but I felt I must put my concern on the record there. The number I was given was 500 by the department, I understand that number is significantly greater. A lot of this act is around safeguards, so I just thought it fit that we have an extra safeguard there to discuss capacity but the department has reviewed that. They have chosen to go forward, and it is what it is.

I would ask the minister, if you have an opportunity, one question. I believe this may have been modelled after other jurisdictions. Has there been any case law where any of this has been challenged, whether it comes to capacity or whatnot, or if there is anything you are aware of perhaps anybody having issues with this in trying to challenge it, especially as it relates to capacity being used for other pieces of legislation?

Again, I would say as to section 16, I voiced my concerns on the two people. I understand in this case you want to have two people and the department feels it necessary. I am hoping this is not an issue down the road. There are people out there who only have one person they trust or consider a loved one. I am hoping this does not become an issue down the road. I will trust that the department in reviewing this has reasons for going forward with this.

I appreciate the answer to my question as it related to the public trustee. The trustee, I presume then, will make sure these are all handled and administered, and that there will be nobody turned away because they do not have the assets necessary to pay.

I would presume under section 17.(1), Mr. Chair, that if there is a case where the two people appointed are not unanimous in their decision, this would go the normal route and back to the court procedure where we try to have somebody new appointed. I do not want to belabour that point. I just assume that is where this will go.

In the situation as to the requirement to monitor, what happens if it is not monitored? What would happen if the people do not submit their financial information on a yearly basis? When you deal with child support, if you do not file, your income is imputed by 5 per cent to 10 per cent. If you do not file, it is just assumed to have gone up. In this case, will the public trustee have a mandate to make sure the documentation is filed, and if not filed, take steps to make sure they either file it or they are removed from their position, if they are not going to make sure the documentation is there, especially when we are talking about monies that have been taken out and used on behalf of the disabled individual?

One question I did have when it comes to advocacy, I understand you did speak to the disabled society. I am not sure why the Law Society would not have been consulted here, just to have a cursory review of this, perhaps to see what their take is. We are dealing with a pretty big issue here when we talk about capacity. I am glad the disabled advocates were given an opportunity and obviously this is a step in the right direction. I am just worried about the periphery or the outside edges of this.

I do have one more question, if I could just track it down here, Mr. Chair. I will sit at this point, and hopefully I can track it down and just raise it very quickly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, we are not aware of any case law or case analysis on this; it is a fairly new program, and most provinces are dealing with it, kind of struggling their way through it, the same as we are. We based our amendments on the BC model, and I do not think there have been any challenges so far. I will say that different banks have been dealing with this issue, and some banks in different jurisdictions treat it a little bit differently, but we are talking to the Banking Association, we will get all that input, and that will help inform us going forward.

The monitoring, Mr. Chair, the only thing I can suggest is that these have to be filed with the Public Trustee. We can easily put in some kind of an adjustment in the form that says the form is not valid if it is not filed with the trustee. There are ways of taking care of that.

If the Law Society feel, Mr. Chair, that there is some input that we can get from the Law Society, well, we are not reluctant to get some feedback on that sort of stuff.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the minister's answers. My last question relates to the subsection talking about the effectiveness when filed. I understand you have said that the filing can be made by facsimile or other electronic means. What I am wondering is – again, I understand you added the mail component; the problem is, I still have issues when it comes to regular mail. Would there be some way that the trustee can document, even by confirming some way that they have received it, or maybe it is done by registered mail. This might happen one in a thousand times, but even if it happens once, it is an issue. It is not a huge, onerous requirement to make sure that this is filed, in today's day, with the passage of documents. So that is my only slight concern there. Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. F. COLLINS: I just have to respond, Mr. Chair, by saying this is a protocol we can work out with the Public Trustee, so it should not be an issue.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Oh, sorry.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chair, I believe that this is deeply flawed legislation. It is bad enough that is should not go ahead – but I will restrict my comments to three areas.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: The first is under section 2.(4) –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: It says that a designation is not invalid by reason that (a): "a designator lacks legal capacity at the time the agreement is executed". That means that we are going to throw out probably 2,000 years of common law –

MR. KENNEDY: How would you know?

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind all hon. members that the Member for St. Barbe has the floor.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: The designation is not invalid by reason only that a designator lacks capacity at the time the agreement is executed. That means, a person can have no legal capacity –

MR. KENNEDY: Nor do you.

MR. BENNETT: – and yet they can enter into a legal contract.

Mr. Chairman, if the Government House Leader would like to take a little break so he can go get some medication, I would be happy to accommodate him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. KENNEDY: That kind of comment is deeply offensive, Mr. Chair. How does that individual know that I may or may not be on some kind of medication. That kind of behaviour is insensitive to people who have all kinds of issues, Mr. Chair, whether it be physical health issues or mental health issues. I do not think that kind of comment should be put up with. It is a repeat of the cowardly behaviour he showed last night, because he is a coward.

MS JONES: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a point of order.

MS JONES: First of all, Mr. Chair, to the point of order that the Government House Leader raises. First of all, he was provoking the Member for St. Barbe, as he well knows, from his chair. Secondly, Mr. Chairman, "cowardly" is not parliamentary, and I would ask the minister to withdraw that comment.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask all hon. members for their attention. The Chair has considered both points which have been raised. First of all, I would rule that the remarks by the Member St. Barbe are indeed unparliamentary, and I would ask the member to immediately and unequivocally withdraw those remarks.

