The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we start today's proceedings – I know this goes back a ways, but most of you might recall the last session we had before Christmas; it was quite a lengthy one. On the last parliamentary day, December 18, there was a point of order raised. This is the first opportunity I have had to be back in the Chair to make a ruling on that point of order, a point of order raised by the Leader of the Third Party.

The Leader of the Third Party rose, stating that she had been accused of unparliamentary language by another member. I indicated at the time that I would take some time to review Hansard, the transcript of that day's session, and I have done that. I have had the opportunity to review Hansard and the video clips and found that there was no unparliamentary language, either written or audible, made by the Leader of the Third Party.

Hansard, however, does not identify the member but it does identify the comments made by a member accusing the Leader of the Third Party of unparliamentarily language.

The Speaker has no way to identify who that member was; however, given the responsibilities the members have in this House and to this House, I would ask that if the member is present today, they would stand and apologize for their comment.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, there was no ill intent, and I do apologize.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

Today, I am very pleased to welcome to the Speaker's gallery Ms Sandra Pupatello, a former Cabinet Minister from the Province of Ontario.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I am assuming she is here to check up on her husband, the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We are also very pleased today to have in our Speaker's gallery Dr. James Rourke, who is the Dean of Medicine at Memorial University, and Dr. Danielle O'Keefe, Family Medicine Program Director from MUN's Faculty of Medicine.

Welcome to our Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Today we have members' statements from the Member for the District of St. Barbe; the Member for the District of Bonavista South; the Member for the District of Terra Nova; the Member for the District of Lake Melville; the Member for the District of Bonavista North; and the Member for the District of St. John's West.

The hon. the Member for the District of St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House to recognize the contribution of rural development associations in Newfoundland and Labrador. Since their inception in the early 1970s, they have played a major role in the social and economic development of the regions they serve.

The rural development movement initially incorporated fifty-nine associations representing all regions of Newfoundland and Labrador. The umbrella group, Newfoundland and Labrador Rural Development Council, celebrated its fortieth anniversary in 2009 and remains active. There have been many changes in rural and economic development delivery in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and rural development associations found their place and continued to contribute through many partnerships.

Specifically, I would like to commend the Central Development Association and St. Barbe Development Association in my District of St. Barbe. Through many changes and challenges they have remained steadfast in their commitment to the well-being of the areas they serve. I was honoured to be Charter President of the Central Development Association in 1974.

Rural Development Associations epitomize what the commitment of volunteers and dedicated staff can accomplish.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Bonavista South.

MR. LITTLE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Bonavista resident Frances Sweetland, who has devoted her life to volunteering.

Frances helped her father establish a thriving business. She became the local correspondent for The Fishermen's Advocate and the Clarenville Packet.

Mrs. Sweetland has been heavily involved with the Canadian Red Cross from operating the Healthcare Loan Program, to organizing Canadian Blood Services clinics. Her long-time affiliation with the Guiding movement includes Girl Guide Captain, District and Division Commissioner, Ranger Captain, public relations, treasurer, chairperson, and Brown Owl. Also very active with the Anglican Christ Church, Frances has served as the President of the Altar Guild, organist, choir director, and superintendent and treasurer of the Sunday School.

Mrs. Sweetland was on the Bonavista Tourist Committee, serves on the Bonavista Peninsula Health Centre Auxiliary, and is Chairperson of the Memorial Library Board.

Frances has received such prestigious awards as CJON's Citizen of the Week, Air Canada's Heart of Gold, the Canada 125 Medal, a certificate and pin for fifty years as a Girl Guide Leader, the Order of the Red Cross, and the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in honouring Mrs. Sweetland, a true representation of the spirit of volunteerism that keeps our communities alive in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for the District of Terra Nova.

MR. S. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Andrew Sheppard, a resident of Glovertown, had long dreamed of becoming a third generation firefighter, after his father, John, who served twenty years, and his grandfather, Jack, who served five.

Andrew's father would continually tell him that once he graduated he could consider joining the department. Mr. Speaker, as soon as Andrew finished high school, it did not take long for him to submit his name. The Glovertown Fire Department happily accepted Andrew, and he would become a member for two years.

Andrew would eventually take a job out of Province, and for that reason had to take time away from the department, but always said that upon his return to Newfoundland he would once again become an active member, as he had a deep-rooted passion and dedication.

Sadly, while home on vacation last year, while kayaking the Terra Nova River in his hometown, Andrew was involved in a tragic accident – one that would take the young man's life at age twenty-two. Recently, the fire department honoured Andrew for his commitment and remembered him fondly as a great member, but, more importantly, as a wonderful human being.

Left to mourn Andrew is his mom Allison, father Johnny, and sister Stephanie.

I ask all members to join me in remembering this young man – a young man who was taken from us far too early.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Lake Melville.

MR. RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize the life of the late Mrs. Mary Anne Michel of Sheshatshiu.

Mrs. Michel was born to her mother Anne Philomena in Quebec. She was part of the Mackenzie clan from Betsiamites, Quebec. She moved to Labrador as an adult and became an important figure of the Innu community of Labrador as an elder.

She was the mother of the late Ben Michel, formerly a president of the Innu Nation. He himself played an important role in promoting the Innu Nation and the Innu vision of self-determination, Innu rights, and United Nations protections. Many of these ideas were rooted in the guidance that he received from his mother.

The loss of Mrs. Michel is a great loss to the Innu and to all of Labrador. This is a sad time for those who knew Mrs. Michel, but we can celebrate that while she was here she did her absolute best to make the lives of all Innu just a little bit better.

Tshinashkumitin, Mary Anne.

I ask all hon. members of this House to join me in celebrating the life of Mary Anne Michel, a true Labradorian.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Bonavista North.

MR. CROSS: Imagine, Mr. Speaker, a place where everyone is accepted as a true equal, and smiles and hugs are the most valuable currency. Compliments are freely used and criticism never rears its head. Age, gender, and ability are ignored. Opponents cheer as loudly for the competition as their own team.

A few days ago I had the distinct privilege to visit and participate with the Special Olympics, the Bonavista North Polar Bears.

The athletes who meet on Thursday nights at the Badger's Quay Lions Club are Dean, Carole, Andy, David, Wallace, Dylan, Abigail, Madison, Travis, Logan, Samantha, and Suzanne. Wallace greeted me by saying: You are bowling with me tonight; are you any good?

Everyone competes with a smile and gives their best effort. Scores and winning are optional. On behalf of all members of this Legislature, and on behalf of the Special Olympians, I wish to recognize the generous efforts of the organizers, volunteers and chaperones for making Thursday nights special for their athletes.

In fact, when you leave this event, you wish every night was filled with Polar Bears and every night was a Thursday night.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the St. Matthew's Elementary After School Physical Activities Program.

Mr. Speaker, St. Matthew's Elementary and the Parkside Community Centre were selected to participate in a pilot project whereby students are encouraged to partake in physical activity during the after-school time period and it has been a resounding success.

Over 400 students in Grades 4 through 7 have participated in the program, which offers a wide variety of activities to get students more physically active, including swimming, baseball, soccer, canoeing, zumba, rugby, yoga, orienteering, bowling, archery and geo-caching. Mr. Speaker, students are also participating in various winter sports including snowshoeing, outdoor cooking, skiing and curling.

I am told that the excitement among the students as well as the staff involved with this program is enormous. It encourages young people to get active and get healthy and the school community has benefited greatly from this program.

Mr. Speaker, I commend all those involved with the After School Physical Activities Program at St. Matthew's Elementary and I ask all hon. members to join me in wishing them continued success in their upcoming activities.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Ministerial Statements.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and inform this hon. House of another commitment being met by this government to benefit the people of the Province. We are moving forward with the construction of a new vertical lift bridge for Placentia and surrounding area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, I had the pleasure of being in Placentia with my colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs and also the Member for Placentia – St. Mary's. Along with Mayor Hogan and members of the community I announced a contract award of $40.6 million to HJ O'Connell Limited for the construction of a new lift bridge.

Mr. Speaker, construction will begin this spring and will take approximately three years to complete. The work will include construction of new road approaches from Jerseyside and Placentia, and the removal of the existing Sir Ambrose Shea Lift Bridge.

Mr. Speaker, I expressed my thanks to the residents for their patience shown, particularly over the past year, in seeing this work re-tendered and the competitive bidding process move forward. This resulted in three bids, with a successful bid of $2.5 million lower than the sole bidder that was received in 2012.

The new bridge is welcome news for Placentia. The existing structure is more than fifty years old, and government will continue with necessary repairs to best ensure that it remains in use while the new bridge is being built.

Mr. Speaker, our government is making strategic investments to support key infrastructure projects throughout the Province. These developments serve as catalysts for even greater economic and business activity. The new bridge in Placentia will support the transportation needs of residents and businesses in the area for many years to come.

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. If we only can get them now, Minister of Health, we might be able to get the hospital in Corner Brook built.

I just want to congratulate the people down in the Placentia area for this bridge because it is a lifeline to the economic development in the area, and I agree, it is well needed. It is something that has been on the burner for years and it was pushed by the people in the area. I know the government thought it was a priority at the time and came through with the commitment for the bridge. It is going to help the whole region.

This is definitely something good for the area. I even spoke to the minister on the elevator earlier and said it was great for the area. It is great for the people, even before the ministerial statement, that it is being done. To the people of the area, I am proud for them. For the government, it is good to see that this area will be helped out in many ways.

There is one thing in the ministerial statement that I noticed, is that the infrastructure throughout the Province when we look at the RED Boards and the cuts to the EAS programs, that is not going to help these areas very much with the bridge.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

It is good to see that the bridge is finally getting done, Mr. Speaker, and I know this has come at an immense cost in time and in effort to the people who are living down in that area who depend so heavily on the bridge.

I have to question government's wisdom in re-tendering this project, particularly the time that it took for the people down there in that area to wait, Mr. Speaker, because I keep thinking, for the amount of money they put into fixing something that was bad in the first place – I think it was something in the area of $2.5 million to $3 million initially to help keep the bridge going – when they probably could have had a new bridge now for the cost that was quoted back then.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for the strategic investment in this bridge but it could have been done at a lot sooner time period –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: - and at the same time, a lot of inconvenience could have been saved by the people down in that particular area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to offer congratulations on behalf of the Premier and the provincial government to Memorial University's Faculty of Medicine. Memorial has been awarded the prestigious Keith Award for having the most effective postgraduate rural family medicine program in Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: The award, given annually by the Society of Rural Physicians of Canada, recognizes medical schools that graduate a significant number of practising rural physicians. Memorial's Faculty of Medicine was selected for this honour for having the highest number of doctors in rural practice ten years after graduation in comparison to all other family medicine training programs across the country. Memorial University's Faculty of Medicine continues to excel in this area, having also received the Keith Award in 2000, 2002, and 2010.

Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes the importance of encouraging medical students to enter rural practice. Of the 1,115 physicians currently practicing in Newfoundland and Labrador, approximately 45 per cent are working outside of the Northeast Avalon.

We invest over $2.1 million per year on bursaries to attract medical students and residents to provide return in service to the Province. We continue to provide accommodations for medical students in rural areas of Newfoundland and Labrador and work with the Faculty of Medicine and the regional health authorities to meet present accommodation standards.

Students tell us that if they have a positive experience during their rural placement, they are more likely to practice in rural communities. Our medical school's success in this area can also be attributed to the fact that approximately 40 per cent of students are from rural communities versus the Canadian average of 11 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we will continue to build on the successes acknowledged in this prestigious award. I congratulate Dr. James Rourke, the Dean of Medicine, and the faculty at Memorial's School of Medicine for their efforts in delivering exemplary training in the preparation of our rural doctors.

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 thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

Big congratulations to Memorial University's Faculty of Medicine for receiving the Keith Award for the fourth time. Welcome to Dr. Rourke and Dr. O'Keefe for being with us here today. We are certainly very proud of them and all that our MUN Faculty of Medicine has achieved.

Time and time again, Mr. Speaker, Memorial has been recognized as a global leader when it comes to post-secondary education. However, despite government initiatives and investment, the problem of attracting and retaining doctors in rural areas remains a major challenge. The family medical clinic in Lewisporte, for example, is facing major recruitment and retention issues, and unfortunately that is not an isolated issue in this Province.

We do not have a system that is built with any give to it, and when we talk to our family doctors across this Province, they are certainly concerned. We all have to work together to make sure that we have the best health care system for the people of this Province.

While we have 45 per cent of our doctors outside of the Northeast Avalon, 60 per cent of our people live outside of the Northeast Avalon. We are not where we need to be yet.

Again, we are very happy to have the doctors here with us today, and big congratulations to Memorial University Faculty of Medicine.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement, and congratulate Dr. James Rourke and his team at the MUN School of Medicine for their exemplary work in rural family medicine, earning them the Keith Award.

I have just returned from Labrador, where people told me stories about difficulties getting to see a physician, and stories of physicians getting ready to retire. This is also still true in many parts of the Province.

It is imperative that government continue to work with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association and the MUN School of Medicine to find ways to improve physician recruitment and retention in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleagues would like to join me in saying: bravo, Dr. Rourke and MUN's medical school.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Member for St. John's South have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate best-selling author Lisa Moore, winner of this year's CBC Canada Reads for her novel, February. February tells the heart-breaking story of one woman's struggle to cope after the death of her husband in the Ocean Ranger disaster.

Canada Reads is an annual literary competition organized and broadcast by CBC. During Canada Reads, five panelists defend five different books. At the end of each episode, the panelists vote out one book until only one remains.

This year's debate was broadcast over a serious of four episodes. The five books represented five different regions of Canada: British Columbia, the Prairies, Ontario, Quebec, and the Atlantic provinces. February was defended by well-known Newfoundland and Labrador comedian Trent McClellan.

Mr. Speaker, this exciting competition boosts publicity and results in a significant spike in books sales, especially for the winning book. Several winning books have gone on to become bestsellers. This win actually came on the thirty-first anniversary of the storm that sank the Ocean Ranger oil rig.

Lisa Moore is the author of three other works of fiction. Her highly anticipated novel, Caught, is scheduled to be released this June.

I invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating Lisa Moore and all of the Province's outstanding writers and publishers for their dedication to the growth and promotion of the literary sector in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for an advance copy.

We also on this side would like to congratulate Lisa Moore on winning this prestigious award. It does bode well for a lot of the writers in Newfoundland and Labrador on the history of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I also happened to see Trent when he was defending this book. I know Trent personally; I was talking to him last Friday night, actually. Trent is a very passionate Newfoundlander and Labradorian and he promoted this book with a lot of vigour for Newfoundland and Labrador. Through this book, it shows the tragedy of Newfoundland and Labrador, but it puts a human face to it. We all as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians remember that sad day when the Ocean Ranger sank. We know how much it means to us in Newfoundland and Labrador. Now we know that Canada is well aware of all the trials and tribulations that people had to go through after the sinking, and it has a personal tone to it.

Congratulations to Lisa, a good job to Trent, and of course I also commend the government at times when they promote people to help writing, because it does help promote our culture and history and keeps it alive. Congratulations to everybody all around.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

We all have stories to tell and I commend author Lisa Moore for her accomplishment and for sharing one about the Ocean Ranger disaster.

It is evident that we have a unique culture, history and events, and those with creative talents in the Province should have that opportunity to share them. I encourage the minister to continue investing in our literary arts community.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for St. John's South have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier is rolling out job cuts to the public service in dribs and drabs. Every day there is a new round of pink slips issued, causing considerable unease to the people of the Province.

I ask the Premier: Why are you using this death-by-a-thousand-cuts approach by throwing hard-working Newfoundlanders and Labradorians out of work? How many more people do you intend to fire? How many more people will be let go because of your fiscal mismanagement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying what a pleasure it is to be back in the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we have been very busy. We have been very busy over the last year in finding the best way to provide services to the people of this Province in the most efficient, effective way.

Mr. Speaker, we are facing a deficit in 2013-2014, a deficit that has been forecasted for a number of years, I would say. Anybody paying attention to our budget documents in the last number of years would know that this deficit was expected, Mr. Speaker. What we are doing is part of normal business here in the Province, which will culminate with the Budget.

We appreciate the hard work that public servants do on behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Good stewardship calls us to make sure it is done efficiently and effectively, Mr. Speaker, but we do appreciate all that they do for all of us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier mentioned how busy they have been in the last year. Just last year, in the spring of 2012, the Premier was quoted in the media as saying this: "The public service is growing and has been growing steadily over the last eight years…So we're certainly not going to be laying people off but we're going to look at attrition…" so that we can manage growth. These were your words, Premier.

I ask you: Now that we are hearing daily about job losses, is this an admission that your government is responsible for this mismanagement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell the Leader of the Opposition what this government is responsible for. Mr. Speaker, we are responsible for one of the most booming economies in this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we are responsible for students in Newfoundland and Labrador having the lowest tuition rates in the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: We are responsible for students attending Memorial University and needing student housing, and having the cheapest housing rates in this country, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: This government is responsible over the last number of years for putting $500 million in tax relief into the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, in terms of valuing the public service, it was this government that put $500 million annually on our bottom line for eight, four, four, and four.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are people going through the doors of their offices today who are not worried about that; they are worried about being out of work, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: This government is also responsible for some of the largest forecasted debt in our history. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about mismanagement here. This is what this government is responsible for.

