The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: Today, the Chair welcomes the following members' statements: the hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue; the hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North; the hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port; and the hon. the Member for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale.

The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in the House today to recognize and congratulate an immensely talented and accomplished musician from my district who can now add another accolade to his already extensive list – Duane Andrews.

Duane, in collaboration with Dwayne Côté of Cape Breton, recently won the International Album Award at the 10^th Independent Music Awards. As if this award were not prestigious enough, Mr. Speaker, Duane impressed a panel of judges that included internationally renowned Tom Waits, Pete Wentz, Ozzy Osbourne, and Seal.

The dynamic duo have also picked up the MusicNS Jazz Recording of the Year, the MusicNL Instrumental Recording of the Year, and have been nominated in the Jazz Album and Instrumental Album of the Year categories in the upcoming East Coast Music Awards in Charlottetown this month.

It has been a very good year for Duane Andrews, Mr. Speaker, and he has done our Province proud by showcasing our traditional Celtic music on an international stage. His musical talent and creativity is further exemplified in the way he blends traditional Celtic music with Gypsy and Jazz inspired tones.

I would highly recommend this album to all hon. members as a shining example of what Newfoundland and Labrador musicians are capable of producing when they have the support of their Province. What better way to show that support, Mr. Speaker, than by purchasing Duane Andrew's and Dwayne Côté's debut self-titled album.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me in congratulating Duane Andrews on his success and wishing him all the best in his future musical endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a fire department in the District of Bellevue.

On February 24, I had the great privilege of attending the twenty-fifth anniversary of the St. Bernard's-Jacques Fontaine Fire Department. The fire department has an active membership of thirty. They are a regional department that responds to emergencies in St. Bernard's-Jacques Fontaine, as well as the nearby towns of Bay L'Argent, Little Bay East, and Harbour Mille.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to recognize six firefighters who received the twenty years of service awards at this anniversary. They were: Chris Hodder, Felix Hackett, Carl Power, George Power, Barry Hodder, and Billy Hodder. As appreciation, they received anniversary clocks and service pins. The clocks were on behalf of the fire department members and the pins were from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the St. Bernard's-Jacques Fontaine Fire Department on their twenty-five years of service and thank them for their commitment and dedication to the people of the area they serve.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to congratulate The Straits Rifters PeeWee White Hockey Team that won the regional championship game that was held in Port aux Choix on March 12. Four teams from the Northern Peninsula participated in this tournament.

The Straits Rifters Peewee White Hockey Team played an amazing championship game pulling off a score of 4-0 against The Straits Rifters Peewee Black Team. The members of the winning team were: Kyle Squires, Benjamin White, Ross Whalen, Brandon Guinchard, Mitchell White, Ty Whalen, Mack Coles, Jarret White, Zack Applin, and Nick Mitchelmore. Their hard work, relentless effort, and attention to detail have certainly led to the teams' success.

I also want to extend congratulations to coaches Lloyd Coles and Dave White. Their hard work and dedication to the team has certainly contributed to their victory.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating The Straits Rifters Peewee White Hockey Team and their coaches, and to wish them well as they participate in future competitions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House of Assembly to congratulate Gwen Stagg from Boswarlos, who at age eighty-five, last fall, successfully published her first book entitled, In Retrospect: From One Remote Newfoundland Outport to Another.

Mr. Speaker, in this book Gwen recounts what life was like for her growing up in the outport community of Grand Bruit and then, later in life, raising a family in the small community of Boswarlos on the Port au Port Peninsula. Gwen delightfully described the day-to-day lived experiences of what life was like for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in outport communities beginning from the 1920s. Gwen gives the reader an insightful view of the hardships and joys experienced in times gone by – giving a personal touch to our Newfoundland and Labrador history.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members of this House of Assembly to join with me in congratulating Mrs. Gwen Stagg on the accomplishment of publishing her first book.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Flo Paul In Unison Award is presented annually to an individual, group, or organization who exemplifies the values and principles articulated by In Unison, which is a government vision that promotes full citizenship in Canadian society through inclusion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Ms Kem Young of Springdale. At the 2010 Supported Employment Newfoundland and Labrador Conference, Kem was the proud recipient of the inaugural Flo Paul In Unison award. She has been instrumental in advancing the vision of inclusion to action, not only to her community but to the whole Province.

Her tireless advocacy, solid commitment, and boundless energy has propelled the principle of inclusion to new heights within the region as she continues to work with the Green Bay Association for Community Living and the Green Bay Employment Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, I invite all hon. colleagues to join me in applauding and recognizing the outstanding efforts of Kem Young as she continues to strive to advance the values of compassion, dignity and equality among the persons with disabilities.

Capturing this provincial award is a testament of her tireless efforts and the difference she has made to individual lives.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to acknowledge April 10-16 as National Volunteer Week. Volunteer Week is an opportunity to recognize and celebrate the amazing work of volunteers across our Province and across our country. They touch every part of our lives and it is important that we recognize their tireless work and say thank you for all they do in our communities.

In this Province, Mr. Speaker, there are approximately 197,000 volunteers that contribute thirty-five million hours of a year, valuable, unpaid time to their communities and community organizations. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, currently in Newfoundland and Labrador there are almost 23,000 people employed in the volunteer and non-profit organizations in a concerted effort to make our Province stronger.

Mr. Speaker, this year's theme, Volunteers…Stars in the Community, is a good reflection on what volunteers mean to the people around them and the people they affect. They light up people's lives, they give people guidance and they make our communities shine. They are all stars in the eyes of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The volunteer and non-profit sector in Newfoundland and Labrador is essential to the prosperity and the sustainability of our Province. This was evident, Mr. Speaker, this past fall when we were devastated by Hurricane Igor. The efforts of people volunteering their time and resources, and organizations reaching out to communities and individuals, were remarkable. It showed the kind of impact you can have if you give a little of yourself for your community. It was a tragic time, but it showcased the true meaning of volunteerism. People lent a helping hand to their neighbours and it spoke to the sense of community across our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, last year government launched a new multimedia campaign. The Who Cares? campaign celebrates the voluntary non-profit sector for the difference they are making in our communities every day. Through avenues such as the Who Cares? website and Facebook page, the Who Cares? campaign will let the public see the sector in a new light. I would encourage everyone to go to WhoCaresNL.ca and thank a volunteer in their community.

Mr. Speaker, although this is just one week designated to recognize volunteers, I think it is important that we celebrate and thank volunteers and the non-profit organizations all year long. As the Volunteer Week approaches I ask all Honourable Members to join with me in honouring the valuable work that the volunteer and non-profit sector contributed to our great Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair welcomes all visitors to the House of Assembly; that is why we have a public gallery. It is obvious that we have a visitor here today who has challenges with their health and as a result of that it is obvious that there is pain endured here by the sounds that we are hearing. This is the Parliament of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we have no other choice but to enforce parliamentary rules of not having interruptions within the precincts of the House. I ask if it is possible, that we could have silence in the galleries; if not the Chair will have no other choice but have ask the members to leave the House and to deal with the situation that we have here today.