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I immediately and unequivocally withdraw those remarks.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Similarly, the Chair also rules that the term used by the hon. the Government House Leader is also indeed unparliamentary, and I would ask the hon. the Government House Leader to withdraw his remarks.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: I withdraw the remark.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chair, in section 15 is the second area where: "all relevant factors shall be considered, including", and then it says, under (d): "whether the adult has a relationship with the persons who are intended to be designates that is characterized by trust". Yet there is no way to define who that person might be – that could be anybody – or even to define what is to be meant by "characterized by trust".

The third area is under Section 16.(5): "A designation agreement is effective when it is filed with the public trustee, and that filing may be made by facsimile transmission or other electronic means".

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask hon. members once again; the Member for St. Barbe has been recognized. I ask all hon. members for their co-operation, and once again I recognize the hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: The minister has indicated that it could be okayed by e-mail and confirmed by regular mail; however, if it needs to be confirmed by regular mail, well, why would you want to file it electronically in the first place? It makes no sense to me that you could have electronic filing of a designation.

The electronic filing of the designation is not something that we ordinarily accept as proof. We do not accept it as proof in courts. We do not accept it as proof in filing any other types of deeds or registrations. We simply need the hard copy. The hard copy of the individual should contain the proof of identification of who the people who are being designated are and also the proof of identification of the person who is entering into the agreement. So, this legislation seems to suspend with the rights of the people who are most vulnerable, the people who need their rights protected the most; then this is extending the least protection to them. I would ask the minister if he would clarify those issues.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 5 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 5 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant- Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, the enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers of Attorney Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

CHAIR: Division has been called.

CHAIR: I ask the House leaders, is the House ready for the question?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour of the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Kennedy, Ms Burke, Mr. King, Mr. Jackman, Mr. French, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Felix Collins, Mr. Dalley, Mr. Verge, Mr. Forsey, Mr. Granter, Ms Johnson, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Davis, Mr. McGrath, Mr. Sandy Collins, Mr. Brazil, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Little, Mr. Hunter, Ms Perry, Mr. Dinn, Mr. Cornect, Mr. Littlejohn, Mr. Crummell, Mr. Pollard, Mr. Cross, Mr. Peach, Mr. Lane, Mr. Russell, Ms Jones, Mr. Andrew Parsons, Mr. Edmunds, Ms Michael, Mr. Kirby, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Mitchelmore, Ms Rogers.

CHAIR: All those against, please rise.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

CLERK: Mr. Bennett.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

CLERK: Mr. Chair, the ayes: thirty-eight; the nays: one.

CHAIR: I shall report the bill carried without amendment.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee rise and report Bills 3, 5 and 9.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bills 3, 5 and 9.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North, and Deputy Chair of Committees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is always good to see you back.

The Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bills 3, 5, and 9 without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bills 3, 5, and 9 carried without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MR. KENNEDY: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the said bills be read the third time?

MR. KENNEDY: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bills ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there was a question raised this afternoon by the Opposition House Leader in relation to a request for leave. The hon. Opposition House Leader outlined a request for leave that essentially asked to replace tomorrow's private member's motion with one brought forward today. So, Mr. Speaker, there is the request for leave and there is the substance of the motion.

I am not dealing at this point with the substance of the motion, Mr. Speaker, because the motion can be brought forward at any time; however, in relation to leave, I would refer to what took place in this hon. House yesterday.

The Acting Opposition House Leader came in and presented a private member's motion. It was read into the record. The procedure was followed, which indicates to me that the Opposition thought it through and made a deliberate decision: this is the private member's motion we are going to present tomorrow.

It was an informed decision, and nothing to indicate at that time that there was any reason to prepare otherwise than for that motion.

Normally, Mr. Speaker, when you come in and you ask for leave to present a bill on a Tuesday, for example, it is as a result of a holiday the day before; or, for example, if someone forgot for, whatever reason, then you would bring it forward.

Mr. Speaker, there is no precedent, that I am aware of, to bring forward a leave request at this point simply to request to replace the private member's motion they brought in yesterday. So, Mr. Speaker, leave will not be granted from our perspective; however, I would indicate, as I have said, that the notice of motion in terms of the substance can be brought forward at any time.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call Orders of the Day, Order 1, Address in Reply.

MR. SPEAKER: Address in Reply has been called, and I recognize the Member for St. John's West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure I rise in this hon. House today to deliver my inaugural speech.

First and foremost, I want to offer my sincere thanks to the constituents of St. John's West for the privilege they bestowed on me in the 2011 General Election. St. John's West is a vibrant, healthy district in the City of St. John's, and is recognized as a great place to live and raise a family, as I have done for the last twenty years.

Mr. Speaker, my commitment to the people of St. John's West during the election last fall remains unchanged. I commit to work as hard as possible to ensure that the opportunities for our children continue to grow, that our social programs are progressive and are the best they possibly can be, and that economic growth is balanced with quality of life. Mr. Speaker, I believe I can bring energy, optimism, and determination to deliver on this commitment and in the execution of my duties. I take the responsibility of representing the people of St. John's West very, very seriously, and not only will I represent them to the very best of my ability, I will never forget those who put me there.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the dozens of volunteers of all ages who played a vital role in my success. The heart of any campaign is the workers who give freely of their time and ask little in return. To them go heartfelt thanks for their belief in me and the friendship they returned.