The Premier has said that front-line health care and education services would be ring fenced and exempted from cuts, but now she has changed her tune.

I ask the Premier: Why are front-line health and education services now on the chopping block?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, let us talk about financial mismanagement for a second. In 2003 we inherited a Province that was almost bankrupt: $12 billion in debt, crumbling infrastructure, and very little economic activity.

What has taken place since then, Mr. Speaker? As the Premier has pointed out, we have a booming economy. Unfortunately, our revenues are down as a result of a number of factors, Mr. Speaker.

Let us use health for example. When the Liberals were in government they spent $1.2 billion on health care. Today we spend $2.9 billion, Mr. Speaker, an increase of 142 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Let's talk about education, Mr. Speaker. When they were in government, they spent $700 million. Today we spend $1.2 billion, a 71 per cent increase.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Memorial University's budget, Mr. Speaker, has tripled. So let's not talk about what we have done; let's look at what we have done.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, it is interesting to hear the Minister of Finance; he has had in the last three years $7.4 billion in offshore royalties to work with. The Liberal government did not have that. The Liberal government put it on your books. They signed the deals that made it possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: So it is clear that the Premier had no plans to get this budget mess under control. For years she spent hand over fist with no regard for fiscal responsibility.

I ask the Premier: How much money are you looking at saving by cutting vital services to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? How much money do you plan to save?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the Leader of the Opposition and other members of his party and the NDP talk in the last number of weeks about frivolous spending. So let's talk about frivolous spending, because I would like them to be very specific. Tell us where we were frivolous.

Should we not have put schools in Labrador? Should we have not put hospitals in Labrador? Should we have not done the Trans-Labrador Highway, Mr. Speaker? Should we not have done dialysis services in Harbour Breton? Should we not have expanded them in Burin and St. Anthony, Mr. Speaker? Should we have not built roads? Should we have not maintained tuition freeze?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, stand up and tell the people of the Province where the frivolous spending has been, what services we have provided to the people of the Province that you do not support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I do not support the Office of Public Engagement. I do not support blue windows on the building either, Mr. Speaker. These are frivolous spending that the Premier just asked about.

Mr. Speaker, this week the government announced they are paying Deloitte $4 million to find $15 million in inefficiencies. Meanwhile, this year they have made two senior appointments to deal with procurement in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: So I ask the Premier: Do we not have the expertise right here in our own government to do this work?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me continue now where I last left off. In 2004-2005 –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: In 2004-2005, Mr. Speaker, there was $208 million spent in this Province on infrastructure. In 2012-2013, Mr. Speaker, $773 million will be spent, a 270 per cent increase.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: We have reduced debt by 25 per cent. Now, Mr. Speaker, we are at a situation where as a result of our tax reductions, our loss of the Atlantic Accord money, no equalization, that we are at a situation where our revenues now do not equal our expenditures. What we have to do, Mr. Speaker, whether you run your own household or running your business, we have to sit back and say, now we have to make sure that we bring this into balance. That is what we are going to do, Mr. Speaker.

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.

Well, the Minister of Finance did not mention that it took us almost fifty years to get to $9 billion in debt. You are forecasting $4 billion in three years.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier recently announced that she is not cutting but rather suspending her secret bonus pay for senior bureaucrats.

I ask the Premier: How much money did you pay out in those bonuses in the last three years? Specifically, how much was paid to two people, Mr. Ross Reid and Mr. Len Simms?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that information was provided to a reporter at The Telegram. I can certainly find it again. The bonuses have been suspended, Mr. Speaker.

What we have indicated is that everything is under review. We are looking at all aspects of our programming and delivery of services, and I can assure the members opposite that it is a very thorough and in-depth review that is ongoing. What we are finding, Mr. Speaker, is ways to save money.

What we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, and what we are hoping to do is not to impact health and education services. That is our ultimate goal, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, when you have reduced revenues and you have increased expenditures –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: – then what we have to try to do is to ensure –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: – that we bring the Budget back into balance. I can assure you, the Leader of the Opposition, that the Premier's sustainability plan will be released on Budget day and you will applaud because it will make sense and it will be a long-term (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, agencies around the Province are left reeling after government's announcement to cut funding to Employment Assistance Services agencies, leaving over 200 people unemployed.

I ask the minister: With a labour shortage of 70,000 people and your core mandate of attaching people to the labour market, how do you justify terminating 226 people?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SHEA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, with the projected job openings in Newfoundland and Labrador, those job openings are a result of the deals this government has made, whether it is with Hebron, with Vale, or with Muskrat Falls. We know there are jobs in the economy in Newfoundland and Labrador and that is a direct result of the work of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we have a system set up right now where services for labour market information – employment services are set up in a two-tier system. We have a system set up where if people are eligible for EI, they go through a certain system. If they are not EI eligible, if they are a person who wants to enter the workforce, who has been out of the workforce for many years, somebody who wants to enter for the first time as a graduate, or somebody on the Income Support program and not EI eligible, we have another system set up for them.

Mr. Speaker, this is about making sure that everybody has access to these services without having a two-tier system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I still never heard the justification for 226 people finding out their jobs were cut on Friday afternoon. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the minister acknowledged back in 2009 that they agreed with the feds to fund EAS agencies until March 2012.

I ask the minister: If you knew that you were going to cut these agencies four years ago, why did you only give them four months' notice?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SHEA: Mr. Speaker, we have set up a series of career work centres across Newfoundland and Labrador, and we starting setting them up in 2004. Today, Mr. Speaker, we have a number of career work centres. We have 139 employees in the Department of Advanced Education and Skills doing employment counselling and providing labour market information in this Province.

As a separate exercise from the development of the career work centres, the LMDA devolved to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. With that, Mr. Speaker, we inherited the contracts of the Employment Assistance Services that were set up across the Province by the federal government.

We agreed that we would maintain these contracts until March of 2012. In the last year, under the new department, we looked at the services that we provide and wanted to come up with a plan so that we treat people equally but make sure that people have access to the services and employment in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I would say, along with the inheritance of these centres, there was an inheritance of hundreds of millions of dollars and we do not know where it has gone.

The Minister of Advanced Education indicated the $14 million taken from EAS would be diverted to be attaching people to the labour market.

I ask the minister: Do you plan on hiring staff to replace the 226 workers just axed, and if so, how many do you plan to hire?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SHEA: Mr. Speaker, approximately $129 million comes from the federal government into this Province under the Labour Market Development Agreement. This government wants to make sure as much money as possible goes to the people on EI so that they can attend post-secondary or other training, or the training programs that are available to them, Mr. Speaker.

We want to ensure that the bulk of that money and the $14 million that no longer will be paid into the EAS offices benefits the people who are unemployed in this Province and helps them attach to the labour market. This is not about hiring more people, Mr. Speaker. This is about making sure Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have every opportunity to attach to the labour market.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the Child and Youth Advocate recently released three reports wherein she stated a central theme was evident in all three stories. Despite the fact that investigations were called prior to or immediately after the formation of the current department, we continue to see these same issues present in our current advocacy work.

I ask the Premier: Why do we continue to see these deficiencies in our Department of Child, Youth and Family Services?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SHEA: Mr. Speaker, let me say first off, I find the member's question very insulting to the social workers of Newfoundland and Labrador who practise child protection day in and day out in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, prior to the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, and during the clinical assessment done by Susan Abell, there were issues that were pervasive in every part of child protection in this Province. Mr. Speaker, this government took action, created the new department, went through the Abell report, set up plans and timelines –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS SHEA: Although we have made the system better and there are checks and balances in place to measure that, I can honestly say – and I think this would be agreed to by most people who understand the child protection – that despite all the investments you make into a system, you still cannot prevent things from happening.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not blaming the hard-working social workers; I am blaming the ministers of the department – now and the one before that.

Mr. Speaker, the Child and Youth Advocate stated it is vital that issues and recommendations contained in the reports be given immediate attention –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: She further stated that unless and until these fundamental principles are adhered to children and youth of this Province are still at risk.

I ask the Premier: In a time of slash and cut, how do you plan to address these recommendations in a timely manner?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SHEA: Mr. Speaker, the Clinical Services Review that was done by Susan Abell outlined ten areas for improvement in child, youth and family services in the area of child protection. This government accepted that report and all the recommendations. Mr. Speaker, there were plans developed around each and every recommendation and also time frames so that we can go back and measure and look at our progress.

One thing we have instituted in this Province, Mr. Speaker, was a ratio of one social worker to carry twenty cases. Right now, I can say, and proudly say in this Province, we have reached a ratio of one social worker to twenty-one cases. That is phenomenal work that is done in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

We have also brought the ratio for supervisors to social workers – for every supervisor, there are six social workers. These are actions that came in as a basis of the Susan Abell report, and we are seeing improved results in the area of child protection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, this week three more communities – Salvage, Jackson's Arm and Hant's Harbour – were hit hard with the sudden closure of their fish plants, marking the ninth, tenth, and eleventh fish plant closure since December 2011.

I ask the minister: What is government's plan to help communities like these identify new economic opportunities to secure a better future? Does government even have a plan for our rural communities?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to acknowledge the member opposite's comments. Obviously, it is a very difficult time for these communities. Workers have been displaced and closure of their plants.

We will offer to those displaced workers and their communities what we have offered other communities in the Province in terms of our fish plant worker adjustment programs, our labour market services to the individuals. Whether it is through my department or other departments across government, we will do all we can to support the communities. Any new ideas they want to bring forward we will work with them.

Mr. Speaker, what we have seen this week is very unfortunate, but it is a reality. A company with eighty-five years in the fish business has recognized that the challenges in the fishery, which we have talked about, which industry talks about, are real. Mr. Speaker, it is a reality that we have to face.

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.

In December, the Premier stopped at nothing to ensure Muskrat Falls legislation was passed in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier, if she was aware then of the $1.6 billion deficit when she was forcing the Muskrat Falls mega debt project on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians through the House of Assembly this past fall?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat again how happy I am to be back in the House of Assembly because we really have to start dealing with fact as opposed to spin. Muskrat Falls is one of the best projects to happen to this Province in a very long time, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, this week we heard the Leader of the Third Party talking about diversifying the economy, government had to diversify the economy. Well, Muskrat Falls is diversifying the economy, Mr. Speaker.

Twenty billion dollars will come into the coffers of Newfoundland and Labrador, thanks to Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker. The only puzzle in all of this is why the Leader of the Third Party remains against this project, Mr. Speaker. Stakeholders like unions support it. Her national leader supports it, Mr. Speaker. She still stands against one of the best things in Newfoundland (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

I point out to the Premier that another huge mega development – this project in this Province is not diversification of our economy. I want a yes or no answer, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Yes or no –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want a yes or no answer. Did the Premier in December know that we had a $1.6 billion deficit looming in the future? Yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, let me share a little life lesson with the Leader of the Third Party. You do not always get what you want.

Mr. Speaker, Muskrat Falls is a good development. Mr. Speaker, yes, we knew we were coming to a deficit in 2012-2013, and if you had read the budget documents for the last four years you would have known also. Mr. Speaker, we have heard spin from the Opposition parties talk about our deficit being due to $600 million transferred to Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Spin, spin, spin, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Absolute spin.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker has acknowledged the Premier. The Premier has the floor.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from both Opposition parties over the last number of weeks about the deficit and the fact that $600 million have been allocated to Nalcor for Muskrat Falls. Wrong, check the facts. Do not continue on your practice of not allowing the facts to interfere with –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

I did not hear a yes or no answer to the $1.6 billion. All I heard was spin.

Mr. Speaker, last year the Premier said her government was conducting a review to try and reduce spending and they were going to protect jobs as best they could. She also said that her first priority was to provide efficient, effective services for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. With job losses mounting, her first priority seems to have changed, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier: Will she table the core mandate review that was started a year ago so that the people of the Province can see what her priorities really are?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, our principles remain the same, and our record speaks for itself. In the last nine years we have come from a virtually bankrupt Province, Mr. Speaker, to have one of the leading economies in this country.

In terms of fiscal management, Mr. Speaker, our work has been validated by no less than the Governor of the Bank of Canada, our bond rating agencies, our banks across the country. Every think tank in this country validates the work that is being done. It is hard to listen to criticism from the Opposition, who in their day – particularly the Official Opposition, who ran six deficits out of seven and nearly bankrupted this place, Mr. Speaker. It is a far different picture in Newfoundland and Labrador today then there was in 2003, and we will not give up the progress –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: How can she justify spending money on Muskrat Falls while making cuts on the backs of our government service staff to deal with the deficit she has created?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to understand that after the hours and hours and hours of debate that have taken place, and the number of briefings that have occurred on Muskrat Falls in the last two years, the Leader of the Third Party would still be of the mindset that somehow Muskrat Falls is contributing to the $1.6 billion forecasted deficit, Mr. Speaker.

All I can do, Mr. Speaker, is ask the Leader of the Third Party to show the people of Newfoundland and Labrador where five cents in the 2012-2013 Budget is going to Muskrat Falls. Show us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, last Friday this government got caught trying to quietly cut off funding to Employment Assistance Services providers. To date, the minister responsible has refused to explain how the affected agencies will be able to continue to provide programs and services to our communities.

Can the minister explain how she expects fourteen career work centres to carry out the work of dozens of agencies she abruptly decided to cut?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SHEA: Mr. Speaker, what is extremely ironic in this question is the fact that the EAS offices have been established, or had been established, to provide services to EI-eligible clients. Not once have I heard the member ask why in recent years we have not provided similar services for non-EI people in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is very interesting.

Mr. Speaker, we did not sneak anything out on Friday. We gave notice on March 1, which happened to be on a Friday. We had to give that, the three-to-four-month notice, to the EAS offices. Mr. Speaker, I had no control over the day when March 1 was going to fall on the calendar.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, last year this government paid $150,000 to failed PC Party candidate John Noseworthy to conduct a departmental review in the Department of Advanced Education and Skills. Now we have no way of knowing whether or not the EAS funding cuts were recommended in the secret Noseworthy report, since the minister has refused to release it to the public.

Will the minister finally clear the air today and release the secret report and table it here in the House of Assembly?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SHEA: Mr. Speaker, once the business transformation report of the new department is finalized and in the department, within the time frames allotted, we will release the report. At this time, Mr. Speaker, the EAS offices set up a parallel system of employment services in Newfoundland and Labrador. We expect people who are non-EI eligible to go to one centre and people who are EI eligible to go to another centre. There was $14 million for services set up in communities that excluded people who were not EI eligible.

Mr. Speaker, we feel that $14 million, based on the needs of this Province and the employment that is going to be available in this Province, can best serve the people by helping them be able to attend training, or post-secondary, or making sure programs are available to them. That is what that money is all about, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, the Tory Blue Book promises to make a concerted effort to provide Province-wide high-speed access by 2015. In round one of the Rural Broadband Initiative, they announced only twenty communities, while a whopping $7 million went to large companies.

Wireless networks are inexpensive solutions to provide Internet to rural and remote communities. Mr. Speaker, 200 communities are without broadband.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: When will the Minister of IBRD stop padding the pockets of large companies who claim no business case and build our own inexpensive wireless networks?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how the hon. member can turn a good story into such a poor story for rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we have made a commitment for high-speed and for cellular coverage in our Blue Book. We invested, last year, $7 million, and leveraged another $20 million, for a $27 million investment. Again, this year, or last fall, we did a call for RBI two. This year we invested 1.5; we leveraged another 1.5. In total, there will be forty communities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that will again be hooked up to high-speed Internet. That brings our total to the Island to 89 per cent, and 95 per cent in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we make no apology for hooking up high-speed to Newfoundland and Labrador, to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We have done it and we are going to continue to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, the second round of the Rural Broadband Initiative had budgeted $2 million; yet, in Tuesday's announcement only $1.5 million was awarded. It is quite evident that wireless solutions can provide far greater reach, enable local ownership, provide low-cost Internet to rural communities and remote communities, and generate revenue. So why is the minister continuously shortchanging the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador and using the tax base to subsidize large companies?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked for a briefing from my officials and we brought him over and gave him a briefing. Unfortunately, he is going to need another one because he does understand the industry. We have no capacity to build fibre and to build wireless. It is controlled by the CRTC, the industry is. There are private providers. We have to work with those private providers.

We could sit by, do nothing, and not invest, but that is not the principle of this government. We want to invest in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We want to build broadband. That is why we are investing public funds to work with partners. We will continue to do that. It has been quite successful.

I do not know where the hon. member is to. He has had people hooked up in his area, certainly on the Northern Peninsula. Certainly the Member for St. Barbe has recognized that, and I give him credit for recognizing the good work we are doing. It has been a good project. We are going to keep it going because it is making a difference in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I 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 Interim Supply to Her Majesty, Bill 62.