I ask if it is possible for your cooperation and understanding of our rules and regulations within the precincts of the House.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

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

Indeed we should thank all the volunteers in this Province each and every day. It is nice to see that we have carved out a special week called National Volunteer Week in our country in order to recognize them. Of course, they deserve our thanks and our gratitude each and every day of the year.

It is amazing when you look at the numbers; 197,000 volunteers out of a mere 500,000 that live here on our rock and in Labrador. It is great to see that we have such dedicated people; thirty-five million person hours a year donated and devoted to helping each and every one of us living in this Province. It is just amazing and I doubt if any other province in Canada per capita has those kinds of statistics that they can put forth.

With regard to Hurricane Igor, of course, the minister it is quite right. It is usually in times of trouble and the most trying times that everybody does pull on the oars together and come together to help one another.

I would like to pay particular tribute as well to all of those who have been thanked with respect to Igor. I understand there were some 260 workers in our public service, particularly in the Transportation and Works Department, who came from all over this Province to come here to help these people in their times of need. I think they need a special recognition as well because they went above and beyond. They did not have to come and do it; they were asked to do it and they did it willingly and graciously.

With regard to firefighters, of course, I always put them forward as the epitome of a volunteer in our community because not only are they volunteers, but they are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice. In fact, I will be honouring the Rose Blanche fire department in my district on Saturday night, as I do each and every year for all of them.

Of course, to all of the other volunteers, whether you work in a seniors' home, whether you volunteer in a hospital, or if you are a minor sports program coach of some kind; each and every one of those volunteers contribute to what makes us what we are as a society. So I also lend my congratulations to all these volunteers in the Province, and I think it is very appropriate that the minister did in fact single them out for this recognition today.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

I am very happy to stand with him and recognize and congratulate the thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who give their time and their skills for the benefit of their community. We know so many of them; all of us here know hundreds, I am sure, each. I do look forward this week to taking part in some of the events that I have been invited to, to recognize the work of these volunteers.

Volunteers are committed – they are very, very committed people. Very often they are committed to an individual issue, sometimes to an individual cause, and just sometimes to helping people in general. I think it is incumbent on us to not take advantage of our volunteers. We must make sure that there are not sectors that get overtaxed and that volunteers do not get worn out. We need an infrastructure in place to work with volunteers.

I believe the women's community is one example of where we need adequate funding so that there are people in paid positions to back up the work of the volunteers. Very often we have volunteers doing the work that should be done by professionals.

So I encourage us in celebrating volunteers to also look at our funding systems and to make sure that we have sustaining funding for organizations who are always a combination of those who are paid and those who are doing volunteer work.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

"A best practice" is how the Provincial Government's Business Retention and Expansion program was described at a forum of the International Economic Development Council in Missouri. This label was earned as a result of high levels of commitment being made to use the innovative program as a key tool to stimulate business growth.

As a government we are extremely pleased to hear such endorsements. However, our goal is not focused on earning international acclaim. It is focused on supporting business development in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Businesses, in particular small businesses, are the engines that drive the local economy. They are the suppliers of products and services and employers of residents. To increase the size and productivity of that engine, well trained staff from the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development work hand-in-hand with businesses to address expansion issues and identify new growth opportunities.

To effectively deliver the Business Retention and Expansion program – or BR&E as it is widely referred – economic development officers work directly with businesses to address specific issues impacting business operations and identify opportunities. Together an action plan is developed that addresses those challenges. By working collectively it not only strengthens that operation but empowers the company to play a greater role in the growth of their communities.

This collaborative exercise is delivering results. It has linked companies with some of the Provincial Government's more than $120 million business development programs and services, as well as better networking opportunities, and matching of information and services.

Deer Lake-based NCL Holdings has said that the program enabled them to identify inhibitors to success. The manufacturer of rock aggregates went on to say that the "recommendations stemming from the program positioned it to secure opportunities in emerging markets in the private and public sectors."

Joyce LeRiche of Family Tree Memorials in Bishop's Falls described the program as "being a great service to us as it zeroed in on specific issues around future operations and marketing. It made us realize where we needed to focus our energy."

These are the stories we want to hear. These are the outcomes that will continue to support the development of a vibrant, successful business community that is focused on expansion.

For small businesses interested in learning more I encourage them to contact our department for more information.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

It is always truly good to hear success stories when it comes to small and medium business development within our Province. Undoubtedly, it is important that we recognize - as the minister said, they really are the backbone of many communities, not only in the employment that they create but in the services they provide and so on, and they are crucial to our very existence. Certainly, we want to recognize that today.

We support the goals of the Business Retention and Expansion program and wish it much success. We want to recognize the employees who work very diligently to help take - sometimes especially in more rural areas where all the services of government are not necessarily available at a person's fingertips - an idea and to help develop that, whether it is with business plans, arranging meetings and really becoming somewhat of an advocate for the whole idea that this person has. We want to recognize that, and there is a true value to that. I recognize it in my district and I am sure it is throughout other parts of the Province.

No doubt, it is easy to attract business investment to the larger centres of the Province but when we get out into the more rural areas of the Province that are looking to attract business and to develop business and so on, the opportunity to attract is not always the same. The onus on government, in these cases, is to make sure people understand what is available and for the employees who are willing to work with them to see that it takes place.

Again, it is good to recognize the ventures throughout our Province, they are very important to us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

I am glad to hear about another program that helps small businesses in Newfoundland, in this case the Business Retention and Expansion program. I congratulate businesses that have benefited from it and I know there will be many more that will.

I do encourage the minister, as I did earlier this week, to look at one barrier in particular for small businesses that we still hear people talk to us about, and that is the lack of broadband Internet access for all parts of the Province. We do hear from some businesses that literally cannot completely do their own Web sites because they do not have the capacity to put photos, for example, up on the Web site. As we help small businesses, this is something that is really important to them for marketing. I ask the minister to think further about it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I see yesterday that Ed Martin was out, the head of Nalcor, trying to do some damage control in the media. He did not do very well, I must say, by some accounts because people are saying he was pretty evasive in the fact that he was not answering the questions that Debbie Cooper was posing to him last night on Here and Now. Mr. Speaker, maybe I will try and get a direct answer from the Premier today.

Will the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, who own Muskrat Falls, pay more for that power than someone living in the Maritimes? That was the question that was posed, why don't you give us an answer?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if we let all the water that we have in excess of what we need here in the Province we will pay 14.3 cents a kilowatt hour. Mr. Speaker, if that is the decision that is being promoted by the Leader of the Opposition, then, yes, we will never sell power anywhere else in terms of what the market can bear.

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is we can pay the 14.3 cents and never get another copper from Muskrat Falls and have the ratepayers of Newfoundland and Labrador pay all of that cost, or we can take the excess power, bring it to market, get the best price we can for it, and as a result, have money flow back to the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I see the Premier watched Ed Martin's interview last night, too. Maybe we can get a direct answer, Premier.