Mr. Speaker, for many years the people of St. John's West enjoyed strong representation with Sheila Osborne. I congratulate Sheila on a tremendous career that positively impacted the lives of many, and I thank her for the support she has given me.

Mr. Speaker, as all hon. members know, the sacrifices imposed on family members is perhaps the greatest stress in political life. Without the unyielding support of my best friend and wife, Valerie, along with my daughters Adele and Heidi, and my son Kory, a successful campaign could not have been possible. We made a formidable team, and this experience has brought us closer together. To them I say thank you for your love and your support.

Mr. Speaker, a very special thanks I reserve for my 81 year old father, Wally, who just days before the writ was dropped, lost the love of his life, my mother. His courage and dedication during those difficult days will remain a source of strength for me for the rest of my life. Just days after the passing of my mother, my father moved in from Gander to help lead our campaign team. Putting his emotions aside, he could be seen hammering nails, erecting signs, climbing ladders, or pouring over district maps. His stamina and work ethic made us all pause and reflect on the stuff previous generations were made of.

Mr. Speaker, when thinking about the future, we must never forget our past. Standing on the shoulders of those who came before us brings great responsibility, because it will be our children and grandchildren who will be standing on our shoulders. We must get it right.

Mr. Speaker, I come from a hardy stock of Newfoundlanders who had a long tradition of never hesitating to do their part. My great-grandfathers were among those early pioneers who helped build this Province. One was a fisherman from Western Bay who battled the elements and odds daily, as did thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, trying to make a living from the land and the sea. The other was a railway worker who helped forge a country with 1,000 miles of steel, with the building of the Newfoundland Railway. Both of my grandfathers followed in their father's footsteps; they were prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country by joining the Newfoundland Regiment in 1914. One lost a thumb and a leg as a result of the battle in Gallipoli.

Mr. Speaker, we can only imagine the hardships our forefathers endured to make Newfoundland and Labrador a better place to live, whether it was in the trenches of foreign countries or in sometimes unforgiving waters off our shores or in the woods of our harsh interior.

Mr. Speaker, there is also the often untold story of our foremothers. Their ingenuity and resilience in the face of abject poverty, raising large families when their husbands were gone for days and months and even years at a time, the women of this Province nurtured us through the most difficult times in our history. I know from personal experience, my mother and grandmothers were cut from a sturdy cloth.

Both my grandmothers worked very hard and raised large families during the Depression and war years. One raised eleven children; the other raised nine, while caring for her disabled husband. Their sacrifices were great and are familiar stories for women in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, in 1949 my father was a young seventeen-year-old when he hugged my grandmother at the Water Street railway station en route to Port aux Basques and then Halifax to join his new country's navy. Like his father before him, during troubled times he was prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice; but, Mr. Speaker, while he travelled around the world doing his duty, home was never far from his mind. Mr. Speaker, that is where my story begins.

Mr. Speaker, my family's decision to return home and settle in Gander is one of the best things that have ever happened to me. This beautiful Province, with its rugged coastline, expansive forests and the multitude of rivers and ponds, is a home like no other for me. I was most happy when I was in the woods or on the rivers and ponds. Myself and my brother spent the majority of our summers fishing for trout and salmon. We would go for days at a time, only to return to drop off our catch and get fresh supplies if our father could not bring us in some. By September we were very tanned; our hair was too long, but we always sported big grins.

School came easy to me because I wanted to get my work done so I could get out in the woods to check my snares with my dog in tow. The biggest thing I learned from those wondrous carefree years was self-reliance and independence, getting things done. I was often around older people when I was hunting and fishing, and I listened and I learned. I think I grew up a little more quickly than my friends, and more and more I found myself in leadership roles.

Mr. Speaker, I am no stranger to politics. Whether it was as president of my high school student council, or President of Memorial University's Council of Students' Union, I was always ready to contribute. After graduating with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, I joined the brewing industry where, for twenty-five years, I worked in sales and marketing, the last ten as regional sales manager for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, as a business leader, my commitment was to give back to the community to find who I am and what I stand for. I could always be counted on not only to lend a hand but to organize and lead. Mr. Speaker, this combination of education, community service and business experience provided me with the skill set and desire to meet the next challenge in my life: serving the people as an elected representative.

Mr. Speaker, I have been a political activist with the Progressive Conservative Party for over twenty-five years. From recruiting delegates, to fundraising, to working on campaigns, and even running myself, I have been there. In 2011, circumstances in my personal and professional life afforded me the ideal opportunity to again fully partake in politics, one of the greatest passions of my life, and to run for the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, for me, the Progressive Conservative Party means two things: I believe in the principles of a free-market economy with strong oversight, while at the same time being progressive in terms of social, democratic ideals that protect us, protect those most vulnerable in our society. Both are areas of equal importance to good governance.