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

I have a petition to the hon. House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS hundreds of residents of the Southwest Coast of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, including residents of the communities of Margaree, Fox Roost, Isle aux Morts, Burnt Islands, Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou, Diamond Cove, and La Poile use Route 470 on a regular basis for work, medical, educational, and social reasons; and

WHEREAS there is no cellphone coverage on Route 470; and

WHEREAS residents and users of Route 470 require cellphone coverage to ensure their safety and communication abilities; and

WHEREAS the Department of IBRD recently announced significant funding to improve broadband services in rural Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the residents and users of Route 470 feel that the Department of IBRD should also invest in cellphone coverage for rural Newfoundland and Labrador;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to support the users of Route 470 in their request to obtain cellphone coverage along Route 470.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition I have entered in this House of Assembly on a number of occasions. I know the minister is aware how many of these have been entered. Again, I say this also at the same time acknowledging the broadband commitment that has been made. There was an announcement just as recent as last week. In fact, I know some communities in my district had an upgrade to their services. Now, the money did not come last week, the money was announced a while ago and there was another announcement just signifying the completion.

The reason I wanted to talk about cellphone service is because broadband is one thing, we cannot confuse that with the need for cellphone service. I wanted to mention a little story, Mr. Speaker. I had the opportunity to speak to students at Grandy's River Collegiate out in my district just a couple of weeks ago.

I sat down and we talked about politics in the Province and democracy and how it all works. Very engaged young men and women of different grades; they really took it in, they were listening, and they had an opportunity to ask questions. I think the first one actually is: Why don't we have cellphone coverage on our road that we go back and forth?

I was trying to explain to them the difference between private industry and public investment. They said: Well, isn't it the government's responsibility to ensure the safety of the people of this Province and make sure that we have a basic service available, which is cellphone coverage in this day and age, making sure that people on that highway, whether it be for the fact – if they are stuck right now, there is no way they can contact people. If we want to talk about tourism, if we want to talk about economic development, if we want to talk about the fact that people are still relying on calls so they can get to work, they need to get those calls from their employers.

They asked that question and I promised them that day that when I came back the first opportunity I had I would enter this petition again in the House of Assembly urging the government that we need to work together to make sure that there is an investment there. That investment will deliver significant dividends to everybody in this Province in so many different areas as I just named.

We need to work together to make it happen. I know there are fiscal realities, but this is one that is going to have a definite result down the road.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today, to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the Regional Economic Development Boards diversify, grow, and strengthen economies throughout the Province –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: – by providing training opportunities, marketing advice, proposal writing, leveraging funds, collaboration, and other means; and

WHEREAS the federal government's decision to cut funding to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is resulting in the elimination of funding to RED Boards and their termination in May of 2013; and

WHEREAS 75 per cent of the operational funding for the RED Boards, roughly $3.6 million, is provided by ACOA with the additional 25 per cent from the provincial government; and

WHEREAS the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development has $200 million in their suite of programming, some of which has poor uptake; and

WHEREAS just 1.5 per cent of the Business Attraction Fund of the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development was used last year, $366,800 of a $25 million budget;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to commit to bridge funding in its 2013 Budget, which may come from the Business Attraction Fund, to preserve the RED Boards in Newfoundland and Labrador that provide support to municipalities, communities, organizations, and businesses.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I received this in the fall while the House was closed. There are petitioners here from Burgeo, Mount Moriah, St. Alban's, Baie Verte and Burin who signed this petition. It just goes to show that $3.6 million could have retained nineteen boards and sixty-plus jobs across the Province and really helped communities. Instead, government once again invested in large companies. We see that when we invest in large companies they close up after their tax incentive or those breaks are gone.

Just last year they invested in Desire2Learn, a high-tech company, $3.5 million to create a maximum of thirty-five jobs over a ten-year period. The preservation of the RED Boards could have meant a way to lead them to self sufficiency and provide a lot more for communities, and look at things like providing wireless in our regions and a way to solve our problem of cellular coverage on the highway. Instead of providing cellular towers, we could be putting up Wi-Fi repeaters and using the Wi-Fi on our phones so that areas like the Burin Peninsula can be covered, so that Labrador can be covered, so that the Northern Peninsula highways can be covered.

These are things that we need to do. We need to build infrastructure in our Province. Invest in it wisely so that the revenues can come back into the communities, Mr. Speaker, and that is not happening. We are investing in actually just expending money. I urge the House to listen to this petition.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like read the following petition into the record.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the process of slickwater hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, injects hazardous chemicals into rock formations to extra oil, and is polluting groundwater and air across North America; and

WHEREAS the Government of Canada has commissioned an assessment of the potential environmental impacts of shale oil and gas extraction in Canada, including fracking; and

WHEREAS Quebec, Nova Scotia and a number of US states have halted fracking, and others are introducing regulations specific to fracking; and

WHEREAS it is incumbent upon the provincial government to ensure that our natural environment is protected from harmful industrial processes;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to impose a moratorium on slickwater fracking until it develops comprehensive regulations and ensures that each proposed project undergoes a conclusive environmental assessment to determine whether it is safe for the environment, the integrity of water supplies and human health.

And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is probably recognition, if you will, that the shale oil and gas revolution has hit this Province. It is something we talked about during the Muskrat Falls debate. This is something that was talked about in other environmental circles. Everywhere else, except for here. We could almost turn our backs to it. To some, I guess, we almost believed that it would never happen on our own grounds, Mr. Speaker, but the time has come. There has been an immense interest, of course, over on the West Coast of this Province, anywhere from Bay St. George South and then as far north as Parson's Pond and pretty much up the whole western side of the Great Northern Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, the danger here does not come from the fracking process itself, because fracking has been ongoing since the 1860s when it was first used. It is the industrial process known as slickwater fracking that brings a lot of danger and a lot of warning signals along with it. That process was first used, as far as my research entails, backwards of 1998. We do not know exactly what kind of chemicals they are injecting into the ground. We know from certain groups for example, Internet groups out there, like FracFocus, that these chemicals are still being injected into the ground are very harmful to health and they ruin water supplies.

It is the mandate of this government, and us as legislators, to ensure that the protection of the environment and the integrity of water supplies in this Province, first and foremost, have to come first. It has to be protected for the people of this Province. We not only have to make sure there are going to be the proper regulations put in place in order to use this new process called slickwater fracking, but what are going to be the environmental costs if we ignore what has been happening, Mr. Speaker?

I anticipate that I am going to be getting a lot more of these petitions –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

Are there any further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 2, Bill 58.

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

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act to Amend An Act to Amend the Services Charges Act, Bill 58, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce a bill, An Act to Amend An Act to Amend the Services Charges Act, Bill 58, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 58, 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 carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act", carried. (Bill 58)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act. (Bill 58)

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

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. KING: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 58 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, Order 3, Bill 59.

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Service Newfoundland, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 2, Bill 59, and I further move that the said bill be now read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador shall have leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 2, Bill 59, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

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'.

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 2", carried. (Bill 59)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 2. (Bill 59)

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

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. KING: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 59 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I call Order 4, Second Reading of a Bill, An Act To Amend The Animal Health And Protection Act, Bill 45.

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

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment and Conservation, that An Act To Amend The Animal Health And Protection Act be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 45, An Act To Amend The Animal Health And Protection Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Animal Health And Protection Act". (Bill 45)

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

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is nice to be back in the House of Assembly. It is nice to be back listening to the debate that is of concern to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is nice to hear about some new issues. I see the fracking issue has now been raised. So I think it is going to be an interesting session where we can have lots of good discussion and hopefully advance the hopes and dreams of the people of this Province even further.

Mr. Speaker, this particular bill is entitled An Act to Amend the Animal Health and Protection Act. Honourable members will recall that awhile ago this House passed a new Animal Health and Protection Act; as well, subordinate regulations came forward at that particular time. It is now necessary to do an amendment to the act. It is a very short amendment. The explanatory note to the bill is helpful. It says that: "This Bill would amend the Animal Health and Protection Act to provide for the disposition of fines to a municipal authority whose enforcement officers enforce the Act and the regulations by means of a ticket."

We are amending the original act and it has to do with where an inspector appointed by the minister under the act – it could be an RCMP officer, it could be an RNC officer, it could be a conservation officer, or it could be anybody else, somebody working for a municipality or community appointed by the minister – is out enforcing the act, whether it is by ticket or whether it is by going to court and seeking a judge to order a fine, the revenue from that would go to where the inspector works for a municipality; the revenue would go to the municipality as opposed to the government. Like all fines and tickets there is a provision for, I think it is, a 15 per cent surcharge that goes to the Province to cover the Province's administrative expenses relating to ticketing, because obviously there is a cost to the taxpayer, a cost to the people of the Province, when fines are issued.

The highlights of the original legislation, just to jog hon. members' memory: it arose out of a provincial government decision to review the animal welfare legislation in 2009. There had been no significant reviews, no significant amendments to the Animal Protection Act since it was passed back in 1978. It was time to review the legislation and it was time to make some changes.

This was prompted, and government was prompted, by requests from the SPCA to update the legislation, as well as internal concerns over the manner in which the act that existed at the time was being enforced. In addition, it was recognized by many people that the statute and other live animal legislation, such as the Dog Act, the Heritage Animals Act, the Livestock Act, and the Livestock Health Act, were in need of updating.

There were also related requests from the fur industry to have a licensing process implemented that would protect legitimate producers. We are talking here about the fur industry. Of course, this is relatively new to me, but we are talking about the mink industry and we are talking about fox farms that exist in the Province.

Consultations, of course, were held with the people of the Province – right across the Province – a report was made to the minister today on the results, and there were a number of recommendations. Arising out of those recommendations, new legislation was then drafted and it was introduced into the House for debate. The resulting legislation was the Animal Health and Protection Act. It was passed on June 24, 2010 and it was proclaimed May 2, 2012, about two years later. In addition to the act itself, there were eight sets of subordinate regulations that were also proclaimed May 2, 2012.

Just to jog members' memory, these were the Animal Health and Protection Ticket Offences Regulations. Secondly, there was the Animal Health Regulations. There was the Animal Protection Regulations, the Animal Protection Standard Regulations, and there was the Animal Reportable Diseases Regulations. Number six was the Fur Farming Regulations, and there were also new regulations involving the Newfoundland Pony, called the Newfoundland Pony Regulations. Finally, there was the Nuisance Animal Regulations.

The highlights of the act and the new regulations specific to animal welfare included fines that could be assessed through ticketing. Previous to that the ticketing option was not available. There were maximum court assessed fines of $50,000 in the new legislation, and it included a new potential lifetime ban on animal ownership.

In addition, the adoption of national codes of practice, where available and appropriate, was instituted in order to define the details of care that an animal must receive. We relied on national codes of practice of national organizations.

A clear description of how dogs can be teetered, housed, penned, and protected while in a moving vehicle; they also dealt with the standards of housing and care for shelters that look after animals. There were also minimum standards for dogs and cats that were raised for sale in order to prevent puppy and kitten mills.

There was also a ban on cosmetic surgery, the cropping of ears, and the docking tails in dogs. It was set out in the legislation the ability to appoint municipal employees as inspectors under the legislation. The matter of inspectors is very important because you can have legislation, you can have regulation, you can have laws, but laws have to be enforced and if not enforced, people will have no respect of the law.

The act identifies, right in the legislation itself, that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the RCMP are going to be inspectors under the legislation, as well as a limited number of departmental staff, such as the chief veterinary officer. The intent is for the dog and cat enforcement to be done by municipalities, to be done by the police and others who the minister can appoint under the legislation as inspectors.

Enforcement for farm animals, on the other hand, and research animals will be done primarily by conservation officers of the Department of Natural Resources, with a level of self-regulation accepted for those animal use groups that have well-established national animal welfare programs, such as in the university and as exists in industries such as the poultry industry.

Training for all enforcement personnel was to be carried out by the Animal Health Division of the department in co-operation with a series of specialists. A two-week training course was held, for example, in December 2012 for municipal employees from St. John's, Mount Pearl, Torbay, Flatrock, Pouch Cove, Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove, Wabana, Conception Bay South, Placentia, Gander, Lab City, and Wabush. A second training session is planned for Mount Pearl, Conception Bay South, Carbonear, Gander, Grand Falls-Windsor, Reidville, Peterview, Deer Lake, and Wabush. In some cases, communities present in the first session, we are sending additional and further employees for the second session. Other sessions will be arranged around the Province as are needed.

Municipal employees will be issued with an identification certificate to show that they were trained and they have the powers under the new act. Training sessions for conservation officers are also planned this year, 2013.

Mr. Speaker, referring to the amendment itself – I should say the proposed amendment set out in the bill. As I said, the original legislation was passed in June 2010 and it was proclaimed in law on May 2, 2012. Again, five acts were consolidated in one. As I said earlier, the Animal Protection Act, the Dog Act, the Heritage Animals Act, the Livestock Act, and the Livestock Health Act were consolidated into one legislation. That legislation had been enacted in the 1970s and had not been significantly updated.

The new legislation, the Animal Health and Protection Act, demonstrated government's commitment to animal protection and to animal health. It responded to an enormous call, a really enormous call from the public for greater penalties, for stiffer penalties for those who are convicted of abuse and neglect of animals. The new act clearly outlines what constitutes inappropriate and illegal treatment of animals. The act also addresses the definition of animal cruelty and it prescribes appropriate penalties, enforcement, and activities for animal control.

It is sad to say that the public of this Province have been witness to extremes that are possible in animal abuse and animal neglect. During the consultation sessions that had taken place for the new act back in 2009, the people of the Province clearly told government that these actions were totally unacceptable. The department subsequently met with and received positive feedback from various parties who are interested in animal welfare and animal protection. Significant public education will be undertaken by the department to ensure the people of the Province, the residents of the Province, are aware of the new legislation.

The proposed amendments are going to clarify that when a municipality is appointed, when officials in a municipality in their enforcement division are appointed as inspectors under the legislation, and when they carry out an investigation and they proceed further, either through court or through issuing a ticket, we are providing it is the municipality that is going to receive the revenue generated from both ticketable offences and court-generated fines. That is the purpose of this particular amendment.

We need it because it is going to help municipalities deal with their administrative costs that are associated with enforcement. Enforcement, as I said earlier, is important. If you have a law, Mr. Speaker, if you have the regulations, you have to have people to enforce the regulations and to enforce the law. It is very important, but it is costly.

The municipalities have asked that if their officials are appointed as inspectors, their officials do the enforcement, and their officials arrange for the ticket to be issued and arrange for a judge of a court to impose a fine, it is appropriate that they would get the money to cover the cost they are incurring in animal protection.

Usually for these things there is a surcharge, and the surcharge would go to the Province to help the Province cover some of its costs. So, the purpose of the surcharge being paid to the government is to recover the administrative expenses relating to the processing of tickets. These are costs associated with the production and the distribution of ticket books, and the registration and collection of fines.

The enforcement of the act's animal welfare provisions is going to be carried out by a variety of agencies, as I mentioned earlier, and it is going to depend upon the type of animal in question. The RNC and the RCMP are going to have authority to enforce all regulations, but I guess as other agencies are trained up, I would expect to see probably a diminution in the amount of enforcement the RNC and the RCMP undertake, given the fact of the more serious crimes – well, the more serious crimes that they have to enforce, and the number of laws that they have to enforce.

So, training for those who are going to enforce the act began, as I said earlier, in September 2012; in September the police were trained, and municipalities in December. The training is going to continue this year. Municipalities and the department have been dealing with and are very pleased with the training that has been provided. I read earlier the municipalities that have taken part, and there is no need for me to repeat that.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this pretty much covers the highlights of the previous legislation; it covers the purpose and what is intended by this particular piece of legislation. So, I will take my seat at this time and allow other members to take part in this debate. I look forward to members opposite and members on this side having an opportunity to say a few words on this legislation and the importance of it to the people of the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly a pleasure to rise to speak to the bill to amend the Animal Health and Protection Act. As the minister pointed out, the Explanatory Note is very straightforward, that this bill would amend the act to provide for the disposition of fines to municipal authorities and enforcement officers by means of a ticket and or a fine.

Mr. Speaker, this was certainly a long awaited amendment looked forward to by many people of this Province. I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, I think it is the incidents throughout this Province of cruelty towards animals that has caused a near uproar in this Province. The old legislation, Mr. Speaker, was very, very minimal and was almost non-existent in terms of being enforced.

It is good to see the animal protection act being amended and coming forward with some action and some positive steps, Mr. Speaker. I speak for those of us on this side, Mr. Speaker, that we support this amendment and we look forward to implementation.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the Animal Health and Protection Act are fairly straightforward. These amendments regard the fines recovered from cases of animal neglect and cruelty being directed towards municipalities and a portion of it going to the Province. Mr. Speaker, there is some concern that I have because it does not say in the act or in this bill what these funds are going to be used for. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, and I am hopeful that directing it to animal welfare and enforcement would be beneficial.

The act and the regulations make positive steps regarding the welfare of our pets. For example, Mr. Speaker, the regulations lay out how a dog is to be kept outside, especially in the colder months, requiring shelters for dogs and having a separate hallway or entrance to protect dogs from the elements. Mr. Speaker, it also talks about the length of the tether being five times the length of the dog.

There are benefits to animals built into this act that are enforceable. We look forward, because although we have seen a lot of cases of cruelty in this Province, Mr. Speaker, and some of them very, very horrific – documentation, I am sure, has been provided on all sides of this hon. House, Mr. Speaker, certainly we have seen our share in the media as well. Mr. Speaker, these regulations also recognize daily play and exercise as vital aspects of a well-cared-for dog.