The people in Newfoundland and Labrador, who own Muskrat Falls, will they pay more for their power than the people in Maritime Canada?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, in 2016, before Muskrat Falls comes on, and before one penny of the costs of the development of Muskrat Falls is charged out to anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador, ratepayers in this Province are going to be paying 14.3 cents a kilowatt hour. There will be no change from the cost of electricity in the isolated system by moving to Muskrat Falls in 2016. What will happen as a result of Muskrat Falls is that our power rates will not continue to rise at 5 per cent a year, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will help the Premier out, Mr. Speaker, because it is very convoluted answers that she is giving today. The truth of the matter is, is that people in Newfoundland and Labrador will pay more for their power, for Muskrat Falls power, than people in the Maritime Provinces will pay for Muskrat Falls power. That is the truth of it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Martin also told the CBC that Nalcor does not want to sell any excess power to the Maritimes or New England in the long term. He said that we are going to need all the power from Muskrat Falls here on the Island. To date, Mr. Speaker, the government has not been able to justify where the 40 per cent use of Muskrat Falls power is going to be used in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask you today, Premier: How can you expect and ask people to buy into the argument that all of the power will be used on the Island portion of the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Here we go again, Mr. Speaker, no vision, no hope, no plan.

Mr. Speaker, we believe in Newfoundland and Labrador. We believe in the opportunities for development in this place. She may not accept the forecast put forward by Nalcor, but we know that we will have an energy deficit in this Province in 2019. Mr. Speaker, that is a fact that can be substantiated by the analysis that has been completed.

Mr. Speaker, she talks about wanting power for industrial development in Labrador. She also talks about wanting a heavily subsidized rate of power for people on the Coast of Labrador. Mr. Speaker, she is going to have to settle on a position one way or the other. She either wants Muskrat Falls or she does not, because without it we can do nothing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe if we had all of the information and the people in the Province, Premier, had all of the information instead of the spin that yourself and Ed Martin want to put out there on any given day, they would be able to make decisions for themselves. So far your government and you, Premier, have not been able to justify the demand for 40 per cent of the power on the Island portion of the Province.

How can you go out and make a statement that we are going to need 80 per cent of the power on the Island when you cannot even justify 40 per cent at this stage?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we have been able to justify the need for power in this Province. We need almost 500 megawatts just to replace Holyrood and to take us off our dependence on Bunker C, of which the cost is going through the roof.

Right now, we are the lowest energy cost, in this Province, in Atlantic Canada. We are one of the third lowest in the country. We want to keep it that way, Mr. Speaker. That is why we are developing Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier likes to grandstand and make all of these statements about vision and hope, big projects, and all the rest of it. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong with that except we need answers, I say to you, Premier. We need you to back up the information that yourself and Ed Martin are putting out there in the public. So far you have not been able to do that.

Will you table for the people of the Province the demand statistics that you are using to get to the conclusions that you are for the Muskrat Falls Project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, not only are those figures out in the public domain, I have tabled them twice – twice here in the House of Assembly. Because they cannot do the analysis, Mr. Speaker, they do not have that capacity. I just wish they would not put that out on the rest of Newfoundland and Labrador. Some people know how to read and analyze, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, their plan not once, but twice, was to give all of the power from the Lower Churchill to Quebec and let them to continue to reap the rewards of development on the Churchill River, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the plan that she brought in here several weeks ago, hooking up sixty ponds for 172 megawatts of power, not feasible, but even if it was it would be over twenty cents a kilowatt hour. What is your plan?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the Premier thinks she is going to sell Muskrat Falls because she stands up in the House and insults the Opposition every day, I would suggest to her she better start changing her tactic. Mr. Speaker, she has not tabled the information in this House of Assembly, and I challenge anyone to find it, where it is going to show the predicted demand of power in this Province. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it has been the complete opposite.

We know that it is locked up somewhere in the Department of Finance. We know that the only factors contributing to power growth in the foreseeable future is whatever was provided by your government through the Department of Finance, and we ask you to table the information.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, every statistical agency in this country is talking about Newfoundland and Labrador and the growth that is here and the growth that is expected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: We are the envy of the country, Mr. Speaker. We are slated to have the largest growth in GDP in the country. The only people who do not have any faith in our capacity to grow and to attract investment, particularly in Labrador, are the members of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier is grandstanding again, and she knows that. She knows, Mr. Speaker, that we see the tremendous potential in Newfoundland and Labrador, but we also see a Newfoundland and Labrador that does not gouge our own people, does not sell out Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to achieve our own agendas. That is the fundamental difference that we are dealing with here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the other thing that Ed Martin said, because as I said there are mixed messages, always mixed messages between the Premier and the Chair of Nalcor. He said that there is a good chance that none of the excess power from Muskrat will ever reach New Brunswick or New England, that it will probably never go beyond Nova Scotia.

Mr. Speaker, we know that Nova Scotia is mandated to come off coal which is its main energy source.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question for the Premier is this: We know they are getting 20 per cent of our Muskrat Falls power for free, how much are we going to be selling them the other 40 per cent for, I say to you, Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the day when the contract with Nova Scotia finishes after thirty-five years and we never sell more than the 1.2 megawatts of power. I believe that we will have the capacity to use all of that excess power in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. That is because we do have a vision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: We do have a plan. We believe in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the salient point that she misses is that by 2016 if we do not do anything different than we are doing -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I ask for your protection from the –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, in 2016-2017 we will be paying 14.3 cents a kilowatt hour for our electricity in Newfoundland and Labrador without Muskrat Falls.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, this is from the government opposite that voted against the Voisey's Bay Project in the Province, who closed down two pulp and paper mills in Newfoundland and Labrador, who expropriated a paper mill and did not know they had expropriated a paper mill, and this is the same government that we are not supposed to ask questions of, of Muskrat Falls, because they are supposed to know all, Mr. Speaker. Well, we know what they know and we have seen what they have done.

I ask you today, Premier: Why should the ratepayers in Newfoundland and Labrador have to pay for subsidized power for the people of Nova Scotia? Stand in your place and tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with the Opposition asking questions, I just wish they would listen to the answers. That is the problem: Providing information that they have no capacity to analyze or understand.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, let me say again, remaining on the isolated system, as we are today, continuing to operate Holyrood and Bay d'Espoir, ratepayers in this Province will pay 14.3 cents a kilowatt hour in 2016. Now, we can develop Muskrat Falls and we can let the excess power run down the river and continue to pay 14.3 cents –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: – a kilowatt hour, and do nothing to monetize that excess value to the benefit of the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Government's decision this week to close depots and lay workers off this summer completely contradict the 2009 Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador decision. The court's decision forced the Province to rehire laid off workers and reimburse lost wages in excess of $6 million. If government proceeds with the depot closures this summer, the union already indicates it will be going back to court again.

My question is for the Minister of Transportation and Works: Why is government proceeding with its decision, when it flies in the face of the 2009 Supreme Court decision? What is government's plan, or are we simply prepared to pay another $1 million based upon that decision?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know if the premise to the hon. member's question is correct. What that decision of the Court of Appeal did do is reaffirm a government's right to organize its workforce, to organize its work organization. What happened is that in doing the layoffs, the process that government followed was not done in the manner that the court considered appropriate. So, the PSS and the Department of Transportation and Works is working with NAPE to ensure that proper redress is being provided to those employees whose bumping rights and recall rights may have been affected. I understand meetings have taken place, and that more meetings will take place if more information becomes available.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am well aware of the consequences of the 2009 court decision. Maybe one of the government ministers, maybe Finance or Transportation and Works, would like to answer my question now.