Mr. Speaker, throughout the past election I talked to dozens of people on a daily basis. The general consensus was that this is the very best time in our Province's history. People know the fundamentals of our economy are strong. There have been real accomplishments with regard to jobs and reducing the debt. More Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are working than ever before, and more are coming back home to work.

Mr. Speaker, I have to look no farther than my own family. For example, my brother recently moved back to this Province after twenty-five years living away. Like many others, his love for home never left him. People are optimistic about the future and have a new sense of confidence. Our government has made tremendous progress in a very short period of time.

Mr. Speaker, this is what people have been telling me, and we are committed to continue to make this progress. This government stands proudly on its record, building on the work of those who have gone before us. We have laid a solid foundation on the bedrock of our ancestors.

Mr. Speaker, our Premier has earned the trust of her people. Her honesty and integrity resonated with Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and it was her optimism, hope and future vision that set her apart from the rest. The rhetoric of the other parties could not compete with the overwhelming facts of our improved condition and our Premier's message of new energy.

Mr. Speaker, having spent the last twenty-five years in business, I take a particularly keen interest in all things fiscal in relation to the running of our government and our Province. If there is one thing I have learned in managing a successful business, it is that it is essential to be fiscally responsible. The same could be said for good governments.

Mr. Speaker, this government's fiscal record over the last eight years is nothing short of remarkable. Year after year this government has strategically and tactically, with fact-based analysis, expanded and introduced necessary social programs. Year after year this government has significantly improved the tax regime, putting millions of dollars back into the hands of taxpayers. Year after year this government has created the conditions for a strong economy to grow to the point where we no longer receive equalization. Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, we did all of this while reducing our debt by nearly a third since 2002.

Mr. Speaker, this government's firm commitment to fiscal conservatism is balanced with our commitment to strong social programs. Fact-based decisions have been the cornerstone to our success. Our government has a plan and our government has a vision for a secure future. This is what differentiates ourselves, and from the parties opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL: Let's quickly have a look at a few fiscal facts. Compared to 2007, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are spending $500 million less a year in taxes. Our debt has been reduced from $12 billion since 2003 to $7.8 billion today. Our bonds are trading in secondary money markets at rates that are at historic levels. Real GDP forecasts growth projected of plus 4.9 per cent at $31 billion. Capital investment expected to increase by 21.92 per cent to $7.98 billion this year. Employment growth rate of 2.8 per cent with 225,000 people working, the most in our history. Personal income and disposable income growth rate at 5.8 per cent, and retail sales are predicted to grow 4.8 per cent in 2012. Mr. Speaker, this is an impressive array of facts to support our good governance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL: Mr. Speaker, while we have achieved the status of being a have Province, we need to understand that this only happened recently. Other provinces, like Alberta, have for several generations enjoyed that status. I hear on occasion from the opposite side of the House that we are a have Province, and how come we cannot spend money here or spend money there? There is a reality here, and the reality is they have invested billions of dollars in infrastructure for decades and we have just started. Our government is in the early stages of this process and our progress has been tremendous.

My conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we have secured a stronger foundation and will continue to make investments. Newfoundland and Labrador is energized and ready to reach our full potential. Now is a time to move boldly forward and our government and Premier are prepared to lead.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to reiterate that it is a tremendous honour for me to serve as a member of this House of Assembly. The people of St. John's West have given me a great responsibility and I want to assure them that I will represent them to the absolute best of my ability. I will continue the work of this government to secure a better future for them and all the residents of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I truly believe the twenty-first Century is Newfoundland and Labrador's century, and it is my hope that someday when our children look back at this time in our history they will say it was a time when Newfoundland and Labrador came into its own, a time when we made the right decisions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the Member for Burgeo - La Poile.

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

Mr. Speaker, and hon. members of this House, it gives me great honour and pleasure to rise today and speak as the Member for the great District of Burgeo - La Poile. What an honour the people of this, my home district, have bestowed upon me. I extend to them a sincere thank you and a note of gratitude and appreciation for entrusting me to bring their issues to the forefront. By giving me their vote of confidence, I know they have high hopes for strong representation in this House, and I will not let them down.

I would like to congratulate all members of this House for their efforts to ensure that they were given this opportunity. To my fellow members elected for the first time on October 11, we are forever bound together by this honour, and I look forward to lively debate in the common interests of the people of this Province.

I must thank the many friends, family, acquaintances and supporters who made my election possible. I am forever indebted to them all, and I was so lucky to have so many of them with me, whether it be providing a ride to La Poile in a boat, putting me up and providing me with a meal in Burgeo, or taking me around the Town of Burnt Islands. My friends up and down Route 470, going door to door, putting up signs and making sure I got where I needed to be. The friends who were at my headquarters in Port aux Basques everyday, day in and day out, taking calls, cooking meals, providing entertainment, but most importantly, providing encouragement and support through this, my first campaign as a candidate. All I can say is thank you from the bottom of my heart.

I would also like to express gratitude to my very patient and loving wife for her steadfast support. I have blessed to share this journey with her, and I know that it would not be possible without her. My gratitude extends to my parents for their love and support over the course of my life.