Mr. Speaker, with these regulations should come funding to animal welfare organizations. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, with the implementation of these new regulations we will see an increase in seizures of animals that are not being treated in accordance with this new bill. Certainly, we will have a higher population of seized animals that we will have to deal with in our municipalities. In some cases, animal shelters now are bursting at the seams and are overwhelmed on a daily basis.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, there will be more calls coming in and reports of cruelty to animals or, at the very least, calls that are contrary to what is in the animal protection act once it is implemented. Certainly, the agencies that are tasked with enforcing this act have to put the animals somewhere to be held for the short term, or in fact the long term. In this Province, that is one of the shortages we see, Mr. Speaker.

In terms of cruelty to animals, as I said earlier, we have seen many, many incidents. I think I would like to refer to Max as a poster dog for the abuse in our Province. A very, very sad story and just one of many that has come out in the last number of years in terms of cruelty, Mr. Speaker. We have had cases of cats, of dogs, of other pets, being mistreated, abused, starved, and suffering from hunger and physical abuse. Mr. Speaker, I do not think I would care to mention some of the specific examples of what we have seen in this Province in terms of cruelty.

I think once again, Mr. Speaker, the need is for assistance to the animal shelters, because when this enforcement act is in place I think you will see a lot more enforcement officers or municipal officers seizing animals and not having anywhere to put them. I think this is a mechanism that should be following tight on the heels of this act, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, I would like to see some of the revenues generated from fines and tickets being put back into the community to ensure that our animals are properly treated and that they have a safe place to go once they are seized by the enforcement officers.

Mr. Speaker, it is also good to hear the minister say that some training has been completed in terms of enforcement officers. I did not get all of the locations, but I think there is room for expansion in areas of the Province that really need this enforcement. I was also glad to hear the minister say that training is ongoing.

Mr. Speaker, I think in my conclusion, I would just like to point out that we have animal shelters all around this Province. In Labrador we have a wide range of animals that are running loose and need protection, the same as on the Island portion of this Province. In Labrador we have one shelter, Mr. Speaker, located in Happy Valley – Goose Bay, and this shelter has been overpopulated and under funded. I think that the case has been made to the minister responsible for Aboriginal affairs during consultations, in talking about the importance of this shelter in Labrador. I certainly urge the Minister of Natural Resources to take this into account when you are looking at revenue generated from this act and the act being implemented.

As I said earlier, with this implementation of this act that is more for the protection of our pets and our animals, it is also going to be a demand on our facilities. I certainly urge the minister to take this into account when he is looking at the final implementation of this act, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Littlejohn): The hon. the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and the Member for Humber West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRANTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a privilege to able to stand in the House on the first day in the spring session to speak to this proposed amended bill. It is also a privilege to be able to be in the Department of Natural Resources as the Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry and Agrifoods. It is a privilege for me today to be able to speak to this amended bill. I first want to welcome all members back after a little break since Christmas and wish everyone well in the spring session, Mr. Speaker.

As we all know, sometimes in our lives we have all had the opportunity to either have a pet or have an animal and care for pets or care for animals, Mr. Speaker. Let it be known, I believe they are the responsibility, all animals and all pets, of the owner. It is an obligation, I believe, a moral responsibility to be cared for in a very positive way, even without legislation. Yes, in the absence of legislation, I believe the proper care of animals and pets is a moral responsibility of all of us; however, we all know of situations for many different reasons where that is not the case. The reason for this, Mr. Speaker, is often convoluted, often very detailed, but that does not negate the responsibility of the owner to live up to the expectation and care of animals in their responsibility.

The Animal Health and Protection Act, Mr. Speaker, is amended by adding immediately after section 77 – and I will read directly from the act, "Where an employee of a municipal authority is designated as an inspector and commences proceedings under this Act or the regulations by means of a ticket, a fine that is recovered in those proceedings shall be forwarded by the court imposing the fine to the municipal authority."

"(2) The municipal authority shall pay to the province an amount that the Minister of Justice may establish for every ticket processed by the Province."

Those are, in small form, the amendments to the act.

As was spoken to earlier, this act was passed in the House in June 2010. What is happening today is an amendment to the act to allow in legal terms for a municipality who carries out an investigation, that municipality to receive the revenue, or the dollars, that are collected or generated from both ticketable and court-generated fines.

Mr. Speaker, I think and I believe that this is the reasonable and proper thing to do, to assist in covering the cost of the municipality in administering the protection of animals in their jurisdictions. I think it is the right thing to do and that is what this amendment does.

Mr. Speaker, the municipalities that have committed to dog and cat welfare enforcement – and I believe that was a question that came from the previous speaker from the other side of the House – they include St. John's, Mount Pearl, Conception Bay South, Torbay, Placentia, Wabana, Grand Bank, Marystown, Reidville, Stephenville, Pasadena, Labrador City, and Wabush. There are other communities, Mr. Speaker, across the Province that are looking into this act and considering to coming onside. They include Gambo, Corner Brook, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Portugal Cove-St. Philip's that have expressed an interest in looking at this act and coming onside.

Mr. Speaker, the enforcement of animal welfare provisions will be carried out by a variety of agencies, depending on the animal in question. That could range from a municipal agency, municipal government, like the ones I just mentioned in the long list for dogs and cats, to conservation officers within our department of forestry and agrifoods, Natural Resources, for animals like fox and mink, to uniformed police officers, the RNC and the RCMP, Mr. Speaker, who will be able to enforce all of the regulations. As the minister said in his preamble, it is believed that over time that will reduce the amount of investigations needed by the RNC and the RCMP because it will be covered with the other municipalities as well as the Forestry and Agrifoods Agency, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, significant effort has already taken place on training or preparing for training for inspectors under this act and under the amendments. These include, and are not limited to, seminars for the RNC and uniformed police officers, as well as meetings with the various municipalities across the Province. Those that are onside and those that are considering to come onside, Mr. Speaker, and those who wish to accept the enforcement responsibility for dog and cat animal welfare.

Mr. Speaker, what this amendment does is return the municipality's revenues collected through a ticketable offence or court-generated fine after the fine has been paid to the Crown by the offender. Just to add, there will be a $7 fee retained by the provincial government to cover the cost of the provincial government's administrative fee based on those fines, Mr. Speaker. That is not uncommon in other departments as well and other fines under the legislation in other departments.

Mr. Speaker, for clarity and to put things in perspective, especially for those who may be listening at home, to put things in perspective on the Animal Health and Protection Act, it clearly outlines the offences and the fine's structure for the first, the second, and the third offences.

I would just like to cover for a minute or two some of the offences, and there are a good many. I want to also list the amount of the fine. For example, Mr. Speaker, causing an animal to be in distress: the first offence $100, the second offence $250, and the third and subsequent offences $500. Causing a service animal to be in distress: again, $250 for the first offence, $500 for the second offence, and up to $1,000 for a third offence. Owner permitting an animal to be in distress: $100 for the first offence, $250 for the second offence, and $500 for the third offence.

Harming or causing harm to animal used for law enforcement purposes – it could be a police dog, as an example – $250, $500, and up to $1,000 for the third offence. Maintaining or keeping an animal for the purpose of fighting – I know we have all seen videos on television, and that was in the news right across North America in the last number of years – $250 for the first offence and up to $1,000 for the third offence.

Mr. Speaker, just to take a few more: confining or permitting to be confined an animal in an enclosed space, including a motor vehicle, without adequate ventilation: $100; $250 for the second offence, and $500 for the third offence. This is where we see animals maybe in automobiles and it is in the heat of summer or in the cold winter and no ventilation for them.

Transporting or permitting to be transported an animal in the trunk of a motor vehicle: $100; $250 for the second offence, and $500 for the third offence, Mr. Speaker. Permitting an animal to be hitched, tied or fastened to a fixed object where a choke collar or choke chain forms part of a securing apparatus: again, up to $500 for a third offence. Cutting or permitting to be cut the solid part of a tail of a horse: up to $500 for the third offence. Cutting or cropping, or permitting to be cut or cropped, the ear of a dog: $500

I just have a couple of more, but there are a good many of these on the list. Failure of a veterinarian to promptly report to the Chief Veterinary Officer: $500 for a third offence. Failure of a veterinarian to provide information that the Chief Veterinary Officer requests: $100 for the first offence, $250 for the second offence, and $500 for the third offence.

Mr. Speaker, which often comes out, and we often hear about the failure of an owner to keep a dog safely tethered or penned, $50 for the first offence, $100 for the second offence, and $250 for the third offence. Again, Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on, but I will just give one more. Destroying or interfering with or disposing of a heritage animal, $100 for the first, $250 for the second, and $500 for the third.

Mr. Speaker, as you can see, the act we are referencing, as spoken to by the minister, and the proposed amendments evolve by bringing together into one a number of previous acts. They include the Animal Protection Act, the Dog Act, Heritage Animals Act, Livestock Act, and Livestock Health Act.

Mr. Speaker, this act and the associated amendments today illustrate, I believe, and I think every member in this House would agree, the moral and ethical responsibility of all citizens in this Province, and indeed, in our country, that we have for the protection of animals in our care, whether that is in our home as a pet, or on a farm being a farm animal. It demonstrates, Mr. Speaker, the commitment of this government to animal protection and animal health. It responded to an enormous public call for stiffer penalties for those convicted of abuse and neglect of animals.

Nothing tugs on our heartstrings, Mr. Speaker, when we hear about stories in the media with regard to animals in our care that are mistreated and abused, and left alone to die and starving to death. It tugs on our heartstrings. It is our responsibility, and it is the responsibility of every person in the care of an animal to take care of that particular animal, with legislation or without legislation.

What this legislation does, Mr. Speaker, it validates the fines structure. The municipalities will now be able to issue the fines and monies will come back to the Crown. The monies will then be returned to the municipalities in order to cover the administrative cost of administering those fines.

As I illustrated just a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, the act clearly outlines what constitutes inappropriate and illegal treatment of animals. Mr. Speaker, the act also addresses the definition of animal cruelty, along with the appropriate penalties. A few minutes ago I listed down through some of the appropriate penalties for cruelty to animals.

The proposed changes today, Mr. Speaker, and I would say to all members of this House, are needed. It will allow municipalities that deal with these issues to cover the costs associated with enforcement. When the act was passed in 2010 this government did not have confirmation from the municipalities – which I listed at that point in time – if they were going to be a part of the enforcement of this particular law.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRANTER: As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, and in request of the previous speaker from the opposite side of the House, I went down through the list of communities that have signed on to this particular proposal. These communities in Newfoundland and Labrador now will have the legal authority to carry out and issue fines and receive the money back from the Crown to carry out their responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, the very first week that I was appointed Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources, and Responsible for Forestry and Agrifoods, in the very first few days there was an incident with regard to a couple of horses here in the Province that were not being cared for appropriately. We had to take the stand to get care for those horses. They were, at the end of the day, taken care of and transported from where they were into a town. They were taken care of and I understand they are doing very well.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I believe that all members of this House – we have seen the stories on television, we have heard about it. I believe that all members of this House, when we get a chance to vote on this legislation, to accept this amendment in its entirety, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to be back into the House with our cohorts. We are talking about some of the more interesting pieces of legislation that are going to be coming forward. To hear what the government is going to be coming forth with, for example, in the new Budget, as regards to a new funding formula for municipalities would be nice to see.

The Minister of Natural Resources himself talked about the whole idea of fracking and everything. It is going to be an interesting debate there. My ultimate favourite right now amongst the bills to be presented this time around has to do with the Minister of Service NL and Bill 59 with the Highway Traffic Act, the changes as regards to the move over laws. It is going to be a pleasure to be talking about that.

It is going to be a very interesting session. It is great to be back in the House, and welcome back to our compatriots. It is going to be a great session, I am sure. It is going to be very disturbing at times as regards to the Budget, for example, but it is going to be very interesting at the same time, so stay tuned.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure – I will say pleasure, I guess – to speak to Bill 45, even though it tells us something about humanity and the way that we are treating animals. Sometimes you get a piece of legislation in front of you that you necessarily have to deal with that at times can be disturbing. In this particular case, when we are dealing with an animal protection act, we really should know better on how we are treating animals out there.

It is all too often now that we are hearing more and more about the cases of animal abuse out there and the strict needs for enforcement. I know that this is only a slight amendment when it comes to this piece of legislation, when it talks about the actual billing, the ticketing and the handling of those fines. I feel that this bill is a little bit too extensive not to be touching on some of the issues as regards to the Animal Health and Protection Act and the act itself, of course.

A couple of things came to mind when I was listening to the Minister of Natural Resources speak. I heard him refer to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the RCMP as being the principle enforcement agencies in this Province that are going to be dealing with this particular end of the act.

One of the things that struck me while he was talking was cutbacks. I am not talking about provincial cutbacks, because I do not know what is happening with the RNC yet – hopefully nothing. We do know what is happening on a federal level when it comes to the federal end of cuts. Right now, according to PSAC, we are probably going to be dealing with a little bit less enforcement when it comes to the RCMP end of things. I think we are talking about fifty-six jobs coming out of police enforcement on the RCMP end of things in this Province.

That presents the government with a little bit of a problem when it comes to enforcement and how far they go when it comes to the appointment, for example, of enforcement officers and when it comes to the legislation. I just want to bring that note forward to the government on that and bring that to their attention, because if we are talking about fifty-six fewer enforcement officers in rural Newfoundland, we are going to have more of a problem with enforcement in rural Newfoundland. It is plain to see that there is going to be a problem there with that and government needs to overcome that.

The second thing that came to mind as regards to enforcement, particularly on this piece of legislation, was a simple fact; while we are reading off the names of some communities, we are also dealing with a lot of unincorporated areas here, too, and a lot of areas in this Province that may have to share enforcement officers, for example. Is there an idea here where we can have Municipalities NL, for example, participate in this particular program and ask them how they would carry out enforcement where there are no incorporated communities, for example, in unserviced regions and that sort of thing?

You have a bunch of unique problems here that government is going to have to deal with when it comes to the enforcement issue on this particular piece of legislation. I know it is only a money change, so to speak, but still it has to be looked at.

The other thing I wanted to bring forward as regards to that was the actual powers of inspectors and who those inspectors are going to be. I know the government is going to be holding courses from time to time to do this, but they really need to look at the possibility of incorporating other groups that are out there, too.

For example, we know the SPCA have done a number of initiatives over the years when it comes to the enforcement of the animal regulations. Is there a possibility, for example, that they can go outside of the SPCA and get other groups involved? It is not just a single domain for groups like the SPCA. I can think of other groups in this country, for example – and I will go coast-to-coast – Beagle Paws being one, that also have offices here that should be considered when it comes to actually getting out there and doing the inspections and the enforcement when it comes to these animal regulations.

I just wanted to bring these points forward, let government know as regards where they could go with the enforcement, and bring forth our party's ideas when it comes to the enforcement element of this particular bill. I know it is only a little bit of housekeeping as regards how the ticketing and everything is done, but again I figure these points are pretty important, especially to animal lovers out there who cannot stand to hear a case of abuse out there.

Of course, when it comes to abuse, nothing is more abhorrent than that and I think we all have to have a hand in it. It would be on that end that I would hope government would expand that footing out there in order to increase enforcement, particularly where we know the traditional methods like the RCMP, for example, are feeling the pressure from a lack of personnel.

The only other note as regards this was, I guess, in thinking in retrospect when this bill came through – and again, according to the minister it came through in May or June of 2010 that it was voted in the House. It took us two years, Mr. Speaker, to actually get it passed and get it proclaimed. That was in May of 2012. I do not know what the delay was with regard to getting that passed and proclaimed, but it seemed like it was an awful long time that the animals had to wait certainly when it came to getting the enforcement done.

I am glad to see government come forth with this piece of legislation in the first place and have it introduced and passed again in the House. Like I said, it was a long time to do it.

We also have to remember as well, when we are coming to this, that while government has taken the leadership role in this, again we have made our suggestions as regards to how government can take a stronger leadership role in passing along the duties of enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, I will leave it at that. We hope that the proclamation of these changes, these amendments, will come through a lot faster than the original bill did.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly a pleasure for me to stand in this hon. House today and speak to Bill 45, An Act to Amend the Animal Health and Protection Act.

I certainly want to thank my colleague, the Member for Humber West. He did such a detailed job of explaining it. He pretty much said everything I was going to say actually, so I thank him for that. That being said, I think it is a very important piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is important that as many of us as possible have the opportunity to speak to it.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at society as a whole, I think we have come to realize over the years that it is very important to protect those in our society, the most vulnerable among us, but I think we have also realized the importance to expand that to all living beings that we share this earth with. That certainly includes animals, whether they be pets or whether they be other animals that we are using in terms of dairy farms, in terms of the fur industry, and so on. While they are used certainly for a purpose, it is very important that they do be treated humanely.

We have certainly seen, Mr. Speaker, over the years, the horror stories that you catch on the news where people have mistreated animals and people have abused animals. We have seen situations where we have had enforcement officers and groups such as the SPCA and so on that have had to go into a particular residence and remove multiple animals from the home. We have seen that in many cases they have been starved. A lot of them have died and a lot of them had to be put down and so on.