Who is prepared - or are we just simply going to stand and pay another $1 million of taxpayers' money because you have not resolved the seniority issue? You have laid four more people off, and by doing so, you have walked into another $1 million bill for the people of this Province. What are you going to do to stop spending this $1 million every time you lay the public union off when it comes to the depots? Can someone answer that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as I said, officials from Transportation and Works, officials from the Public Service Secretariat, have been meeting with NAPE and have been reviewing what has happened here to ensure that anyone whose rights were infringed in any way gets proper redress. That process has been going on for some time, meetings have taken place. Again, as I said, as more information becomes available they will be meeting further. I am optimistic this matter will be resolved before it has to go to any further arbitration, which is always an option to NAPE if they wish to pursue that option.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

We realize it is an option of NAPE, and they did it before. They did it to the tune of $6 million in cost to the taxpayers of this Province. It is not simply enough for the minister to say they can take us to arbitration. They know they are going to win, they have done it already before. That avenue has been exhausted. How many millions of dollars do we have to burn in this Province simply because you have not ironed out the seniority issue?

Well, Mr. Speaker, not only are the layoffs a problem, but in this Province we have a tremendous amount of highway maintenance and repair work needed in communities, particularly in the aftermath of Igor. Government has surpluses, major maintenance work is required, they are laying off these depot workers when, at the same time - in my District of Burgeo, for example, on the Burgeo road, we are seeing government contract out work to put signs up.

Can the Minister of Transportation and Works explain the logic of us closing down depots, laying off workers, and contracting the work out to others?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, when it comes to maintenance of the roads we take it very, very seriously and want to make sure – part of the reason for our seasonalization was to gather together a core of workers with the proper resources to carry out the maintenance that is required. That is the procedure.

As well, Igor, we know, basically was an event that did a lot of damage; but again, the repairs of that, Mr. Speaker, are tendered out and will be done. It is not about maintenance, it is about repair and going back over it.

As well, with the signage, I think when you are referring to the signage; that is an area where we are doing the TODS system. After Igor last year, it was delayed. We are going forward with that this spring to make sure it is in place for the summer season.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

This is a government who are in control. They lay workers off, contract out the work, and cost the taxpayers $1 million a pop because you laid them off and you are in violation of a court order. Good stuff, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe I will ask another question of the minister. Mr. Speaker, on November 23 last year, the Bailey bridge at Searston Gut in the Codroy Valley closed after thirty-three years due to general deterioration. Thirteen communities have relied upon that bridge. It is an essential ambulance route and provides quicker access to health care and employment for the people of the region. The bridge was essential to conduct local business and to develop tourism.

I realize the minister and the member for the area met with the committee who is responsible for trying to get this bridge restored and replaced. Nothing has come to date. They are very concerned if this government takes this matter seriously.

Will funding be made available this year to see that Bailey bridge replaced?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, I say, Mr. Speaker, anything to do with roads and road safety this government takes quite seriously. Myself and the local member went out and we met with the committee, explaining fully to them that it is a significant amount of money to replace that bridge that was not part of last year's Budget. We did not have the money, but it is into our priority list as we go forward this year. Of course, we will await the Budget decisions to see if indeed it can be replaced.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday –

[Disturbance in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is going to respectfully ask hon. members if they would be kind of enough to leave the Chamber. The Chair is going to respectfully ask visitors in the gallery if they would be kind enough to leave the gallery.

The House will take a recess until we deal with a challenge that we are faced with here.

I respectfully ask all members to kindly do that and we will continue with Question Period after.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Honourable members and visitors in the gallery, there are nine-and-a-half minutes left in Question Period. I refer back to the hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House I questioned the Minister of Fisheries on a lobster licence buyout proposal that was presented to this government by the FFAW. The minister did acknowledge that he had received it. The minister also stated he would respond when he has something before him and it is the right thing to do.

I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Are we to interpret his remarks to mean that this proposal is not the right thing?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Certainly not, Mr. Speaker. That indication was that when we receive proposals we weigh them on their merit. When we all come to an agreement that it is the right thing to do, we will do the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, right now my understanding is that the FFAW are out speaking to their membership about some issues that they have to resolve on their own. We will await the outcome of that. As I indicated yesterday we have the proposal and it is under review.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, our rural communities are in need of a viable fishery and this government has been talking about restructuring and here is a restructuring proposal. Mr. Speaker, the FFAW suggests to us that the membership, in terms of the particular areas of the Province they are talking about, are well in favour of this proposal and they are awaiting a timely response from government.

I ask the minister: When can the FFAW and the lobster harvesters expect a positive response from you in terms of restructuring this piece of the industry?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we in this government are very interested in the restructuring of the entire fishery in this Province. That is what the MOU is about. I have written both parties who were involved in that and, Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some indication that we might be getting some responses to it. That is very, very positive.

The lobster piece that he is speaking about, as I just indicated, the FFAW are out doing some work that they have to do. We are in discussions with them, they are in discussions with the federal government, and when it all collectively comes together, Mr. Speaker, and we do our due diligence on it, we will have a response, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government has pushed for a licence buy-back from the federal government on a 70-30 sharing arrangement. That has had no uptake, basically, from the federal government. This proposal that is in front of us today from the FFAW is one where the federal government, and the provincial government, and industry basically plays three ways.

So I ask the minister: Are you willing to make the commitment here today that when the FFAW has done their final surveying, or whatever they are doing right now, are you prepared to help the fisherpeople rationalize their industry?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have said several times on my feet here, there are two parts to this. There is the rationalizing, and there is the restructuring. I cannot commit to where we are going to with funding, Mr. Speaker. As I have already indicated in the previous answer, we are working our way through a process with this proposal that has been submitted by the FFAW. There is a partnership there that would have to be exemplified on the part of the federal government, and as we follow our way through this, the announcements will be made, Mr. Speaker, when final decisions are made, Mr. Speaker. At this point, they have not been made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, it is a play on words. This is restructuring, and the proposal that the FFAW has put forward is very straightforward; the feds are onside, the union is onside.

My question, very simply, is: Is the government onside?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a lobster proposal here; that is a thing that we are working through with the parties, as I have said. I still contend, Mr. Speaker, that in order for us to make the changes in this industry in this Province, we better all collectively get our heads around the word restructuring, as to how we are going to change the structure, so we can attract and retain young people in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education.

When school reform was proposed in the 1990s, a key government principle was that the new system would be based on community and neighbourhood schools. Mr. Speaker, there was wide-spread support for this idea at the time, as evidenced in the referendum results, and it has not gone away.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Education: Why is this government turning its back on the strong mandate that was given to it by the people of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, this government has invested and has made significant investments into the education of our children. One thing we have done, Mr. Speaker, is we have built many new schools, we have renovated schools. We have also been tasked with setting up schools using a declining enrolment and our present capacity to make sure we provide the best environments for our students. Mr. Speaker, we are doing just that.