I would be remiss if I did not mention my predecessor as the Member for Burgeo - La Poile, my father, Kelvin Parsons. As many of you here know, he was a skilled and dedicated member of the House, serving in a variety of roles in both government and Opposition. I have learned a lot from him over my life, and I am truly lucky to have his continued support as I begin my career. One thing he has taught me is the importance of dedicated constituency work. He served the people of the district for a period of twelve years and was always known for getting the job done. His history of esteemed service raises the bar for me as I assume this role, and it is a challenge I willingly and eagerly accept.

Mr. Speaker, I am truly fortune to represent the great District of Burgeo - La Poile, which encompasses the Towns of La Poile, Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou, Diamond Cove, Burnt Islands, Isle aux Morts, Fox Roost-Margaree, Channel-Port aux Basques, Cape Ray, Burgeo, Ramea, and Grey River

I grew up in Port aux Basques, graduated from high school there, and but for the period of time I left my home to go to university and to finish my legal training, I have lived and worked there all my life. I am proud of that, and I am proud that I am raising my young son in a beautiful rural setting. As such, it is a privilege to stand here today and state that the people of Burgeo - La Poile have, as always, a measure of optimism about the future, but it is an optimism that is tempered by concern. People are concerned about the direction of this government and certainly concerned about their future as residents of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Needless to say, my advocating the revitalization of rural Newfoundland and Labrador is not to the detriment of urban Newfoundland and Labrador. We tend to regard the urban-rural divide as just that, a dichotomy that is mutually exclusive. In fact, there is symmetry between the two. The latest census reveals that the population is almost equally distributed in rural and urban centres, with just over half the population living in rural communities. There is certainly a tremendous spectrum between the smallest rural communities in the Province and the St. John's metro region, a spectrum which makes Newfoundland and Labrador a curious place to visit indeed.

Where the symmetry does not exist is in the provision of programs and services. You might consider an MRI, for example, as a service offered equally to all in theory. If a patient resides in Grey River, for example, the X-ray will cost travel to and from Corner Brook, as well as accommodation and other costs. Our expansive land mass will always cause challenges related to distance, but through innovation in information and technology we will continually help bridge the divide so long as government commits to keeping communities connected, be it medical travel assistance, enhanced telehealth, safe roads and bridges, enhanced snow clearing services, as well as broadband and cellphone service. The disproportionate level of infrastructure in rural areas is of grave concern in light of the need to connect people, programs, and services to the need for a clearly articulated strategy for such a sprawling and diverse land and a harsh climate.

Telemedicine holds much promise for the Province. In order to have telehealth become a sustainable program, provincial co-ordination is required with a focus on governance, planning, standards, and support to regions. In order for it to succeed, we will need co-operation between all parties involved, and most importantly between the medical professionals, the health boards, and the department itself. Together, we can make an actual difference in people's day-to-day lives and the quality of them.

What residents in my district and residents throughout our Province share are concerns over basic necessities: food, shelter, heat, clean drinking water, and safety. We saw the cost of food increase over 4 per cent from 2010 to 2011, faster than the rate of inflation. The average rent for a two-bedroom apartment increased from 2009 to 2010 almost 9 per cent, almost four times the rate of inflation. That is when you can find housing, which is becoming close to an impossibility for many in my district, including seniors, young professionals, students, or low-income families.

There are over 200 active boil orders in over 175 municipalities in this Province, including in Burgeo - La Poile and Grey River, in my own district, contesting the image abroad of Newfoundland and Labrador as a pristine environment when residents of my district must get water from potable water dispensing units. Still going to the well in 2012, we should not always be boasting about how great things are. Even with the basic necessities we have a ways to go.

An issue of major importance in my district, whether it be on Route 470 connecting Port aux Basques to Rose Blanche or on Route 480, the roughly 150 kilometre stretch of road that connects the Town of Burgeo as well as Ramea and Grey River to the Trans-Canada Highway, is the lack of cellphone service in those areas. In this, 2012, cellphone service has gone from being a luxury to a necessity. It is a need, not a want. In a Province of such vast and differing geography the need to be connected is even greater. In my district, lives have been lost on these stretches of roadway which can be treacherous year round due to the inability to contact emergency services via cellphone. In this age, we depend on cell service for safety, employment, business and day-to-day life, really.

I am calling upon government to move forward with a strategy to make this service a reality. A plan that has just been implemented by our farthest provincial colleagues in British Columbia, which just last year invested in cellular coverage for remote areas in partnership with private business. We hear it time and time again, health care, communications, transportation, education, basic infrastructure and jobs. These were everyday themes as I was on the campaign trail, whether it be walking the roads in Cape Ray or Fox Roost-Margaree, or heading on the ferry to Ramea. In rural Newfoundland and Labrador we are hearing it loud and clear.

Just days after last year's election, Rex Murphy commented on the current state of affairs, stating the Province "…is in silent crisis, and has been since the closure of the inshore fishery in the early 1990s. Increasingly, St. John's highly concentrated economy resembles a sort of miniature Hong Kong amidst an increasingly deserted province. Outmigration is stealing a whole generation of Newfoundlanders. The outports are becoming just places ‘where the parents live,' and the larger centres outside St. John's have become dominated by old-age homes."