I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that as a government, as a society, we recognize those things and we do the best that we can to do something about it, to protect all living things, all living creatures.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, this is actually an amendment, as we know, to a piece of a legislation which was already passed in 2012. We know that certainly there had been calls to the government over the last number of years by groups such as the SPCA, Beagle Paws, and so on, and many advocates who felt that there was certainly a need to tighten up legislation. While it did take some time to get it done, we wanted to make sure that once it was done that it was done right. That is the important thing.

It is very easy to just simply jump on a bandwagon to react, sort of a knee-jerk reaction, but it is also important when we do this stuff, Mr. Speaker, that we do it properly. So, we had to take the proper time. We had to consult with municipalities. We had to consult with people such as the SPCA, people who have a vested interest in the protection of animals, Mr. Speaker. We had to do that and it takes time. We came to a place last year in 2012 where we were able to put this legislation in place.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the legislation, we had a number of pieces of legislation that were put forth and a number of regulations. Those included the Animal Health Protection Ticket Offence Regulations, the Animal Health Regulations, the Animal Protection Regulations, the Animal Protection Standards Regulations, the Animal Reportable Diseases Regulations, Fur Farm Regulations, Newfoundland Pony Designation Order, the Newfoundland Pony Regulations, and Nuisance Animal Regulations.

Mr. Speaker, we enacted a number of pieces of legislation to deal with all of the issues surrounding the protection of animals. In addition to that, it was not just enough, certainly, to put legislation in place. We all know that once you see acts and legislation passed, coming from those acts in many if not all cases there are a number of actual regulations that have to be written, as well, under that act, which is actually the meat of it and gets down to the business of dealing with the issues at hand.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of regulations here that cover all types of issues surrounding the protection of animals. As I said, my colleague from Humber West listed a number of them and he listed the fines. I am not going to repeat those, but there are a number of them there. I think they are well warranted and I am pleased that we have done that.

In terms of this actual amendment itself, this is really an amendment to this act that we already put in place, this comprehensive act – one of the best acts, I understand, now in the country in terms of being comprehensive and including everything that needs to be included.

What this is doing is actually, as has been said by a number of people, dealing with the enforcement piece. We all know that any time that you put any kind of legislation into place, the legislation itself is useless, it is written on a piece of paper, unless you are going to actually enact what is there, unless you are going to enforce what is there – not just enforce the act but enforce all the regulations that are there. This is really about enforcement.

When you think about enforcement, a lot of the legislation that we had in place in the past was left to our traditional enforcement agencies in many cases. It was left to the RCMP in the rural areas of the Province. In the St. John's Metro area, Corner Brook, and Labrador West, it was left to the RNC to enforce.

That is something that they would enforce, but I think the other reality of it is that when we look at our law enforcement officers, quite often, Mr. Speaker, they are engaged in activities in terms of enforcing the Criminal Code, in terms of enforcing the Highway Traffic Act and so on. It is important that we get more people, more agencies and, in this case, municipalities as well involved.

As was already said, there have been a number of training seminars that have taken place. There are a number of municipalities that have participated in that training. I know I heard it mentioned there earlier – which I knew anyway – that the City of Mount Pearl is certainly one of them. So they have the training now and they are going to have the ability to enforce these regulations, and that could lead to, in some cases, charges being laid, obviously, in-court actions, and fines levied as a result of that.

Also, another thing that is being put in place which I think is very effective – and it is something that was introduced to the City of Mount Pearl, I know St. John's, Corner Brook, and I think it is expanding now to a number of other urban municipalities – is the ability for municipalities to ticket. Ticketing is a very effective form of enforcement, I believe, because quite often, when you are into a situation where you are having to lay charges under an act and so on and you have so much paperwork involved in it and going through the court system and everything else, it can be a long, tedious process, require a lot more time and effort, enforcement activity tied up in the courts, and so on. Having the ability to just simply issue a ticket is a quicker, cleaner way of doing it. I think it is going to result in a lot more fines being levied.

It is not about levying fines so much as it is about protecting animals, because that is what it is about. Obviously, we would love to believe and hope that this piece of legislation is not going to receive a lot of enforcement. We would hope that there are not going to be a lot of fines levied, because the more fines that are levied, that means the more people who are potentially mistreating animals. That is what it means. So, obviously, we would hope that is not going to happen, but I think we all know, realistically, that unfortunately it is going to happen. It has happened in the past; history shows it. Some people, of course, do this out of cruelty; they mistreat animals because of just downright cruelty. Some people, it might be a case of they are just not really – they do not understand; they are not educated in those ways and so on. There could be any number – some people probably do not even realize they are doing something wrong, sometimes.

I think we have all seen, from time to time – I know I have witnessed in the past when you see some of these regulations that are written there and they talk about an animal, for example, left in a car in the middle of the summer and the window is not opened or whatever; there is no ventilation. I think at some point in time we have probably seen that. I think it is fair to say that a lot of us may have seen situations where there could be a dog, by way of example, tied onto a tree, or tied onto a post or something, on a very short leash. I think we have seen that.

I think many of us have experienced, over the years, situations where somebody may have had a dog, by way of example, perhaps a rabbit dog or something like that, a beagle, and people put them in a very small, confined pen; sometimes two or three of them in a very confined pen, probably not protected from the elements, no space, and being mistreated. Those things happen, unfortunately.

Certainly, it is important that education has to take place within the public. I think groups like Beagle Paws, groups like the SPCA and so on, have done a good job of bringing that to the forefront. I think we need to do more to bring those issues to the forefront, to educate people in what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.

That being said, beyond any education, I think we all know that we can promote things and we can educate people as much as we want, there will always those, for some reason or another, who will not follow those guidelines. When they do not follow those guidelines there has to be a penalty. This, now, is going to provide that opportunity. It is going to provide that penalty to people so we can help to protect animals even further than we are doing now.

Of course, the other key piece in this is that while it is related to enforcement, fines, and ticketing, as I said, which are all a very positive thing, the good thing here is that the money derived from the court action, if there is a court action and there is a judgement issued, will go back to the municipality. If there are tickets issued, the money from those tickets, those fines, will go back to the municipality.

That is minus a surcharge. I believe there is a surcharge of 10 per cent or 15 per cent, or whatever it is that will go back to the Province for the administration. Obviously, if it is going to go through the court system and so on, there is an administrative piece. There is a court cost and all that associated to it. So there has to be an opportunity to recover those funds, but the bulk of the proceeds will go back to the municipality.

I think it is important that it does go back to the municipality because the municipality are the ones who are going to have to enforce these regulations, and rightfully so. In many cases, by the way, municipalities are already involved in animal protection to some degree. They are certainly involved in picking up stray animals and dealing with issues like that.

I know the City of Mount Pearl has an Animal Control Officer who deals with those types of issues. If they actually pick up an animal, they have an area there, a kennel and so on that they keep the animals in. That is actually a shared service with Paradise. That is something I am going to speak to as well, this whole idea of a shared service because I think that is an important point.

I believe the Member for St. John's East touched on a good point there that time, surprisingly. If a municipality is going to be involved in that then they have to find a way to recoup those funds, Mr. Speaker, because they have to pay. By way of example, I will use the City of Mount Pearl.

The City of Mount Pearl has a full-time animal enforcement officer. The animal enforcement officer has a van which is equipped and so on with all the equipment and cages and all that good stuff. There is a capital cost to that. There is also an operational cost, a maintenance cost and so on, on the vehicle. There is the guy's salary that you have to deal with, obviously.

Then, of course, we have the actual kennels and so on at Mount Pearl City Hall. There is a capital cost to that. There is a cost to maintaining that area they are in, whether it is heat and light and everything else. There is food, there are cages, and there is sanitation. If the animals have to be euthanized there is a cost to doing that. So, there is a cost.

If we are going to have municipalities like Mount Pearl and others taking a much greater role and a more proactive role – and I believe they welcome that opportunity wholeheartedly. I really do, because I know in the City of Mount Pearl that I represent, I know the guys down there and I know they are very proactive when it comes to these issues of animal protection. I know they will take it on wholeheartedly, but when they do, and those additional duties, there is going to be additional costs associated to that type of work. There has to be a way for the municipality to fund that.

This provides that opportunity, where any additional work and so on that is going to be required by the municipality, whether it be from a capital perspective, whether it be from an operational perspective, that as they do their good work, there is an opportunity to get the money, the proceeds of the fines to pay for that. I think that is very, very important. I am very pleased to see that. I did not realize there were as many municipalities that are currently involved. I think I heard the Member for Humber West read out about a dozen or so. I think there is a bunch more he said that have shown interest.

To pick up on the point now that the Member for St. John's East raised about unincorporated areas or smaller towns and so on, I think we have to recognize, we all recognize that issues around animal neglect and issues around animal abuse are not something associated with any particular municipality. It is not associated with an urban municipality. It is not necessarily associated with a large municipality. There is no distinction or line drawn when it comes to animal cruelty as to whether you are incorporated, you are unincorporated, or you are urban, whether you are rural, and so on. It happens across all spectrums.

I certainly would agree that as time goes by – and I know that the Minister of Municipal Affairs here is nodding at me; he knows that there is a lot of good work going on at MNL with municipalities in terms of regional co-operation.

I actually served as the Avalon director on Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador prior to becoming an MHA and serving this hon. House. In terms of serving on that particular board, I can tell you that one of the items that was very high on the agenda of MNL, very high on the agenda of many municipalities in this Province, is regional co-operation. They realize, many of them are realizing that there are many things that we cannot do as a lone entity, but there are many more things that we can do if we co-operate and we share resources and we share costs.

While we have the larger municipalities, which are obviously on board, trained, and will be enforcing this, and while we have some other municipalities that have indicated a willingness to get involved – and good on them for doing it – I think as time goes by, through regional co-operation, through co-operation with municipalities and MNL, certainly under the great leadership of our Minister of Municipal Affairs, we are going to see many more opportunities for us to be able to engage in activities such as animal protection whereby they can share services.

That could be a shared service where you have maybe a dozen municipalities in a particular area, they cannot afford an animal control officer, they cannot afford – while there might be some recovery in terms of fines and so on, there is still an upfront capital cost and there is an ongoing operational cost. While they may not be able to afford to do it on their own, perhaps if they pooled their resources together and everybody chipped in, you could have an animal control person for the area who could deal with it for the whole area. I think that would be a positive thing to deal with animal control issues throughout the Province.

That is something that we encourage as a government. I know that is something that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is certainly on and a great champion for. I think that is something that could apply here as well.

Mr. Speaker, I see that my time is winding down. I certainly appreciate the opportunity that I have been given to speak on what I consider to be a very important issue. I will take my seat now and hear what others have to say.

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 will just stand for a few minutes to speak on this amendment here today. Before I do that, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask all hon. members here to welcome Devon Drover and Michael Cook, our new Pages to the House of Assembly who are going to be here taking care of us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Devon and Michael, welcome aboard. Thank you very much for taking on the positions to try to keep us in line.

Mr. Speaker, as we see today, these are amendments to this act. We hear people on both sides – and again, I will say I do not think there is one member in this House who does not want to see the protection of animals done in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not think there is one person who would try not to do what they can to enforce the legislation, to ensure that the legislation is properly carried out, and to ensure the well being of all the animals in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Sometimes we may have a difference of opinion on some things that can be done, how they should be done. I think the true interest and true intent of all the members in this House is to protect the animals in this Province. I sincerely believe that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as we go through these few amendments, which were brought forth – back, I think, in November or December, they were brought forward and we discussed them. It was mentioned at the time the number of municipalities that were taking advantage to join up.

There is one point I do not think was mentioned here today: if a municipality does not join up and do the proper training, they cannot accept the enforcement, the penalty from the courts. For the Province to designate a municipality to be a proper municipality to enforce the regulations, they have to go through the proper training and be signed and approved by the Province. I am assuming that is correct because there are some that already have animal control in place. For this act itself, they have to ensure that they register with the Province, they go through the training with the Province, and that they are certified by the Province for this particular training.

As mentioned earlier, if there is a fine given back to a municipality, the municipality then would keep those funds. They would put it in their general revenue. There are a few issues that come up with that. One is that if the money goes back to the municipalities, there is no guarantee or no designation. I am not sure if the Province even has the authority to do that, to ensure that the money is put toward some kind of animal protection or animal well-being.

We do not know what it costs to have someone on duty. What it costs to ensure that the situation is taken care of, taking care of the animal and having to go through the court costs. It would be nice, if there are any excess funds paid back to the municipalities, that it could be put forth to help out with the well-being of the animal.

Mr. Speaker, it was brought up here on several occasions. I think the Province then would charge a $7 or $9 administration fee, which would be paid back to the Province for their administration. I think it is a small fee of $7 or $9. I think it is $7 they would be paid back, which is a minimal fee to cover the cost of the Province.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, and it was mentioned here on several occasions, was about the manual for training for the municipalities, the SPCA and some organizations. In the briefing we had with officials, and it was through telephone from my understanding, we asked for a copy of the manual. The person at the time said they were not sure if they could get us a copy of the manual.

I am not sure if the minister has the authority, which I am sure he does, to get us a copy of the manual. So as an Opposition we can have a copy just to see what is actually being trained. What the people are being trained for, how they are being trained, what the criteria is, and how high of a bar is the criteria. It is great for us as Opposition members when we are discussing a bill, because it is hard to say yes, it is all great, the training is great, but we are not sure. I am not making any accusations or saying the training is not adequate. I am definitely not saying that.

What I am saying is I would like to see a copy. So when you stand up and when you meet with groups you can say here is what is in the training manual. Here is what individuals within municipalities, here is what groups like the SPCA have to go through to ensure that they are certified and they are designated by the Province. It would be very helpful to us if we could get a copy, I say to the minister, and I am sure it can be done.

The big question that is going to happen, and we hear this as of now, is that the RCMP and the Constabulary are going to be the ones enforcing these regulations. With all due respect to the minister, I understand the rationale sometimes, but I think the RNC and the RCMP –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: – Mr. Speaker, do have a lot of priorities. I am not saying it will not be a priority, but I think we need to reach out somehow and try to get other groups involved, and other individuals. We can do that in a number of ways. For example, if you train someone with the SPCA, is there any way to get some funds from enforcement to have someone on staff part-time so they can go out and do the enforcement and the do the inspections and the things that are needed?

Those people at the SPCA – and one I mentioned that worked there for a number of years was Evelyn Hancock. I am not sure, but she got recognition with the Queen's Jubilee medal. I recognized her here in the House of Assembly. For thirty years she worked with the SPCA, and for most of those she was an enforcement officer. She travelled from one end of the West Coast to the other end. All of the expenses that Evelyn Hancock put into saving animals were taken out of her own pocket. I commend it, and I am sure there are a lot of Evelyn Hancocks in this Province who do that.

I am not sure, Minister, if there are any funds to go with this to help organizations like the SPCA, to help with trying to get an enforcement person on staff, or help to pay for the expenses somehow, or help in some way to oversee some of those costs. It is very important, because a lot of these groups are volunteer groups.

I can understand the Constabulary and the RCMP, I can understand that. Also, on many occasions in rural Newfoundland that is what you need. You may need the RCMP in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, but also, I know Evelyn on many occasions went up the Northern Peninsula in a lot of rural areas to help animals that were in distress when she was called upon.

So, I ask the minister if there is some way within the department or within the fine structure that if any money comes back to the Province or if there is any way that there is any money that is put into the department now, that we could find some way to help the enforcement officer.

Another reason I mention the enforcement officer is – and I commended the government at the time when they brought in the act. I think it was $50,000 they gave the SPCA for promotion of the new act. With promotion comes more knowledge; with knowledge, people make more complaints and there are more investigations.

Over the last number of months, with the increase and moving forth with some of the public announcements that are being made and literature being put out, there is going to be a bigger demand on these groups like the SPCA around the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador because of education. Once we get these demands put on these volunteers, if they are not compensated properly and if there is not enough training somehow around the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I feel there is going to be a lot of times when cases cannot be taken care of.

It was just last week I was speaking to Janice Higgins from Scaredy Cat in Corner Brook, and that is one of the concerns Janice brought to me personally. It was about the enforcement part of it and not having any funds designated to help with the enforcement of animals around the West Coast area where Janice is from in Corner Brook. She asked me, if I had an occasion, that I would bring it up to the minister.

I know Janice has spoken to the minister. I am not sure about the Member for Humber West. I know the concerns have been expressed and I know the minister is aware of it. I am not sure what can be done, but if there is some way we can, in the fine aspect to the municipalities or if there is any fine that comes back to the Province, that we can try to designate some of these people.

One of the questions asked and, I say to the minister, in the briefing was whether increased funding would be provided to animal organizations to accommodate the increase. As far as they knew, no, there will not be any increase. Government provides $110,000 to SPCAs across the Province. They do not fund other organizations. That $110,000 will be the amount that is being given to the SPCA.

Again, I mention to the minister, with an educational program put in place, which will make more people aware, which would make more people accessible to a telephone number or some way to put into the ears of the RCMP, Constabulary, SPCA, abuses that are happening in the Province, we are going to see an increase. With that increase, we need, on the other hand, the SPCA groups and the volunteers. We need enforcement officers to be increased also. If not, we will not be able to create the demand.