At this point in time, sometimes we cannot have a school in every neighbourhood, but we need make sure that our buildings are the best they can be and they serve our students.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the parents of Macpherson Elementary, a school that is being closed in June, have asked for a meeting with the Minister of Education. Her letter of response said she was not in a position to address their concerns. However, in the by-election of 2005 she was in a position to address the concerns of the parents of Leo Burke Academy in Bishop's Falls by single-handedly stopping the closure of the school.

Mr. Speaker, I ask: Why has the Minister of Education in the current situation refused to meet with the parents of Macpherson Elementary?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, for the record and for the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I would like to clarify that I was not the Minister of Education in 2005 when there was a decision made regarding Leo Burke Academy in Bishop's Falls.

Mr. Speaker, the school board has been going through a process to determine how they are going to have schools reconfigured in the St. John's area. At this time, it was best for the school boards to go through the appropriate process that they had which included consultation so they could hear concerns from the parents or from other stakeholders. Mr. Speaker, that was my intent; to allow the process to unfold as it should.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the parents of Macpherson Elementary do not feel that they were given a fair hearing at the time of the so-called consultations. That is the reason why they have gone to the minister, to try to make their case to the minister.

One of the things they would want to talk about is the role of the Daybreak preschool program that gives preschoolers, especially from low-income and new Canadian families, opportunities for structured play and preparation for entry into the K-6 school system. The program is needed in this neighbourhood but there is no place for them to relocate.

So, Mr. Speaker: Why is the minister allowing the Eastern School District to get rid of schools without proper consultation and why will she not listen to this group of parents to hear what their experience has been?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I know that certain residents and parents in St. John's would love to see every school maintained as it is presently, but we are investing millions of dollars in St. John's to ensure that the students in St. John's have the proper facilities to attend. Mr. Speaker, we are replacing Virginia Park. We are putting a new high school in the west end, we are replacing St. Teresa's, and there will be some other schools that will have to be moved around to accommodate the students in the best possible facilities that we can have.

This exercise is something that has been done throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, this is all about providing the best facilities for our children.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, in the study that was requested by the Department of Education with regard to the schools in St. John's there was nothing in the report that came out from those consultants that indicated that the school at Macpherson was not a proper place for students to be. They have an excellent program at that school.

Why will this minister not sit down and listen to what the parents have to say? There was nothing wrong with the building. As a matter of fact, it is a wonderful building. Why won't she listen to them?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, a consultant's report is a guide for the school board trustees to be able to base their discussions and their decisions. It does not mean that because something is written in a consultant's report that that is the way it has to be followed.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a declining birth rate, there have been trends in demographics, even within St. John's, not just in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, that changes the demographics and the way that schools need to be positioned. The board had to look at all the information. They had to make the best decisions possible to ensure that they used the existing capacity in the best way possible. That meant, unfortunately, that some schools had to close, schools would have to merge, and new schools would also have to be built.

This is a significant piece of work that is being done in the St. John's area, but the primary goal is to ensure our students are (inaudible) –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a copy of the letters that have been sent to the three federal leaders concerning important issues to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador during this federal election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 5 of the Local Authority Guarantee Act, 2005, I wish to table the annual report of loan guarantees provided to local governments to enable them to arrange interim financing for capital projects. I am pleased to report that there were no new guarantees issued on behalf of local governments during the fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, the last report under this act was tabled on April 29, 2010 and included guarantees issued up to and including March 31, 2009. This current report covers the period from April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 49.(2) of the Financial Administration Act, I wish to table the list of temporary loans that were raised under section 48 of the act since my last report to the House on April 29, 2010.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 55.(3) of the same act, I wish to report that there was one guaranteed loan paid out by the Province since the last annual report also on April 29, 2010. Therefore, I wish to table the attached details of this payout.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 55.1(2) of the act, I wish to report that there has been no guaranteed debt of any Crown corporation or agency assumed by the Province since the April 29, 2010 annual report.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to be able to stand and present a petition again on behalf of the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador really but, in particular, for my district.

I would like to read the prayer of the 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 humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the people in The Straits & White Bay North area feel it should be legal to set heavier steel wire to snare rabbits; and

WHEREAS rabbits are bigger and stronger in the spring as compared to the fall season with many injured animals breaking away from the brass and picture cord wire, setting injured free to suffer; and

WHEREAS weak wire was implemented to conserve the marten, but this animal is not known to inhabit our area;

WHEREUPON your petitioners call upon all Members of the House of Assembly to urge government to address this matter to reinstate the use of heavier wire for rabbit snaring for this area of the Island.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this may not seem all that important to some members of government, and I understand that a lot of things do not seem to be important to them. It is important to the people of the Northern Peninsula and other areas where they are very active in the snaring of rabbits. The issue has been brought forward and lots of cases made as to where animals are getting away with snares on them because of the size of the wire that is being used. They are being caught again with sometimes two and three snares around them. Obviously, many of these rabbits are getting away and they are basically perishing –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is a lot of excitement about rabbits over there.

Mr. Speaker, it is a serious issue for those who are involved in the sport, if you want to call it that, and many people do a tremendous amount of snaring along the Northern Peninsula in the fall and winter. The issue of - it is my understanding - why the smaller gauge wire is used is to protect the pine marten.

Mr. Speaker, my first understanding or encounter with the pine marten was thirty-odd years ago when I moved to Port aux Basques and I remember that they inhabited the Burgeo road area of our Province. I would suggest that there has never been a pine marten to the Northern Peninsula unless someone took one up for a ride sometime and brought them back down again.

The fear of pine martens being caught in snares, if that is the issue as to why it has been changed, then I would suggest it is an overreaction by someone to a sensitive and important issue, yet the decision and the policy that has been put in place across the Province is not a good policy. I would ask government to reconsider on behalf of those who have signed the petition. I will be pleased to present this petition over the next couple of weeks. Several thousands of signatures were collected and it obviously is important to them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and Opposition Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of the people of Labrador. It is regarding the Trans-Labrador Highway, Route 510. It says:

WHEREAS the Trans-Labrador Highway is a vital transportation lifeline for the Labrador communities, providing access, generating economic activity, and allowing residents to obtain health care and other public services; and

WHEREAS Route 510 and connecting branch roads of the Trans-Labrador Highway are unpaved, in deplorable conditions and are no longer suitable and safe for the traffic volumes that travel this route; and

WHEREAS Labrador cannot afford to wait years or decades for upgrading and paving of their essential transportation route;

WHEREUPON the petitioners urge the House of Assembly to call upon the government to provide additional funding for much needed improvements to Route 510 and connecting branch roads of the Trans-Labrador Highway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, this is a petition that is actually circulating all around Labrador. It is a cause that has been spearheaded by a coalition in Labrador that is being led by Ida Powell in Charlottetown, I think, who is the Chair of the coalition.

Basically, Mr. Speaker, they are lobbying the provincial government to at least give some consideration to paving the highway from Happy Valley-Goose Bay right on down to the Quebec border. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this morning when I was on a conference call with a group of people from different regions of Labrador, some of them were telling me that just recently they have driven over that section of road and in certain areas, not in all, but in certain areas the road is in pretty bad shape right now. Mr. Speaker, it takes a long time –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: – to get from point A to point B and, Mr. Speaker, it is having a lot of wear and tear on people's vehicles.