Mr. Speaker, we are indeed facing a silent crisis in rural communities. Population growth for the Province was positive for the first time since the 1980s, but this is not a positive story for all the Province; Burgeo, Channel-Port aux Basques, Rose Blanche-Harbour la Cou, Burnt Island, Isle aux Morts and Ramea, all of these communities in my district experienced population decline. This is part of the silent crisis to which Murphy refers. Unless we get creative, unless we develop a housing strategy for all residents of this Province, we will see these and other outports slowly decline in population, in last names, in children. We need to get creative. We need to acknowledge that not everybody wants to live in an urban centre and that we do have the ingenuity to bring services and employment to rural regions, to empower people to choose to live in the communities in which they were born. If we remain silent in such a crisis, and rural Newfoundland and Labrador withers and dies, will we recognize our own Province in a few decades?

Too many of our sons and daughters, our youth are leaving this Province and with them their fresh way of looking at the world and all its challenges and opportunities. Too many of our children grow up and move away, returning only to show their children, where mom and dad grew up. Our communities are in danger of becoming relics. Our future relies on finding ways to keep these young people here, working, living, enjoying life in the best Province in the country and certainly the best place in the world to live and raise family.

Both Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic are not only contributing to population growth in their attraction of non-permanent residents from other parts of Canada and abroad coming here to Newfoundland and Labrador to live, study and work, but also providing opportunities for folks to live, study and work in rural areas of the Province. Transfer agreements between the two institutions are allowing rural students to spend their first year of study closer to home.

The College of the North Atlantic campus in Port aux Basques, a presence in our community for over forty years, has tremendous potential for growth in the region. Expanding the programs offered in the region would help address skilled labour shortages, particularly if we establish employment agreements to move apprentices through their respective plans of training to journeyperson. Expansion of the college in programs and physical infrastructure would contribute to the local economy, and in general provide residents with increased opportunities to higher education, a major determinant of health and well-being.

A service crucial to this entire Island but governed by the federal government is the Crown corporation Marine Atlantic Inc. This, like the fishery, is an industry and area that even not under our provincial government purview must be closely monitored by our government and advocated for very strongly. We need our provincial government to go to bat for Marine Atlantic which employs so many people from this Province and contributes significantly to our economy. In fact, it is a lifeline to this Province.

Speaking of the fishery, Mr. Speaker, which has played an obviously prominent role in our history, economy and culture, this will continue to figure largely into our future if we can become masters of our destiny. My district is one that was front and centre in the fishery since fishers first came to our shores. Prominent people in our fishing industry and history include T.J. Hardy, Gabe Billard, Spencer Lake and Eric King, as well as the countless number of men and women who have plied their trade on the waters and onshore in stages and in plants.

The end of the 1980s was the beginning of the descent of this industry in my district, with the closure of plants and the out-migration of people forced to move, but I am not going to dwell on this. I am going to speak about the men and women from one side of my district to the other who still engages in this industry for their livelihood. We must be optimistic but diligent, we must recognize them, and more importantly, listen to them. They still believe in the fishery, and so do I. It has to remain a cornerstone of this Province's economy.

Mr. Speaker, municipalities can no longer be left to fend for themselves. Their dependence on property tax as their main source of revenue does not provide the resources required to deliver the services expected of them. New sources of revenue must be predictable and sustainable. New provincial and federal regulations downloaded on communities mean they are expected to do more with less. Communities in my district are not the only ones needing change in order to survive.

As the Official Opposition, we have grave concerns with Muskrat Falls and the false dilemma presented by government: Isolated Island option, or Muskrat Falls – one or the other. Narrowing the scope from the get-go sets the stage for the outcome desired. The control being demonstrated over what should be an open process trickles down to the very language used. Muskrat, they say, is the least or lowest-cost option, as opposed to the more fitting lesser or lowest-cost option.

We have grave concerns over a Province reliant on oil revenues which cannot manage their prosperity. A Province with 6,000 apprentices stalled in their plans of training, while companies look outside the Province for workers. We have people without jobs, while at the same time we have jobs without people to fill them.

A concern that has been expressed to me since our election is that this House, our main vehicle of democracy and good government, is failing. A simple look at the statistics over the past twenty years, especially the past decade, as well as a glance at the practices of other Legislatures in other provinces across the country, clearly shows that our House has fallen into disuse. Mr. Speaker, I want to appeal to all members of this House to put aside party politics and work to address the deficiencies which exist in the way we operate in this House. Let's create a place where all members, no matter what party they represent, can do their job better. That is what democracy is all about. As such, I have given notice that my first private member's resolution will be for a fixed House schedule. I have received support for this motion from many parts of the Province, and I certainly look forward to its debate.

As a member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, I will fulfill my role to question the government as to their plan of action for this Province, and to ensure that the resources and tax dollars of our citizens are accounted for and expended in the best possible manner. However, our duty is not to simply criticize for the sake of it, to do so is pointless, not productive and of no use to the people. My goal is to work with all hon. members of this House on behalf of the citizens of my District of Burgeo – La Poile and in the best interests of the citizens of this entire Province.