I go back again to the funds that were allocated when the act was put forward on the $50,000. It was my understanding then that with the promotion and the educational materials that were going out, they were expecting an increase. Minister, I just ask that you take that under advisement and see if there is any way that that can be done with the fines somehow through the department.

I also would like to bring up one thing, Mr. Speaker. In through the act, there are some cases where the act may have – there are people who are a bit confused by the act. Then again, it is like if you are a short bearded dog, you cannot be out but if you are a longer bearded dog, you can be out longer. So, there is a bit of confusion there within the act, Mr. Speaker.

I agree with some parts of the act, Mr. Speaker, because I voted for the act, but there are some things now that people – and this may be straightened out with some education and promotion. For example, municipal pounds across the Province – some may euthanize through injection; some may through gassing.

I am not sure, Minister, if your department considered the regulations across Canada and what would be humane throughout Canada and what we can bring in Newfoundland and Labrador. I know that has been a concern for some municipalities around, Mr. Speaker. I know that is something else that we will have to look at later, to see what regulations are best for Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a concern because most people want it done in a humane way. Lethal injection is the humane way, but then we get into the cost. Then again, that has to be borne by somebody on the cost. It is a concern for a lot of groups.

Mr. Speaker, if we come in with the new legislation that has been proclaimed – and I ask the minister this, and I hear some sessions that we are having around for municipalities and for groups like the SPCA – are there any other resources put forward to roll out this new program besides the $50,000 that was given to the SPCA? Is the department itself getting any educational promotional information, any ads on TV, in the Western Star or in the Evening Telegram to promote these new regulations?

That was a concern for a lot of people: once it is done and the SPCA is grateful, is there anything over and above to train people, to tell people what the regulations are? Some people may in some cases not know that they are breaking the regulations, and through no knowledge that they are not, their animal is in distress for different reasons. To ensure that it is uniform across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador – and that is a note the minister could respond to in his closing, if there is going to be any other promotional material sent out by the department for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask the minister again: is the SPCA the only non-profit organization in the Province that is partaking in this? From my understanding it is. I am not sure if there are any other organizations in the Province that can, that have the ability, that have the resources to do it. The SPCA – and God bless them on all the work they do all across Newfoundland and Labrador; maybe there are some parts of the Province they do not reach, maybe some other groups. I am not sure if there are other groups that we as a Legislature can reach out to try to help, to supplement what is already in place to protect the animals.

The other thing I ask the minister is the SPCA, from my understanding, are they included – and I can ask the Member for Humber West that also: if the SPCA are actually involved with the training now, have there been people who went through the training, who are certified now, so they go out and are enforcement officers in the Province? I have not heard of any certified enforcement officers yet in this Province, Mr. Speaker, and that is a big concern of the people on the West Coast, because right now – and I know and go back to Evelyn Hancock; Evelyn did a lot of work with the SPCA and she was an enforcement officer for years. I am just wondering if there are any who have been actually certified yet now, who can go out and do the enforcement work for the animals.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just like to thank all the volunteers who are out there in Newfoundland and Labrador, who are working with any group that is protecting animals. I understand some of the stress and strain that a lot of those people must go through when you come upon a site where there are animals being abused, and in some cases some have passed away. It is a traumatic event for a lot of those people. As we all say, they are only animals, but a lot of times they become a part of you.

Congratulations and thank you for all the volunteers out there. The Legislature itself passed this act, but now we need to see what we can do to strengthen the act and to ensure that all of these volunteer groups, all the municipalities have the resources in place, have the resources. We have to remember the people with the SPCA who will be doing a lot of this work in the long run, with the ten or twelve municipalities. The SPCA are volunteers and we have to put the resources in place to help these volunteers, to help our animals, because it is not fair for us as people in the Legislature to ask these volunteers to do this type of work when we know they cannot carry it out to the best of their ability because they do not have the proper resources.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the few minutes and I thank the minister for attentively listening to the speech.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is great to rise in this hon. House for a second time today. I want to speak to what is a really important piece of legislation, Bill 45. For those who may just be joining us, in the Explanatory Note that is provided with Bill 45, the title of the bill is an Act to Amend the Animal Health and Protection Act. "This Bill would amend the Animal Health and Protection Act to provide for the disposition of fines to a municipal authority whose enforcements officers enforce the Act and the regulations by means of a ticket."

I think members who have participated in the debate today have done a good job of explaining the issue and explaining why this amendment is so necessary. I want to thank and acknowledge the dynamic duo from Humber East and Humber West for getting things started. You have heard from part of the Mount Pearl team; the Member for Mount Pearl South has spoken and now you will hear from the Member for Mount Pearl North. We have an east-west partnership happening here today.

It is an important piece of legislation. The Animal Health and Protection Act was passed in the House of Assembly in June of 2010. It was proclaimed just last year in May of 2012. It is a progressive piece of legislation. We consulted extensively with people in the Province and people around the country to ensure that this was in fact a world-class piece of animal health and protection legislation.

I would like to talk a little bit about the act. It really does provide enhanced protection for animals in the Province, and I think that lots of people in the Province recognized that there was a need to modernize our animal health and protection legislation.

Staff in the Department of Natural Resources were working on this issue since April 2009, to bring us a modern piece of legislation. Of course, it is a complicated and a sensitive matter. It came about in part due to representations from various groups in the Province, some of which have been mentioned this afternoon, that were calling on government to review and consolidate a number of pieces of animal health legislation that was on the books.

People will probably recall there were a number of high profile incidents in the Province of animal abuse, and that caused people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador to be very concerned about this issue. We listened, we learned, we consulted, and we acted. We brought in a comprehensive piece of legislation that I think really raises the bar.

I think the new act that is now proclaimed demonstrates our commitment to animal protection and to animal health. We responded to the enormous public call for stiffer penalties, for instance, for those that were convicted of abuse and neglect of animals. The act now, as several members have acknowledged today, really does spell out clearly what constitutes inappropriate and illegal treatment of animals.

I think, though, Mr. Speaker, that this act also represents government's commitment to the groups in our Province, like the SPCA and like many others that have been mentioned here this afternoon, that are working hard to keep animals healthy and that are working hard to keep animals safe as well.

Again, officials within the Department of Natural Resources and some of my colleagues as well consulted widely in the development of this legislation. The policy principles that are its foundation, we consulted on those as well. We consulted the SPCA. We consulted with municipalities. We consulted with representatives from the Nunatsiavut Government to hear their issues and their concerns as well.

The department also, Mr. Speaker, did not stop there. The department consulted with pet stores. The department consulted with animal welfare groups. The department consulted with academics from Memorial University, perhaps some of the ones present with us today. The department consulted extensively with the public as well. We also did an extensive literature review of relevant scientific publications on this important subject.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KENT: It feels like we never left here. I still continue to be heckled by some of my own colleagues, Mr. Speaker. Nonetheless, it is great to be back.

Anyway, this consultation with all of these various stakeholders was really important for a number of reasons. We really wanted to understand those concerns that were deeply felt by many people, concerns from experts and concerns from advocates as well. The experience and the passion of these well-motivated people really helped us arrive at a better place and come up with some pretty solid legislation. Because of the efforts that many people made, Mr. Speaker, the legislation really does ensure that proper animal treatment and humane handling of animals is top of mind and is a real priority in communities throughout this Province.

This new legislation also minimizes risks within industry and it ensures that there are proper regulations in place to contribute to the continued growth of the agriculture industry, for instance. It also addresses the appropriate treatment of animals owned by people, domestic pets, as well.

It is a comprehensive act. It actually consolidates five live animal statutes in a single modern piece of legislation. Most of the legislation in question, Mr. Speaker, was actually enacted back in the 1970s, back when the Minister of Municipal Affairs was a teenager. It has not really been significantly updated since then, so these were necessary improvements. The statutes I am referring to, the ones that are being combined are the Animal Protection Act, the Dog Act, the Heritage Animals Act, the Livestock Act, and the Livestock Health Act. So, the new piece of legislation that we proclaimed last year brings together all of those outdated pieces of legislation from the 1970s and we have created a modern, progressive piece of legislation.

One of the highlights of the act, I think, Mr. Speaker, is that it provides for stiffer penalties for those who are convicted under the act: fines up to $50,000 and imprisonment for up to six months, or both. There is even a lifetime ban on animal ownership if the offence was sufficient enough to warrant such a penalty. The act also points out that allowing an animal to live in abuse is inappropriate, and each of us has a responsibility to provide appropriate care to animals.

Another issue that was certainly a big issue of public concern was the issue of tethering dogs. Again, there were a series of significant cases that came out in the media. Tethering of dogs with a lack of human contact and minimal care really does create some major challenges in communities. It has the potential to result in major behavioural, health, and even public safety issues, so this is not an issue that we could ignore.

The legislation now requires that dogs must be safely tethered or penned, unless held on a leash by a person capable of restraining its movements. So, that is a sensible approach and one that I am pleased to see in this new legislation. Those dogs, of course, may be off leash for lawful hunting purposes or for the herding of sheep, which perhaps might be of interest to the Member for St. John's North. There are other examples that are defined in the regulations as well.

A dog may also be kept in a yard if the yard is safely fenced and there is no ability for the dog to escape from that yard. So, you can see, Mr. Speaker, the legislation and the subsequent regulations go into a fair bit of detail around this important issue.

The new act also does not permit animals to be attached to a fixed object if they are wearing a choke collar or have a rope tied directly around their neck. I know some of this may seem like common sense, but we all know that common sense is not always that common. All we have to do some days, Mr. Speaker, is look across the House.

Volunteers are going to play an important role in the enforcement process as well, and that has been highlighted here this afternoon as well. The minister has the ability now to appoint inspectors under the act in addition to the appointment of provincial and municipal employees. I thank the Member for Mount Pearl South for his comments around the role of municipalities. We do see several examples of really strong co-operation among municipalities in addressing this issue.

All the appointees of the minister, even the volunteers, must complete the mandatory training. As my colleague alluded to, some of the training has already occurred and there are more training sessions scheduled and available for those who want to take part.

These inspectors, both the professional ones through provincial and municipal employees and the volunteers, have the authority to issue tickets. They have the authority to take custody of an animal. They have the authority to destroy an animal. They actually have the authority to enter a dwelling or enter a business, with a warrant of course, for the purpose of conducting an inspection or providing food or water or treatment to an animal that is in distress.

Inspectors are also now able to seize items that are part of an investigation, but they are not allowed to enter a person's home without permission or without a warrant from the courts, of course. Inspectors will be able to enter a place of business during regular business hours for the purpose of conducting an inspection as well.

Mr. Speaker, a little bit more about this specific amendment and why it is required here today: the amendments that we are introducing through Bill 45 legally clarify that when a municipality carries out an investigation, the municipality will receive the revenue that is generated from both the ticketable offences, but also from the court-generated fines. We need this because there is a cost – again, as the Member for Mount Pearl South really highlighted in his remarks, there is a cost associated with providing this important public service and with administering the enforcement.

We are doing this now, frankly, because the legislation that we proclaimed last year did not consider compensation for enforcement agencies, which is obviously necessary, justified, and important. When the legislation was passed, we did not have confirmation from municipalities that they would be doing enforcement, but given the administrative costs that we are talking about here, Mr. Speaker, it is reasonable to allow them to recover the proceeds of the fines to offset the costs that they do incur.

The purpose of the surcharge paid to government is to recover the administrative expenses related to actually processing the tickets that these inspectors have the authority to issue. There are costs associated, of course, with producing the tickets. There are costs associated with distributing the ticket books and registering fines and collecting fines. That cannot be ignored.

The revenues will not be returned to any other agency, for example, the SPCA which receives an annual grant from the provincial government across the Province. We are very proud to support the SPCA in its important work. We recognize that the SPCA is an important partner in our efforts to protect animals and to promote the health and well-being of animals in the Province.

The enforcement of the act's animal welfare provisions are going to be carried out by a variety of agencies, depending upon the type of animal. I should note as well, Mr. Speaker, that the RNC and the RCMP have the authority to enforce all regulations. They are going to see a decrease in their enforcement activities in this area of course, because there will be other agencies now involved in enforcing the regulations and the act. Training, again, began in September for police. It began in December, I believe, for municipalities. Training is continuing throughout this year as well.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure there are still questions that people have. We are talking about a complex piece of legislation. In fact, I had an opportunity to review some of the many regulations that fall under this act. There is the Animal Health and Protection Ticket Offences Regulations; there are the Animal Health Regulations; the Animal Protection Regulations; the Animal Protection Standards Regulations; the Animal Reportable Diseases Regulations; Fur Farming Regulations; the Newfoundland Pony Designation Order 2012; the Newfoundland Pony Regulations; the Nuisance Animals Regulations.

I can see a nuisance not far away from me at the moment, Mr. Speaker. I think that is something that members on all sides of this House would agree.

Let me talk about some of the other questions that have come up as we have introduced this legislation, as we proclaimed it, as we have introduced the subsequent regulations and even as we have prepared for this amendment today. Some people have wondered what defines animal cruelty. Animal cruelty is clearly defined in the act. Our Province uses the national codes of practice to define animal cruelty. These national codes were developed for agricultural and companion animals. They define what is normal and accepted practice versus what is considered to be abuse. That is clearly defined and addressed quite well in the act.

One of the big concerns I think members of the public had was around the need for stiffer fines. As I said, under the new act the maximum fine assessable is $50,000. If the court determines that the abuse is sufficient enough to warrant it, a penalty can also include imprisonment or a combination of a fine and imprisonment. We are obviously taking animal cruelty very seriously. I suspect that the courts will take animal cruelty very seriously as well.

There has also been a lot of discussion over the last couple of years around cosmetic surgery in animals, what is banned and what is not banned. When I talk about cosmetic surgery, it is the term used for surgeries performed on an animal for no other reason other than the physical appearance of the animal. Sometimes that is to conform to traditional breed standards. Those cosmetic surgeries are not necessary for the health of the animal.

Some of the common forms of cosmetic surgery are ear cropping in dogs, tail docking in dogs, cattle and horses as well; claw removal in cats and declawing of dogs as well. In this Province, ear cropping in dogs and tail docking in horses has been illegal since 1978, which was a great year in our Province. Under the new legislation, tail docking in dogs and cattle is also now illegal. The claw removal in dogs and declawing of cats is still permitted.

Most of these practices have been banned for many years in other Western societies as well, in the EU for instance. Now there is some variation from country to country, in Australia, in New Zealand. In fact, most national veterinary medical associations, particularly those in Canada and the US for instance, are against medically unnecessary surgeries on animals.

You may ask: Where can you find these national codes of practice that I am speaking of? Once individual codes of practice have been adopted by regulation they are posted on the government's Web page. All of these regulations that I mentioned are now available to the public. People can check them out, as I have done, as my colleagues have done, to understand exactly how we are administering this important piece of legislation and how it will be enforced as well.

There have been lots of questions about what is okay in terms of transporting pets. How do you legally transport an animal? The legislation and the regulations address that issue as well. Animals can be transported in the back of an open vehicle if they are securely attached, as per the new conditions that are in the act. An example would be in a secured harness, for instance.

Animals cannot be transported in the trunk of a vehicle or confined in an enclosed space without adequate ventilation, such as being kept in a closed car for an extended period with all the windows closed. Again, it seems like common sense, but unfortunately common sense is not always that common.

We have talked about when animals should be tethered, what is acceptable, and whether they have to be tethered at all times. Dogs must be legally tethered or penned unless they are under the control of an owner for accepted purposes, which would be like walking the animal on a leash, hunting, herding sheep, or other practices that are outlined in the regulation as well. In a fenced yard, a dog confined in a fenced yard is considered to be under the owner's control.

For most folks, some of these regulations would come as no major surprise. There is an element of common sense to it, but we want to ensure that we do everything we can as a society and as a government to ensure the health, the safety, and the protection of animals. Bill 45 is a good step forward. It makes the legislation even better and stronger. It is good news for municipalities in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to participate in the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will not take up my full twenty minutes to speak because I know most of what needs to be said on this bill has been said now two or three times already this afternoon. I will say that the Act to Amend the Animal Health and Protection Act is a good piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, we have seen too many cases in this Province of animal cruelty and neglect, and really it should not be tolerated. I commend the government for taking action to curtail the animal cruelty and neglect cases we have seen in the Province. This is another step towards that, Mr. Speaker.

This act will now allow municipal officers and other officers to lay a fine and allow the municipality to retain part of that fine. We have heard today some people asking and wondering whether or not part of the proceeds of the fine will be going into animal protection. That may be difficult to monitor and difficult to control. I know, for example, in the City of St. John's there is an animal control and protection unit just here behind the Confederation Building, actually. In addition to organizations like Beagle Paws, the SPCA, and others, the City of St. John's has an animal protection building here on Higgins Line.

Mr. Speaker, some of the municipalities spend money already on animal protection and the control of animals and so on, and some of the fines that are collected here – the onus is not on the municipality or the officers laying the fine to collect the fine, by the way; the onus is upon the Province and the court system to collect the fine and then return a portion of that fine, the majority of it, to the municipality who laid the fine in the first place. I think that is good incentive for the officers within municipalities to become more proactive in protecting animals and actually laying fines in situations where fines should be laid.