For example, Mr. Speaker, just in the Labrador Straits alone where there is pavement - pavement that is very old right now, in fact - last year there was, on record, dozens of people who damaged their vehicles because the potholes in the pavement were so big that it was actually damaging the tires and all of the under gear under their vehicles. They submitted claims to the Department of Transportation and Works, but the government did not even compensate them. Although, Mr. Speaker, there were no signs on the road saying there was going to be –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: – potholes or bumps or anything of that sort, and they did not receive any compensation whatsoever, which was really unfair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the people in Labrador know, from the meeting they had with the Minister of Transportation and Works in Goose Bay, there is nothing on the government's radar to pave that particular highway, and that is wrong. I think it is time this government started showing some real commitment to the people of Labrador and started showing them by bringing their infrastructure inline with other people in the Province, and that means making a commitment to pave this section of highway.

This road, right now, is the main transportation link between Labrador and the Island portion of the Province, and everyone who is going in and out of Labrador has to use this highway. I ask the government to bring it to the standards that highways should be in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I appreciate an opportunity to present the sixth petition on behalf of the residents of La Poile, and all users of the provincial ferry service who might venture down to the Southwest Coast and find their way onto or coming from La Poile.

The petition reads:

WHEREAS the people of La Poile must use the provincial ferry system in order to travel to and from La Poile; and

WHEREAS the people of La Poile and visitors are required to wait at the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou from time to time for ferry services; and

WHEREAS there is no restroom, waiting area at the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou where users of the ferry service may utilize washroom facilities; and

WHEREAS citizens of all ages including men, women, children, seniors and disabled persons require washroom facilities as a basic human need in the course of their travels and particularly while awaiting the transit system; and

WHEREAS it is an abuse of human dignity as well as health and safety regulations to allow such degrading and dehumanizing circumstances to continue;

WHEREUPON the undersigned your petitions humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to immediately construct and operate a waiting room, restroom facility at the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou such that all users of the provincial ferry service which operates out of La Poile may be able to utilize such waiting area and washroom facilities.

Mr. Speaker, as I say, this is the sixth time I have raised this petition. I raise it not because I like to hear myself repeat myself, and I am sure the members of this hon. House do not wish to hear me repeat myself, but some things are so important that it bears repeating.

As I said yesterday, it only requires the Minister of Transportation and Works who is responsible for constructing such a facility, who runs the provincial ferry service - it does not take a whole pile of money to do this - to provide the citizens of this Province who utilize this service day in and day out basically with a common, decent place to use a washroom. We are not asking for the Taj Mahal. We are not asking for terminals like are in major centres. We are not asking for any kind of beyond the realm, unnecessary facility here. We are asking for a washroom, Mr. Speaker. We are asking for a washroom so that people who are travelling, who need to use a washroom, have a place to go instead of having to creep behind the rocks, up in the bushes. Now, just imagine how dehumanizing that is. We provide a ferry service but yet we do not have the common decency as a government to provide them with a washroom facility. Now I do not know of anywhere else that exists.

If you go to a concert anywhere in the summertime, at a music festival, it is a public requirement that you have washroom facilities. You cannot go anywhere in this Province without a washroom; yet, Mr. Speaker, we are allowing this to continue. Unacceptable, unnecessary, and hopefully the minister will come to his senses and fix this.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of the people from the District of The Isles of Notre Dame. Mr. Speaker, it says:

WHEREAS there were fifteen acute care beds in the Notre Dame Bay Memorial Hospital Health Centre; and

WHEREAS five of the acute care beds closed this summer and did not reopen in the fall; and

WHEREAS the availability of acute care beds is critical to the people of Twillingate and New World Island; and

WHEREAS the shortage of acute care beds is resulting in people being denied admittance to the Notre Dame Bay Memorial Hospital Health Centre; and

WHEREAS the people of Twillingate and New World Island do not want to see their health care services cut;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and ask the House of Assembly to urge the government to reinstate the five acute care beds in the Notre Dame Bay Memorial Hospital Health Centre.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I have a folder full of these petitions that came in with thousands of signatures on them from this particular district. These are people in the area of Twillingate and New World Island who obviously feel that their own MHA did not support them in keeping these particular beds open in their facilities.

Mr. Speaker, what happened here is this - and we wrote the Minister of Health on this issue before the government had made the decision publicly. We asked government why the acute care beds that had been closed last summer - because there were five beds in the hospital that were closed, which is not unusual in Newfoundland and Labrador in the summertime to close down some of the acute care beds in our health care facilities. However, the practice has always been that these beds will then reopen in the fall.

In the case of the people at the Notre Dame Bay Memorial Hospital, Mr. Speaker, those beds did not open in the fall. In fact, they stayed closed. What the government and Central Health decided to do was to take these five acute care beds and use them for restorative care beds. Now, Mr. Speaker, you have to understand what is happening here. There is a need in the Twillingate, New World Island area for restorative care beds just like there is a need in a lot of other areas around the Province, but there is also a need for acute care beds and what government did is they made a trade-off. They actually re-designated those particular beds in the hospital that were designed for people who were of acute care need, who were sick and needed to be admitted, into restorative care beds for longer-term care for those patients.

What really makes the irony in all of this is that the member for the area, the minister and the government actually went out to Twillingate and New World Island and made an announcement that they were putting five restorative care beds, making them available in the hospital. When in fact, Mr. Speaker, they were just closing out five acute care beds and designating them for another purpose. The people in the area have seen through this ploy by the government. They find it unacceptable and they are petitioning the House of Assembly to ask the government and to ask their member, Mr. Speaker, to reverse the decision to put proper restorative care beds in this hospital and not use the acute care beds that people depend upon.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will go to the motions and start with first readings this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Crop Insurance Act And The Livestock Insurance Act, Bill 23, and I further move that the said bill be now read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House Leader to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled An Act To Amend The Crop Insurance Act And The Livestock Insurance Act, Bill 23, and that Bill 23 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 23 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Crop Insurance Act And The Livestock Act", carried. (Bill 23)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Crop Insurance Act And The Livestock Insurance Act. (Bill 23)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 23 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 23 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 23 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General, to ask leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Judicature Act, Bill 24, and I further move that the said bill be now read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House Leader to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Judicature Act, Bill 24, and that Bill 24 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 24 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Judicature Act", carried. (Bill 24)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Judicature Act. (Bill 24)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 24 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 24 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 24 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Public Trustee Act, 2009, Bill 25, and I further move that the said bill be now read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House Leader to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Public Trustee Act, 2009, Bill 25, and that Bill 25 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House 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'.

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Trustee Act, 2009", carried. (Bill 25)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Public Trustee Act, 2009. (Bill 25)

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

When shall Bill 25 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 25 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will now refer to the third reading of bills on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 3, An Act To Amend The Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit Act, be now read the third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 3, An Act To Amend The Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit Act, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit Act. (Bill 3)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 3 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 3)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General, that Bill 9, An Act Respecting Correctional Services, be now read the third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 9, An Act Respecting Correctional Services, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Correctional Services. (Bill 9)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 9 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that Bill 9 do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Correctional Services", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 9)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, that Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act, be now read the third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act. (Bill 10)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 10 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 10)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we will now go into the second reading of bills.