In my previous life as a lawyer, I swore an oath to the Law Society to represent my clients to the best of my abilities and with their best interests in mind. In undertaking this new career path, I have made a promise to the people who put me in this great House, a promise to be accountable and accessible, to represent their best interests. It is a promise I solemnly swear to keep.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I am thankful. I give thanks to the good people of the District of Burgeo – La Poile for putting their trust in me and providing me with this opportunity to represent them. I give thanks to my caucus colleagues, my leader, and our staff for their support, encouragement, and camaraderie. I give thanks to my wife, parents, my brothers, extended family, friends, and supporters for their love and support. Without them, there is nothing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, what an honour it is to be here in this House of Assembly, in this place where so many decisions are made that affect the lives of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is in this Chamber where we decide how we will live together as citizens, how we will share our resources, and how we will shape our future.

It is here where we decide whether our seniors will be able to age with dignity and security, whether working families will have access to safe, affordable, top-of-the-line child care, and whether entrepreneurs will have access to state-of-the-art technology and support to bring their innovations to the marketplace.

It is here where we will make decisions about how we care for our citizens by ensuring that we have the best health care system possible, and whether our artists have access to funding that enables them to create works that reflect our culture, that shape our culture, that feed our hearts, minds, and souls, and that call forth the best in us.

It is here where we make decisions about our justice system and whether we will have a modern system that evolves to respond to our changing needs. It is here where we decide how to manage those who break our laws that are for our collective good, and whether we will protect everyone's human rights and commit to rehabilitation rather than repeat incarceration.

It is here in this House of Assembly where we decide whether a community gets a new school or loses one, whether our youth have access to the best education possible, whether we build roads, fix bridges, or whether communities will have to boil their drinking water. It is here where we decide how we manage our natural resources – who we will dance with, who gets to call the tune, and really, who is the piper.

It is from here that our decisions affect our stewardship over our waterways, our forests, our vital, vital, vital fishery, the riches in our God-forsaken rocks, and whether we make decisions that ensure a sustainable future for our children. It is here where we will decide how we pay for all this.

I am both honoured and terrified to be here – honoured because the people of St. John's Centre have put their trust in me and have asked me to be here to represent them in all of these matters; terrified because the decisions we make affect the lives of the people of our Province.

The people of St. John's Centre are a wonderful, diverse bunch. We are young, old, wealthy, and living below the poverty line. We are able-bodied, living with disabilities; we are gay, straight, transgendered, single, widowed, and partnered. We are First Nations, other nations, Native-born. We are doctors, lawyers, maintenance workers. We are nurses, teachers, professors; we bake. We own businesses, work in the public service. We sing, teach yoga, make films, provide homecare. We are unionized, we are community leaders; we are under-employed, self-employed, and unemployed. We are retired, we are clergy, we make egg rolls, run daycares, and make the best damn fish and chips in town.

We have swimming pools, skating rinks, bowling lanes, baseball fields. We have schools, churches, Salvation Armies, retired armies. We have a legion and a theatre, food banks and grocery stores. We have social housing, subsidized housing, condos, apartments, row houses, town houses, and personal care homes. We have zero per cent vacancy rates and unfit rooming houses; new homes, old homes, homelessness. Busy streets, cul-de-sacs, stop lights, stop signs; I will stop there. We are a vibrant, thriving community with hopes, dreams, and desires.

For many of us, we are enjoying our new-found prosperity, and for many of us, we are struggling with the challenges of living with poverty. We are all citizens who have a right to share in our resources, who have a right to say the direction we will take as the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

My wonderful father Leo was a townie; he grew up on Brazil Square and Coronation Street, the youngest of five. Just after his father died, dad quit school at thirteen because of the violence of the Christian Brothers. He and his mother lost their home and lived from pillar to post, taking in laundry and washing the floors at night at the Paramount Theatre and the Liquor Commission on Water Street West. In 1949, he too, just after Newfoundland joined Confederation, dad said he was seventeen – although he was only sixteen – and joined the Canadian Army. He was among the first Newfoundlanders to join the army of their new country.

My incredible mother Philomena was from Port Saunders – the Great Northern Peninsula, she always so proudly said. She was the middle of a brood of thirteen youngsters. At fourteen years old, the parish priest sent her away to work in service where she was kept as a servant. After a year of back-breaking work, a cousin of hers came down the coast and got her out, and off she went.

I come from a family who knew economic hardship and yet was incredibly resilient, like so many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We knew what it meant to take care of one another, how important community was as we moved from province to province and country to country. When mom and dad retired from the armed forces and we came back home, they established the first food bank at their church, Corpus Christi. They delivered hampers, raised money for clothing and supplies for kids going back to school. There was always room and food for someone extra at the table. They shared, because that is just what you did.

I have been a feminist activist for over thirty years. I learned from my parents. From helping to set up the first transition house in Newfoundland for battered women and children in 1980, to producing award-winning films about violence against women and children, non-traditional jobs, a film on the violation of women's human rights all over the world, to a film on my own breast cancer, My Left Breast – films that are not about victims, but films that call out for the best in us, that call us to action; films that celebrate our strengths, our resiliency, and our ability to build community.

I was a breech birth – mom never did forgive me for that – but as a breech birth you start out learning that there is not only one way to do things. I am fifty-five years old now, I have learned much and from many people. I am well, I am happy. I am in love with my life partner of twenty years, Peg Norman, and I am not afraid.

I believe in the policies and core values of the New Democratic Party, values of social justice and greater equality where no one is left behind. Under the leadership of the amazing, incredible Lorraine Michael, who has worked in this House with compassion, wisdom and commitment, I know that we can help bring better government to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to our community.