It will provide, Mr. Speaker, as well, greater incentive for the RNC and the RCMP to lay fines for animal cruelty and neglect situations.

Again, I support this legislation. I am not going to prolong my talk, because like I said, most of what needs to be said has been repeated over and over this afternoon. I am delighted with this piece of legislation and I will be supporting it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. S. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a privilege to get up once again today. It is always nice when we stand in this House and no matter which member gets up, we seem to be in agreement. I think that is something that we have today with this legislation. I think that is further evidence of just how good this legislation is and how well it was needed.

The Animal Health And Protection Act, as was said earlier – I will not be repetitious, I just want to touch on this a little bit here – is something that I had a keen interest in myself as a pet owner, as a pet lover, and it is something I would like to be able to get up and speak to for a moment if I can.

The Animal Health and Protection Act was passed, of course, in this House back in June 2010. It was proclaimed a little bit later in May, 2012. It was with too much fanfare when it was proclaimed. It is one of those things; we pass a lot of legislation here, we discuss many different things in this House. It struck a chord with the public. I do not know if other members would agree, but it struck a chord with members out in the communities. A number of my constituents called me, people I never generally hear from; they called me, they e-mailed me, and they asked me what was going on with this and how greatly it was needed.

People saw this is such a great need, because when you are talking about animal populations you are talking about a vulnerable group, if I could say. Certainly, it is a group without a voice. I have heard many times people use the quote: you can judge a community, or you can judge a people, by how they treat animals. I think there is certainly some credence to that. I think this is definitely a step in the right direction, it is something that was well overdue, and I am proud to be part of a government that has passed this legislation.

We all know – and it is something that really brought this to the forefront - in the last number of years you see lots of horrific acts on the news. It almost seems to be commonplace now. You turn on the news and you hear of some horrific act in this Province that you generally would never hear of before, and that is either because it was swept under the rug, was not reported, or just simply did not happen. I am not sure which one it is. They may be a little bit of both. Anyway, we have heard some ridiculous stories as of late with regard to animal abuse and cruelty. This legislation, this amendment, will look at focusing in on that and hopefully curbing that activity.

I remember watching a program a number of years ago and they actually linked people who abused animals early in life to criminal activity later in life. It is something that you really have to nip in the bud. It is a serious offence and it gets increasingly serious as time goes by, in some cases.

While it is a moral obligation to a person, to a pet owner – and I think when you look around this House I see a bunch of sensible people, and there is a number of pet owners here I am sure, that would see this as a moral obligation and something that does not really have to be written or have to be enforced, but that is not always the case. I think this legislation, this amendment, speaks to a very small minority of the population of Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, it is so important that we speak to that minority because that is where the issues are taking place. Again, this is so very important.

This amendment would allow – and this is the piece that is so important here – for a municipality who carried out the action that that municipality would receive the funding that it got from the ticket or the offence. It was brought up a number of times by many of my colleagues that if you want to enable the municipality to take ownership of this and take responsibility for this, you have to provide them a means or a way of getting back that revenue that would be spent in the capital expenses, as was pointed out by my colleague for Mount Pearl. We have to enable them and we have to give them the resources in order to do that. Of course, when they are able to recoup this revenue, that is something that will enable them to do so.

The actual enforcement can be done by a variety of folks – and we already went through this – municipal governments, as I spoke about, conservation officers and police officers. The hope is, as time goes on, and the training and whatnot comes in place less responsibility will fall upon our police officers; we all know they have quite the significant workload. As the training becomes more predominant, we are going to have the other bodies, as I said, the municipal government in particular to take over some of that responsibility and share the responsibility. Because it is certainly a municipal issue and it is a provincial issue. Everybody has a hand in it. I think when everybody puts their hands in and are willing to help carry that weight, the result obviously is evidently much better.

This legislation, as I said, clearly demonstrates our government's commitment. It is one of these things – and that is the great thing about getting out in your community and talking to constituents and whatnot; you hear what is on people's minds and things that we want seen done. Again, this was something that was said to me umpteen times. It was really a hot topic in the district. Again, going back to the news stories that we have heard of and we cringed at so many times over the past number of years, it really pushed this to the forefront and our government responded to that and they have created the legislation around it to enable us to deal with it in a proper fashion.

I guess in years past there was always some knowledge of how to treat animals but there were not any teeth – no pun intended – around the actual enabling people to deal with it. While again sometimes in the past it may have been pushed under the carpet or rug, whatever the case is, now there is legislation enabling people to deal with it and make sure that we curb the behaviour.

I think the Member for Bay of Islands had brought it up with regard to the volunteers in the SPCA. I do not have an SPCA in my district per se, but we are serviced by both Gander on the west and Clarenville on the east. Both of those organizations – I know Clarenville has been around since 1989, and Gander I would imagine probably around the same amount of time as well. They are both well-established SPCAs.

I am also proud of the fact that this government supports those operations. I am also glad and I am also very thankful for the volunteers who help house those. Any organization such as that obviously relies on the hard work of volunteers. The SPCA is no different than any other one when it comes to that.

You look at other organizations – it was brought up earlier like Beagle Paws, and there are a number of these organizations around the Province. I think certainly that our hat has to go off to them for the work that they put into this. That was one of the groups I heard from after this legislation was put in place. They were so very thankful. It is something they had been asking for, for years. It is something that while we may not have seen it each and every day, it is something they lived and breathed every day, people dealing with animal protection and animal cruelty. They have seen this all too often and they knew the need of it, and they put those thoughts forward and we responded.

This is legislation that was in response to a need and it is here today. We have made amendments to it to make sure it works well. I would like to commend the department for putting this together. It was not an easy piece and it took some time. At the end of the day, you want to make sure whatever you put in place is the right thing to have in place. I think that is what we have here today. It is great to see the consensus in the House that this is the right thing.

With that, I will take my seat. It was a great pleasure to speak to this. I will let someone else speak to it now if they wish.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

It is a privilege to be able to stand and speak to this piece of legislation. I do not mean to belabour any of the points that have already been made here. The fact is that the act itself seems to be agreed to by all parties here and by the majority of individuals here. That is a good sign. It means that it is non-partisan; it is the right thing to do.

I understand that we are here, Mr. Speaker, to deal with just a proposed section as it comes to the inspectors and the inspector training. I do not really need to talk about issues that have already been raised, but this gives me an opportunity to discuss some specific issues that have arisen since the law was proclaimed or passed back in June 2012.

What I wanted to do was just bring up a specific instance. I feel I would be remiss if I did not put this on the record right now to talk about this. It is an incident that has occurred in this Province since this piece of legislation came back in. It happened, actually, out in my district in a community. It was something that was not only brought up in the news media, but I received a number of e-mails on it from a lot of concerned citizens around the Province. I know members of all parties, I am pretty sure, have received those.

It is a bit different than the section we are discussing, but I feel I need to bring it up because the minister needs to be aware of it and the department. The fact is that no law is set in stone. We have seen that before. If there is a chance to better something, then it will be done. We have seen that in the last session where we had an act from the session before that we had the chance to amend because there had still been an error there.

Well, in this case, I think, from seeing the great changes that were made in the piece of legislation, we have seen a situation where there may still be – I do not know if I would call them loopholes, Mr. Speaker, but I would call them situations that may require clarification by the department. I am going to bring that up now.

What happened was we had a situation in January of this year, 2013, where a number of animals from a home, including dogs, cats, and actually chickens, were seized from a home. They were seized by the RCMP, which I guess would qualify as or be deemed the inspector. Apparently, these animals were not in good shape. They were in distress, some of them. I believe one of the dogs, after being treated by a vet, was found to have suffered a number of conditions.

Now, I am trying to be very careful in how I word this because I am not sure where the matter rests in terms of if it is actually in the judiciary right now. It is my job to make sure it is brought up. Again, I will leave it to a judge and to the legal system to decide how this goes, but the legal system does apply the legislation that is brought there. That is why I want to bring this issue up. Again, these are concerns that have been brought to me by constituents, so I need to bring these up and have them on the record.

In this case, it is my understanding that after the seizure of the animals, the animals were returned to the owner. I believe the charges may have been pending, I am not sure. My question is, in a case where charges have been laid, if hypothetically those charges had not been disposed of or if the matter was still before the court, I am not sure if returning the animals to the same place would be prudent if they were deemed or found to have been in distress.

To compare that, it seems to me to be equivalent of being perhaps in a situation where you are in an area of alleged abuse. We all know that charges can be laid. The fact is you would stay out of that situation until the situation is found to be over with in the court of law. What I am saying here is, in terms of we are dealing with animals, if they were found to be in situations of abuse, even if alleged, I would think it wise to have the matter disposed of in the court prior to possibly returning animals, especially if they have been found by a veterinarian or other professional to be in need of assistance or if they were found to be in distress.

Without getting into the particular facts, I think the situation needs to be brought up. It is my job to bring it up if I have been contacted by many individuals, which I have. Many of them I do not know who they are but I know some are in my own constituency and I know of some elsewhere. That is, I guess, the beauty of being in an age where people can contact any government member via the Internet, by e-mail, Twitter or whatnot. I am getting those.

It is my job to put it on the record. I know the minister is aware and he will continue to make sure that the situation is, I guess, reviewed and monitored. That is my concern, because at the end of the day the legislation is one thing but we need to make sure that the legislation is carried out properly. If there are situations where we can improve it down the road, then we need to do that as well.

Again, I just wanted to quickly bring that up, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the opportunity to do that today.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to get up in my place the first day of the House. As a matter of fact, I am glad to be back in the House. It does not seem that long ago that we were here and broke for the Christmas break. I wish that all people wanted to be in this House.

According to the papers today, all of us do not want to be here. Some people think it is a waste of time, but this act is certainly a good testament in regard to the reasons why we should be here because it is a very important act. It is all about animals. Whether they are our own personal pets or whether they are animals on a farm in Lord's Cove, or wherever it may be, they should be protected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. O'BRIEN: They should be cherished, regardless, Mr. Speaker. Like I just said, regardless if they are a personal pet or they are on a farm. There are farms all over this great Province of ours. We have to take care of those animals that are on those farms, especially down on the Burin Peninsula, Lord's Cove and everywhere else where there are farms in this Province. We have to make sure that these people are responsible and take their responsibilities seriously in regard to taking care of these animals. That is what this is all about.

As well, when it comes to this specific amendment in regard to municipalities, I can safely say now that I have been the Minister of Municipal Affairs since October 2010 and I have worked – I think we have built a great relationship with municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador, and this is just another piece of that in regard to them assuming the responsibility. They have lobbied for this in regard to being able to levy the tickets and actually enforce the act as well. They take that responsibility seriously as well as us in this House.

I was listening intently in my place in this House of Assembly this afternoon to some of the members' comments. As a matter of fact, the Member for Mount Pearl South, I believe, gave a great history in regard to where we came from in regard to animal protection, exactly what we have done over the past, and the reasons why. We have brought five acts together and consolidated them into one in this House of Assembly.

I remember being part of that Cabinet at the time, how many times that particular paper came up to Cabinet. Each and every one of us as cabinet ministers had an opportunity to interact with the minister of the day and bring our views forward with regard to what we thought should be in the act. Then the act used to go back and be revamped, looked at by the officials down in Natural Resources, and then it would come back to us again. Then there would be other things that we would want, because certainly, as a government since 2003, we have taken each and every aspect of government and governance very seriously. When we do something we try to do it in a way that is the best act that we can possibly bring to this House of Assembly to be considered by the members who sit here and also to the people of the Province who elected us to be here. We take that responsibility very, very seriously.

You know, this act, I heard one of the members on the opposite side of the House mention that it took a long time for the act to be proclaimed once it was passed in this House in 2010. The reason was because we wanted to make sure that we tied everything in regard to the consolidation of those five acts together and also to make sure that the regulations that are attached to that act were the best we could do, that we did not leave anything out if at all possible. Not that we do not come back as we are doing today; we are amending the act already, and some of the things that we did back then. We are not amending the act because we did something wrong; we are amending the act because we are trying to strengthen it.

One of the things that we did not have done at that particular time was a solid comfort. We did not have solid comfort in regard to municipalities being able to do and enforce and ticket. Now we are at the point that there is a certain municipality, such as Gander, that is able to do that. If they are going to participate, then anything surrounding that in regard to any provisions of the courts and any fines or whatever should come back to the municipalities.

I have to speak as well – and I have heard the different stakeholders who are involved in the protection of animals. I have two, myself, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker. We have two cats. If anybody wants to see a picture of Max, my cat, they can drop over to my desk after I take my seat. I keep pictures of my cat on my BlackBerry along with my Foxy and the whole works of it.

I heard one of the members say, as well, as animal lovers – but you know something, I think each and every one of us should be an animal lover. They are certainly a part of our culture, a part of our society, and a part of the world. Sometimes I even think that maybe they were here before us. We should be protecting them; absolutely we should be.

There are other members in this House who cherish their animals even though they chew up their couches, jump over the couches, beat up everything on the coffee tables, and everything else. You know something: that animal is still the love of their life and puts a lot of comfort and a lot of pleasure to their daily lives. We look forward to getting up in the morning and having our animals.

This act itself is really important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I heard the hon. Member for Terra Nova mention about news articles in regard to people who are abusing animals, or forgetting and not having the ability to take care of the animals. We have a responsibility as citizens in our own right, really; regardless of what is in this act in regard to enforcement, we have a responsibility as citizens as well to join in that cause.

If we see anybody and have evidence that somebody is abusing an animal, it is incumbent on us to report that to the proper officials, be it the RNC, RCMP, the enforcement officers now with the municipalities, or the enforcement officers that we have ourselves in the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is incumbent on us as well to do that, and make sure that is at the forefront, because these animals cannot protect themselves. Certainly people should not be able to abuse them at any given time. I think that is really wrong. I think it is our responsibility to make sure that we have everything in place.

This piece here is a great amendment to the act, and I know that Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, MNL, are certainly in support of this. They always take their responsibilities without question and seriously. They give themselves up for election. I think the election is this September 2013. These people do a great job for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as the first level of government, and they will continue to do so.

I heard one of the members say that there is no guarantee in the act, that the monies that might be collected through court action or whatever it may be, that is going to be turned back to municipalities and will be used to further the protection of animals. I am quite sure that the municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador – and I have interacted with 276 of them over the last two-and-a-half years. I am quite sure that these people take this as seriously as I do, as seriously as this House does, and they would do the right thing and make sure that the proper resources are there to enforce this act and make sure that people are not abusing their animals, and if they are, they are brought to the court for conviction or whatever it may be.

So, Mr. Speaker, I had to get up and speak in regard to that, because I have a great SPCA in Gander. I know a lady who has spent her whole lifetime there with the SPCA and certainly educated me to the need for protection of animals. Her name is Betty Suley. As a matter of fact, she is my next-door neighbour. I have a lot of respect for Betty in regard to what she has done, the giving of her time, and the stress that she has gone through, even in regard to some of the abuse that she has seen. She brings a lot to the table in regard to animal protection in Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat in the House. This is an important amendment and this is a good reason why we opened up the House here today, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Minister of Natural Resources speak now, he will close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank all members of this House for taking part in this debate. I mean, it does go to show that we are all animal lovers, and we all react the same way when we hear instances of abuse to animals, some of which have been raised in here today.

The Member for St. John's East just brought to my attention that as we speak there could be an incident happening somewhere in the Province. We all have to be vigilant, all of us, to try to protect animals from abuse and from the way they are harshly treated.

I am very pleased with some of the comments that the legislation appears to be working. It is not perfect; no piece of legislation is perfect and we can always make improvements. I am very grateful for the comments that have been made here today, and some of the suggestions that have been made I will be happy to take them up with officials of the department.

What I want to do now in wrapping up is I would like to try, as best I can, to address some of the comments that have been made. We are dealing with an amendment here, a particular amendment to the legislation. We could focus on one narrow area, but of course, what has happened is that members have looked to the whole act. We have had a lot of discussion about the whole act, and sometimes somebody in the Chair could rule us out of order, but that has not happened here today. It has given us an opportunity to have a very good discussion.

I talked a bit earlier about the inspectors that are appointed under the act. The act identified the RNC or the police as inspectors. I think the hon. Member for Bay of Islands said just the police was not enough, and of course, there are others. We have the limited number of the departmental staff in Natural Resources, as well as the chief veterinary officer. I mentioned the intent was for the protection of dogs and cats, and the enforcement relating to them would be done by municipalities, the police, and also the SPCA. I guess in my remarks I neglected to talk further about the SPCA, an organization that I think we all admire very much for the good work they do in the protection of animals.

Arising out of an incident in my district recently, in Humber East, there was a home where a lot of cats had accumulated. There were organizations that were there and were very helpful in saving the lives of many of those animals. Of course, the SPCA, as I said, is admired by all of us for the work they do. There are other organizations, such as one in Stephenville, SCAPA, the Society for the Care and Protection of Animals, and Scaredy Cat, which looked after those cats.