I want to call Order 8, second reading of Bill 13.

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

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

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 13 be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that Bill 13, An Act To Repeal The Subordinate Legislation Revision And Consolidation Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Subordinate Legislation Revision And Consolidation Act". (Bill 13)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to introduce Bill 13, An Act To Repeal The Subordinate Legislation Revision And Consolidation Act.

Mr. Speaker, this act was enacted in 1995, and that act was part, Mr. Speaker, of an initiative that was at that time called the Regulatory Reform project. The act was enacted for the purposes of providing for the expiry on one year later, June 30, 1996, of all subordinate legislation in force in the Province at that time, March 31, 1995. Subordinate legislation, Mr. Speaker, are regulations that are subordinate to the various acts that we have in the Province. So when we are talking about subordinate legislation, we are basically talking about regulations.

Mr. Speaker, the act called for the appeal or consolidation or expiry, whatever, of subordinate legislation that was in force at that time in 1995, unless, Mr. Speaker, the legislation had been re-enacted, or was to be re-enacted by the Lieutenant Governor in Council prior to that date. That, Mr. Speaker, was the Regulatory Reform project. The Regulatory Reform project was initiated in 1995 and concluded in 1996.

So, all regulations in the Province that were in effect by March 31, 1995, were all reviewed, Mr. Speaker; unless the legislation was re-enacted by the Lieutenant Governor prior to 1995, all that legislation was now going to be reviewed and subject to recommendations made by the Regulatory Reform project.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the Regulatory Reform project, because the next bill we will be introducing in the House is the revision or repeal of the Regulatory Reform Act. Both of these were part of the Regulatory Reform project, which was an initiative of the government of the day. The Regulatory Reform project, Mr. Speaker, was part of the government's initiative at that time to increase government efficiency, and to promote economic development. The purpose of that project was to reduce regulations by government to a minimum level, but still protect the public interest.

It is carried on today by the elimination of red tape programs. It was a project with good motives, a good project, Mr. Speaker, to look at all the regulations in vogue at the time, in force at the time, and reduce those regulations to the bare minimum level that was required, but not to violate or not intimidate in any way the public interest. The government's plans at the time, they did that for the purpose of increasing government efficiency, so the people applying to government for a business proposal and whatnot, and trying to get through government red tape, would not be burdened and bogged down by red tape and regulation by government. That was the purpose of the Regulatory Reform project.

A working committee, Mr. Speaker, was established at that time by the Clerk to co-ordinate the examination of all the regulations in all the departments in preparation for review by an independent commissioner. An independent commissioner was hired in the person of the hon. Nat Noel to review all of those regulations. He was appointed in 1994. What he did was an in-depth review of all the regulations. He examined detailed reports of the working committee with respect to the viability of the regulations that existed at that time. He submitted a final report with respect to the whole Regulatory Reform project on September 30, 1995.

Mr. Speaker, that report included a detailed index of recommendations. In that report, he listed the regulations that were not to be re-enacted, he included regulations to be re-enacted but with amendments, and he included a list of regulations to be re-enacted without amendments. He also introduced an index of acts to be repealed.

Now, Mr. Speaker, all of the commissioner's recommendations were considered and addressed in 1995, pursuant to the bill that we are talking about repealing today, pursuant to the Subordinate Legislation Revision and Consolidation Act. That was the act that set up this reform project. Pursuant to that act, Mr. Speaker, his recommendations were considered and addressed.

Consequently, Mr. Speaker, the regulations that are intended to be re-enacted have been re-enacted, pursuant to the revision of that act. Those that were recommended for repeal have expired, they have been repealed. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the mandate of that project, the Regulatory Reform project, has been fulfilled and is now complete. Now, Mr. Speaker, lying in harmony with that was the Regulatory Reform Act which we will speak to in the next bill.

The mandate of that Regulatory Reform project, the mandate of the commissioner is now expired and has been fulfilled and is now complete. However, Mr. Speaker, even though the mandate of that project was completed some fifteen years ago, the Subordinate Legislation Revision and Consolidation Act remains a law of this Province. It is still on the books. That piece of legislation is now spent. It is no longer utilized and no longer has any continuing effect. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, the government now proposes that the Subordinate Legislation Revision and Consolidation Act be repealed.

Mr. Speaker, not withstanding the proposal to repeal that act, I want to make it clear, that the government continues to make improvements with respect to the Province's regulatory environment. My colleague, the Minister of Business, will speak to that later on this afternoon.

In 2005, this government set an ambitious goal to reduce red tape throughout the provincial government at 25 per cent over three years. Mr. Speaker, this goal has been surpassed. As a matter of fact, in 2009 we had reduced regulation and red tape by 27 per cent. The initiative now, Mr. Speaker, has been extended to ensure that moving forward there will be a zero in net growth in regulatory requirements across this government.

Mr. Speaker, all new legislation, all new policies has to have a regulatory impact analysis. Every piece of legislation that is proposed, every Cabinet paper, and every paper that goes to Cabinet proposing any changes in the legislation or policies has to have a regulatory impact analysis attached to it.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to reducing requirements, the steps being taken are fostering greater innovation –

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): Order, please!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, we have often had the issue of relevance raised in this House and all parties do, of course, abide by your ruling. We are talking here in this bill about the repeal of a certain bill. The minister has already given his explanation of it. I will add my comments as to that bill, and they will be relevant when my opportunity comes. The minister has now elapsed into a spiel - there is no other way to put it - about the red tape policy of government today. It has nothing to do whatsoever with the bill that is before this House right now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will ask that all members, both presenting bills and speaking to bills in debate, keep their comments relevant to the particular bill on the Order Paper.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. member, the purpose of this Regulatory Reform project and the legislation that we are repealing today dealt exactly with that topic, the reduction of regulation and red tape in this government. I am saying even though that bill is repealed, we are continuing that policy, Mr. Speaker, and I consider it very relevant.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, just to clue up, in addition to reducing requirements and regulation, as this Regulatory Reform project did and as we continue to do with our red tape program, the steps being taken are fostering greater innovation and efficiency in the way the provincial government operates, and that was the whole purpose of the legislation and the project in the first place. Delivery of services, interacts with the public through streamline processes, improves regulations, and increases access to e-government and online services, less paperwork, more efficient service to clients and the public. That is what our red tape reduction program is about. That is what this initial legislation was about in the first place and it is a relevant continuance of that issue.