I want to be at the table to insist, persist, resist, to make our government more equitable and responsive to the needs of our people. We must all honour and fulfill our commitment to a fully operational democratic process. To do this, it is imperative that we have fully operational all-party legislative committees so that we can explore the challenges we face as a Province and develop solutions that work for us all. To not do so, leaves us with a democratic deficit - an avoidable, unnecessary democratic deficit that impoverishes all as a people.

Each and every one of us has been elected by the people of our Province, elected to represent them to be their voice. We must be ever vigilant, says Nancy Riche, ever vigilant, demanding and noisy. Each and every one of us has been elected by the people of our Province, elected to represent them, to be their voice. We must listen to each other, we must listen with the intent to hear, who knows what we might discover.

I want to congratulate my colleagues who sit in this House for the first time. I do not know about you, but I am still reeling from the impact this has had on my life. To those members who have returned, thank you for your service and commitment. For those of you who have called out comments across the floor to me as I have tried to speak in the House, I look forward to learning even more from you. I want to thank the staff in our offices who work with such commitment and purpose, and those here in the House of Assembly who guide and support us in the work that we do.

I want to thank the people of St. John's Centre for asking me to be their voice in this House, for placing their trust in me. I want to thank the incredible team of volunteers who worked so hard on our campaign. We did it, we really did it, and we had fun. Together we were a passionate team that believed in the principles of the New Democratic Party, in social justice, in equality, in making sure that no one is left behind. We folded flyers, made phone calls, sent e-mails, raised money. We made signs, delivered signs and hung them. We strategized and changed our minds, we planned again. Sometimes we got it right, sometimes we missed the mark, but always we listened. We listened for the heartbeat of our district. We knocked on doors in the cold, in the rain, when the sun shone, in the morning, in the afternoon, in the evenings, but always watching out for Coronation Street. Up and down the streets we went, up and down the stairs to the point where I was no longer running in St. John's Centre but actually climbing, and what an uphill battle we had. I knocked on doors until I could not knock anymore. My knuckles were raw.

As a documentary filmmaker I am incredibly curious. Knocking on doors was such a treat for me, and not unlike making a film, people would open their doors and tell me their story. Then my job was to somehow bring those stories together and find a way to have them heard. This time I won the audience award.

How gracious were the many people who opened their doors and lives to me. Seniors who were renting and living in fear of the next rent increase; an eighty-two-year-old man who was caring for his ailing wife at home, worn out, he was worn out. If only he could get a bit more home care so they could stay in their house together. The young family juggling student loans, mortgage payments and child care costs. They re-mortgaged their house to pay for child care. The eleven-year-old boy who was bullied in school but at least he had the Boys and Girls Club to go to where he was not bullied. Moms whose children were in protective custody; a single dad and his teenage daughter who were couch surfing. There were students of all ages, local students loving school, students from away who came because MUN is great and tuition is low. Students who never voted, would not vote, or wanted to work on our campaign. There were committed voters, new voters, and some who had never voted before but said that now they had someone to vote for. There were voters who, like me – myself – wanted electoral reform. There were folks angry with the government, some who wanted a change, and some who were happy with the way things were. Hugs at the doorsteps, cups of tea, photo albums, and grandchildren's graduation pictures on the walls – I saw them all – invitations to come back.

There were questions and challenges on policy issues: home care, child care, health care, pharmacare, Muskrat Falls, small business issues, and child protection. What about our workers? Our pensions are not enough to live on. What about our environment? Who is minding the store on this one?

To my brother, Richard Rogers, and my sister, Anneliese Serzu, thank you for your strength and your unwavering commitment in the work you do for a just and compassionate society.

We are in a wonderful time in our history in Newfoundland and Labrador. This is our home and our community. If indeed we are in a time of prosperity, we are in a time of immense opportunity. Our collective wealth must be shared among us all. As a community, we must all be included. We must ensure that all citizens have access to this opportunity. We are 520,000 people in our Newfoundland and Labrador.

We can afford to be creative and innovative. We can take risks. We can do things differently. We can create our future, transforming old ways of doing things, challenging our assumptions, and pushing our boundaries where we each empower each other to enable each and every one of us to fully participate to the best of our abilities. Imagine where we can go together; imagine what we can do.

I look forward to the next four years, where we can work together – all of us – resisting, insisting, persisting, and working together to dare to dream, explore, and plan a modern Newfoundland and Labrador where no one is left behind, because we can.

In the words of the late Jack Layton: "We CAN look after each other better than we do today. We CAN have a fiscally responsible government. We CAN have a strong economy; greater equality; a clean environment. We CAN be a force for peace in the world."

I would like to finish with a poem from our own Mr. Al Pittman: "I have been going thirty for sixty without the five ever since. The hole grows deeper and deeper. And now it's my turn to bid again. I don't have the five in my hand and I've little else to go on. But what the hell! Thirty-for-sixty!"

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I note that it is 5:24 p.m. I do move that we now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that the House do now adjourn.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded?

Motion carried.

This House now stands adjourned.

Tomorrow being Wednesday, Private Members' Day, the House will open at 2:00 p.m.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.