The previous Animal Protection Act, which was replaced by the new act, was predominantly enforced by volunteers with the provincial SPCA. These individuals received no formal training in enforcement and they were funded through donations that they managed to receive in the communities in which they existed. As necessary they would receive police support in their investigations or the support of licensed veterinarians who would provide professional evaluation of the health of the animal in question.

Deficiencies in this approach have been pointed out by various groups when we had the public consultations on the legislation. There were some concerns raised by the Department of Justice, by the Department of Natural Resources, and by the uniformed police. Externally, there were Provincial Court judges who had some concerns and there were groups and individuals who commented during the consultation period. The use of nongovernmental agencies for animal welfare is used in numerous provinces in Canada through the provision of investigative powers to those agencies, but it does have risks as those agencies are not directly funded or accountable to the taxpayer.

Discussions have been underway for many months with the provincial SPCA, so I am advised by my officials, over the future role that they will play in this field. At this point the government has no objection to their participation, but it would have to be with SPCA inspectors who are professional, well trained, objective, and accountable, because we are talking about the enforcement of the law; to do that properly and to do that in accordance with people's constitutional rights, there has to be proper training.

The challenges the SPCA is facing to meet this model relate to a lack of a cohesive provincial policy, as they are now a loosely connected network of shelters. There is a lack of paid staff available to perform the duties, a lack of an internal mechanism to monitor and account for enforcement work, and insufficient funds to establish an enforcement unit. It is an absolute requirement of the provincial government that there be a strong cohesive provincial voice for us to be able to work with them.

The new act does retain the special status that the SPCA has. They have the right to appoint a special advisor to the minister due to their longstanding history in this Province and as a carryover from the previous legislation. Government is working with them to try to help them maintain this status. The provincial government – and I think the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains raised the question of financial contributions from the Province to the SPCA - the Province does provide a total of $110,000 annually to support their activities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

MR. MARSHALL: Again, there is a requirement that the group act as a cohesive provincial body.

Mr. Speaker, there were a couple of other issues raised. The Member for St. John's East raised some questions about: were municipalities notified. I am advised that representation letters were sent to all municipalities in the Province. If there is a particular community or there is a Local Service District that would like further information, the department would be most willing to provide it and have discussions with them.

Also, enforcement can be possible by another agency other than those that were identified during the remarks here today. If these organizations have members who can be trained and can carry out the enforcement, the department would be willing to work with them to assist in the training.

With the SPCA there is $110,000 annually for the operations of the various branches. The SPCA is not involved at the moment with training or enforcement. We understand there is an intent to do this, and we look forward to their involvement in the future.

Training manuals; one of the members opposite, I think the Member for the Bay of Islands, talked about training manuals. There are some issues with providing enforcement training manuals since there are third parties involved or there were third parties involved to utilize their own training information; however, the department is certainly willing to revisit this and take a look at this to see if this can be made available. Anyone who wants to be designated as an inspector has to be subjected to training, even those who are employed in municipalities who are already or have been in the past conducting the work. The training has to take place.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I just want to take this opportunity to say that it has been interesting for me to leave that seat and come to this seat and go from Finance down to Natural Resources. I think we all know a part of the Department of Natural Resources is certainly the Muskrat Falls file. I think every member in this House is very well familiar with that particular file and what is happening there. That, of course, leads into the electricity file, which is a large one in itself.

There is also the Department of Forestry and Agrifoods. It is headed by a CEO, and their head office is in the City of Corner Brook. That is where their offices are. The CEO is located there, but, of course, his duties and that of the associate minister – there is presently a vacancy in Forestry but there is an Assistant Deputy Minister of Agrifoods, and this legislation comes in that department.

Needless to say, it was quite a surprise to me to find out when we were talking about, there are some wonderful things happening in agrifoods, in the Growing Forward Program with the federal government and the things they are doing in the cranberry industry and in other industries, and on the forestry side in wood pellets. I think there is a great opportunity here, and I think in particular for young people there are great opportunities for them to (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I think the Chair has provided fair latitude in the debate around the bill, but an orientation to the Department of Natural Resources is way beyond the scope of the bill.

MR. MARSHALL: All right, Mr. Speaker. Well, I certainly do not want to oppose the Speaker or challenge the Speaker's ruling in any way, so I will simply take my seat and urge second reading of this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Animal Health And Protection Act. (Bill 45)

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

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

MR. KING: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Animal Health And Protection Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 45)

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 45, An Act to Amend the Animal Health and Protection Act.

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 the bill.

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'.

Motion carried.

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

CHAIR (Littlejohn): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 45, An Act to Amend the Animal Health and Protection Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Animal Health And Protection Act." (Bill 45)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to bring up one or two points here on this act. I heard the minister speak. I am not sure if the minister is aware of it, but I will make him aware of it now.

The manual you are talking about, you said you cannot release it because of a third party. We put in a Freedom of Information and if we paid $400, we can get it. There is no worry about the third party. We can put our Freedom of Information in and we are going to be charged $400 to get it. We have an appeal put in to try to get the money released. If we are all going to work together to help strengthen this legislation and ensure that what we are doing is for the right reason, I think all of the information should be put forth.

I know the minister mentioned earlier about the third party involved. I am not sure what the third party would be involved with regulations for animal welfare in the Province that we all cannot see, because some of us may want to become some kind of enforcement people with the SPCA. Some of us might want to put ourselves in that position and help out.

I say to the minister, this is the kind of thing when we, as an Opposition, are looking for information it is not always to be critical. It is to see how we can strengthen and see if there is any way that when we are asked questions out in the general public that we can say, okay, here is what you need to become an enforcement officer. Here is why we are supporting this bill. Here is why municipalities have to go through this, and here is the process they have to go through. This is an information process.

Even though you have confidence in departments, officials and government, sometimes you need to have it so you can read it, so you can go through it and understand it, and ask questions. So when you actually stand up and speak to groups like the SCPA or municipalities, you can stand up and say, well, here is the information we have and here is what you need to do if your town wants to be involved.

In the Bay of Islands, for example, I know some towns now are looking at trying to get some animal protection in. I know one or two, what they used to do is get some outside group to come in and do the animal protection.

I think it is incumbent upon us as members of the Legislature to know what is in the regulations so that we can speak to the groups. So, if we are asked a question by one of the municipalities and say: well, how can we get involved with it, and why do we have to do our – can we have staff at our town who can help out and become enforcement officers, and what is the criteria? I cannot tell them. I cannot tell them. I cannot say. Then I know when we ask for a copy, and I know in the briefing that when the member had the briefing and he asked for it, they said no, we are not sure we can give it to you.

So we put in a freedom of information, which is normal procedure to do. Information that I have today is that we were told: $400 and you can get it. So, there is nothing about third party, nothing about privacy. It is all about that money; get the $400 in and just let the minister know there is an appeal if for that.

So, if you want to save a bit of time and get people on side to ensure that we are all in agreement here in this Legislature, that we can try to work together an ensure that we are going to spread the good words around the Province about this legislation and about all these good things that are happening for animal protection, we need to be informed. We need to be informed.

I still say that there are times that we, as a Legislature, need to come together to help all the other volunteer groups out in the Province, need to help all the other volunteer groups that are going to try and get on board. One of the things that we need to do is be able to give them some training materials ourselves.

I ask all the members in this Legislature: how many times have we met with a town council in our own district on some issue – if it is Municipal Affairs, if it is Transportation and Works, if it is Environment – and they ask us questions, and we can get the information, bring it to them, sit down and have a discussion, and then they can make an informed decision if they want to get involved or not involved?

Right now as we go around – and I heard the Member for Humber West talk about some of the municipalities that have already taken advantage of this, and I congratulate the towns for doing that. How many more can we get to become involved? How many more, can we ask the towns themselves: would you like to partake in this adventure that is being offered by the Department of Natural Resources for the animal protection in your area, in your home town?

This is something that – we need towns and we need municipalities on a regular basis. This is something we can take and we can enforce ourselves, if we can give them the proper information. We as legislators, we as people who are supposed to sit down, read the regulations, have the regulations, and know what we are going to talk about to get people involved, we can do it.

I can honestly say right now if a municipality asked me: should I get involved, I could say I do not know because I do not know what the criteria are to have an enforcement officer in your town. I do not know what the training is. I do not know if part of the training is that you have to have a certain facility in place. I do not know – I do not know. We hear the training is three to four days, I think, or two to three days. Then again, that is only just what I picked up here today. I am really not sure.

These are the questions I ask the minister to clarify. Here is a prime opportunity for the minister now to say to the people here – whatever you can release in the form of the manual so that we can have informed discussions throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, informed discussions to people who want to really want to try to bring this policy.

Just for the record, Minister, and I will say it to the Chair: I agree that municipalities should be involved. I do not think the RCMP has the manpower to enforce this in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not think they do. In Corner Brook, you may able to with the Constabulary. Sometimes it may not take priority, but there are plenty of people there to do it. In rural Newfoundland and Labrador, I am not sure the RCMP can actually do it.

What we have to do, if we are truly going to try to give protection to all the animals in the Province, and not just the urban areas, we need to educate the towns. We need to educate the people in the towns. We need to have an open dialogue with the people in the town to lay it on the table and say: here is what you can do and here is how we can help you out; do you have people on your town council or within your town staff who can carry out these duties? I think that is very important. Who knows? By then, if we can do that as legislators in all of our districts, we may be able to get, in most of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, someone who can be properly trained.

As we all know, as forty-eight of us here in this Legislature, we meet with all of the towns in our districts. I am sure every member in this Legislature is after meeting with all the town councils, local service districts, all their groups in their district on a regular basis, and that is just part of your duty. I am sure that if this discussion came up and if we wanted to promote this a bit more, we need to know what we are going to promote to the towns, what is entailed for the towns, so that we can actually take this program right now that is into so many areas – the eight or ten areas right now, the municipalities that signed on – and we can walk out and we can try to promote this. We can try to promote this in rural Newfoundland and Labrador so we can expand it. If we can expand this program to rural Newfoundland and Labrador because we are more informed, then we are doing our duties and we are helping all the animals in all of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I urge the minister that for the sake of the $400 and the sake of having to go through an appeal, let's release a copy of the manual to everybody in the Legislature so that we can have an informed discussion with all the towns in the whole of Newfoundland and Labrador to help promote this protection of animals, which I agree with the minister and what we are doing.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I may have another few words later, but thank you very much for the opportunity.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I understand there are several training modules, three weeks in total. Any organization, any municipality, that wishes to become an inspector, the department will train them. It is not a question of denying training. The department will train them. The department is insisting that people be properly trained because they are going to be enforcing the laws and they are going to have certain powers as members have seen in the act. Anybody who has the right to enforce those powers must make sure they have the proper training so that they can enforce the laws appropriately.

Again, if the hon. member or hon. members want to meet with their municipal councils and encourage them to send representatives to take part of the training, I am sure the department would be very, very happy because we do need inspectors.

In terms of the manual and why the manual itself was not provided, if the hon. member is seeking the training manual, I indicated that the matter would be revisited. I said in my earlier remarks that the department is prepared to revisit the issue. I will ascertain whether it is the ATIPP legislation because there may be a provision in the ATIPP legislation which is preventing the release of that information.

As hon. members know, under ATIPP, there are provisions in ATIPP which prevent the release of information. There are provisions in ATIPP – and when I say ATIPP, I am referring to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. There are sections in that act that preclude the information being released. It is against the law to release the information. That might be the situation here; I do not know. I am not aware of that request; I will certainly check into it.

There are other pieces of legislation which says the government may release or may not release; it is the government's call. If that is the case, I do not see the issue. There could be a clause in there saying that the people who wrote it are entitled to some sort of compensation for its use.

I do not know, but I would be very happy to check into it. My officials have advised that they are prepared to revisit it. I hope that will give the hon. member some comfort, but the important thing is that people who want to be trained, the training will be available from the department.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have just a couple of very quick points on that. When we had the telephone briefing for this particular issue, we also asked for the said manual. We were told by Dr. Whitney at that particular time that we would be able to avail of that. In this particular instance, we would also like to see that manual if it is possible and make it available to everybody. According to that, this is going to be a piece of the training material for anybody who is going to need it.

I do see and again I will come back to the point over RCMP jurisdiction, for example, where the federal government is talking about the laying off of at least fifty-six people in this Province. I think that there is a role here for municipalities to play. I am so glad to hear that municipalities are jumping aboard on this one. At the same time as that, in most of the areas where the RCMP does have jurisdiction in this Province, sometimes there are not a lot of municipalities there either if you know what I mean. Most of the time the RCMP are probably patrolling a lot of unincorporated areas where we do not have a municipal structure as such.

I think that there has to be an opportunity here as well for the provincial government to actually map out a strategy that would talk about the training of inspectors for enforcement in those particular jurisdictions where they would be able to meet the need, and I guess you could say in this particular case have some sort of a municipal role even though there is no municipality there.

It is probably, at the same time, a good basis for some formal training as regards to entering possibly into the job market whenever some of our people head for a larger municipality or something. It is a good basis, I think, for some form of law to be practiced when it comes to the enforcement of the animal regulations where there is no formal justice that is there to do the regular inspections, for example, like police and that sort of thing.

We know that if there is going to be a shortage of police out there in the rural areas, obviously, we are going to have to fall back on our own citizenry in order to be able to do that. That is probably the more important aspect of that.

Again, Mr. Chair, I would also like to thank municipalities for taking it upon themselves, that role of training. Of course, knowing there is an opportunity here for municipalities to share in some areas where there is a shortfall of municipal funding, that perhaps they can share resources. One of these resources would be for animal inspections, that sort of thing.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will just stand for a minute to advise the minister that I did check with the officials and what I said was correct, that we can get it for a $400 fee. There was no mention of privacy. There was no mention that you cannot get it because of privacy information or a third party. It was all about the $400. I say, Mr. Chair, that I ask the minister to have that reviewed because it is something for all of us.

As I mentioned, out in Corner Brook the SPCA there are going to build a new SPCA spot out by the new hospital site out on Lundrigan Drive, actually. That has been changed, but that is where they were going to build it. Now they are over on the North Shore. I know they are going to be heavily involved with the enforcement.

Also, I ask the minister if there is some way that additional funds could be helped there with the enforcement aspect, even some way to pay the expenses somehow of some of the volunteers? I mentioned Evelyn Hancock earlier. She was just one who gave up a lot of time and her own resources for that.

Mr. Chair, I will sit down with that. Minister, I did have it confirmed. I ask the minister to see what he can do to have that (inaudible).

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I just found out that this is – we do not know what the issue is, but this is an ATIPP issue. What I will do is, I will undertake to inquire with the ATIPP office and the department and see what the issue is, and I will report back to the hon. member.

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

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

I just have a couple of quick questions for the minister, based on the amendment here which is talking about where we have an employee who is designated as an inspector, and they commence proceedings and there is a ticket involved and then a fine recovered, and that fine recovered is for the court imposing the fine. Then, the municipal authority shall pay to the Province an amount that the minister may establish for every ticket processed by the Province. So, at some point the Province will be collecting some amount of funding. I guess we do not know yet.

I am just wondering: Is there any designated area that these fines will fund? Are they going to be redistributed back into animal care, animal control, animal safety, or are they just going into the Consolidated Revenue Fund? I would be interested to know, will they be used –

MR. MARSHALL: The surcharge?

MR. A. PARSONS: The fine, the actual fine amount. Do they go into the animal health and protection? If I get convicted of a first –

MR. MARSHALL: The fine goes back into the municipality.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay, and the municipality has to pay an amount to –

MR. MARSHALL: Surcharge.

MR. A. PARSONS: A surcharge back to the Province. So that surcharge coming back to the Province, this new form of revenue. Again, I do not know if we are talking a very small amount or a large amount, but it would be interesting to know if that money will go back to the purpose of this act, which is the health and welfare of animals.

CHAIR: All those in favour, ‘aye'.

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: I am sorry; the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. MARSHALL: I am sitting down at the end. It is hard to see me, but I am as close to the door as I can get.

Mr. Chair, the purpose of the surcharge, I think that is what the hon. member is referring to, will be paid back to government to recover the administrative expenses relating to processing tickets. I think it is like the victim services charge. The fine or the tickets, the ticket amount will go back to the municipality to reimburse them but the surcharge will go back to the government to cover the administration cost of the tickets.

As you know, all money coming into government will go into the Consolidated Revenue Fund and be allocated through the budget process.

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

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

I am just wondering if there might be some consideration given at some point. You have municipalities, say, for example, Calgary, who redirect fines in their own animal care division so it goes into spaying and neutering, it goes into pounds, and it goes into institutions that are housing these animals. Again, I am just wondering.

I know we have to pay the actual cost, the administration fees that come with this, but if there is an excess, if there is a surplus, is it going to go to something which we would all consider a worthwhile endeavour, which is funding the care and the housing of these animals? Because we know a lot of the pounds in this Province are in terrible condition, they are in a deplorable state, so we need to do more there. I would just put that to the minister, to see if there would be any consideration to that.

CHAIR: All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Animal Health And Protection Act. (Bill 45).

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: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 45.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 45.

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 (Wiseman): The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 45 carried without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 45 without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MR. KING: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the bill be read a third time?

MR. KING: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, given the hour of the day I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that the House do now adjourn.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

This House now stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. on Monday.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 p.m.