Mr. Speaker, that is a commitment of this government; a long-term commitment of this government, going back to 1995 when this project was started under previous governments, to build a better regulatory environment. That is what Bill 13 is about. I ask for support of all hon. members in passing this bill and I am sure the hon. member will have his comments on it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

It is not often that I agree with the Minister of Justice and Attorney General when we debate issues or ask questions back and forth in Question Period. Aside from his comments about red tape committees and policy of government, which has nothing to do whatsoever about the debate here today, I wholeheartedly understand, appreciate and agree with his comments about the rationalization and justification for having this bill here. I do not think I need to muddy the waters any further than he has in terms of explaining it to the people. We will be voting for it. It is necessary. If we do not need the law any more and it has outlived its usefulness, it ought to be taken from the books. We agree with that and we will be voting in favour of it.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to participate in this debate on Bill 13. I certainly appreciate the comments of both the Opposition House Leader and also the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

I think the minister did a great job outlining the reason for Bill 13 and indeed Bill 12, which I hope we will have an opportunity to address in this House today as well. The Subordinate Legislation Revision Consolidation Act was enacted in 1995, and we will certainly be addressing that here today also.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see government taking steps to reduce red tape and to eliminate unnecessary or outdated legislation. I feel that is, in fact, what has been done in this instance. The Subordinate Legislation Revision and Consolidation Act was enacted in 1995, and it did provide for the expiry in 1996 of all regulations in force in the Province on March 31, 1995, unless those regulations were re-enacted by the Lieutenant Governor in Council under the power that was conferred by the act prior to that date. This initiative at the time was known as the Regulatory Reform project. It was part of government's overall initiative to increase government efficiency and to promote economic development. The objective of the project was to reduce regulation by government to the minimal level required while also ensuring protection of the public interest, which, of course, is of concern to any government.

A working committee was established, as the minister outlined, and that committee co-ordinated the examination of regulations by various departments in government. It prepared for the review by the independent commissioner that the minister referenced. Commissioner Noel then submitted a final report with respect to the project in September of 1995. The report included a detailed index of recommendations. It covered things such as regulations that should not be re-enacted, regulations that should be re-enacted with some amendments, regulations that could be re-enacted without amendments, and acts that could be repealed entirely.

Mr. Speaker, the recommendations related to regulations specifically was addressed by the Subordinate Legislation Revision and Consolidation Act; however, the repeal of certain acts could not. Mr. Speaker, accordingly, the Regulatory Reform Act was enacted to effect the statutory changes stemming from the recommendations of the commissioner who looked at regulatory reform. All of the commissioner's recommendations were considered. Consequently, those regulations intended to be re-enacted have been pursuant to the provisions of the Subordinate Legislation Revision and Consolidation Act, which is a mouthful as I am finding out here this afternoon. Those that were recommended for repeal have indeed expired.

It is certainly safe to say that the mandate of the Regulatory Reform project has been fulfilled, it is complete. Both of these acts that I have referenced here this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, remain laws in this Province. These two pieces of legislation are no longer utilized and really do not have any continuing effect today. It makes sense to do the cleanup as the minister is proposing in this House this afternoon. I am pleased to hear that the Opposition agrees with the minister on this matter and I certainly wanted to rise in support as well.

Mr. Speaker, the act in question in terms of Bill 13 is the Regulatory Reform Act; it complements the Subordinate Legislation Revision and Consolidation Act which addressed regulatory changes. In order to repeal certain statutory provisions the Regulatory Reform Act was indeed necessary. Both of these pieces of legislation worked hand in hand. They addressed the recommendations coming out of the project and ultimately it made government process less cumbersome for businesses and residents. While this was certainly a good initiative, I would argue that our government has gone much, much further when it comes to red tape reduction.

The Regulatory Reform Act is now spent; it is no longer required so the most reasonable option is obviously to get rid of this piece of legislation. Each government department does now regularly review its regulations, which I think is positive and ensures that we are as efficient as possible in terms of our legislation. I commend this government for its work on red tape reduction, and I hope that at some point during debate on these bills we will have an opportunity to hear more from perhaps our great Minister of Business on some of the wonderful initiatives that we have undertaken to further reduce red tape.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly support Bill 13, I commend the minister for bringing the legislation forward and I thank you for the opportunity to participate in the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. If he speaks now, he will close debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I thank the hon. colleagues, the Opposition and the Member for Mount Pearl North for their comments on this bill. I now move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 13, An Act To Repeal The Subordinate Legislation Revision And Consolidation Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Repeal The Subordinate Legislation Revision And Consolidation Act. (Bill 13)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Subordinate Legislation Revision And Consolidation Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 13)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Order 7, second reading of Bill 12.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 12 will now be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 12, An Act To Repeal The Regulatory Reform Act be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Regulatory Reform Act". (Bill 12)

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

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

Actually, for the presentation of this bill, it is simply a matter of pressing replay on the previous one.

The Regulatory Reform Act, in fact, complemented the 1996 consolidation of provincial subordinate legislation, as we just discussed. That, of course, was authorized by the Subordinate Legislation Revision and Consolidation Act, which we just spoke to in second reading. So, one act complemented the other. The first act, the Subordinate Legislation Revision and Consolidation Act - as the member said, it is a bit of a mouthful - is slated for repeal, as the previous presentations just outlined.

Now, Mr. Speaker, both acts, the Subordinate Legislation Revision and Consolidation Act and the Regulatory Reform Act, are directly related to the Regulatory Reform project, which we also mentioned previously, introduced in 1995. If you recall, from my previous presentation, the objective of the Regulatory Reform Act was to review all government regulations existing at the time, with a view to either repealing those regulations which are no longer necessary or amending those which were somewhat outdated.

Now, when the commissioner presented his final report to government, the recommendations, as mentioned in the previous presentation, set out the regulations that were not to be re-enacted, the regulations to be re-enacted with amendments, regulations to be re-enacted without amendments, and acts to be repealed. Now, Mr. Speaker, while the changes in regulations, as recommended by the commissioner for regulatory reform, could be addressed by the Subordinate Legislation Revision and Consolidation Act, the act we just spoke to, the repeal of certain acts, though, as recommended by the commissioner, could not.

In other words, the Subordinate Legislation Revision and Consolidation Act dealt with regulations and the repeal of regulations, and the revision and consolidation of regulations, but certain acts, it could not address. So as a result, Mr. Speaker, the Regulatory Reform Act was enacted to reflect those statutory changes that stem from the recommendation of the commissioner for regulatory reform, in addition to some consequential amendments that arose from that Regulatory Reform project.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Regulatory Reform Act was enacted solely to authorize government to repeal certain statutory provisions, and enact some consequential amendments to statutes, as recommended by the commissioner, that could not be done under the Subordinate Legislation Revision and Consolidation Act.

So, Mr. Speaker, as stated during the second reading of Bill 13, An Act To Repeal The Subordinate Legislation Revision And Consolidation Act, the mandate of the Regulatory Reform project has now been fulfilled and is complete. So, subsequently, the same applies to the Regulatory Reform Act. This act is also spent, no longer being utilized; accordingly, this government proposes that the Regulatory Reform Act be repealed, as it is not longer required.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to any comments that might be made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for repeating the purpose of the Regulatory Reform Act. It was necessary, of course, that he do so in the context of the former bill that we just dealt with because there is an interlink and was an interlink between the two.

This particular piece of legislation we are dealing with here today is very, very specific. It talks only about the Regulatory Reform Act. I agree, by the way, that this is necessary, because if we are going to clean up the regulations which we are doing here, this was an act that existed that no longer needs, it has been accomplished.

Justice Nathaniel Noel was appointed to do a certain job, he did a certain job, the minister has acknowledged that the job is complete; we no longer need it on the books. The only purpose we have here today is explain that is not necessary and we are all going to vote to get rid of an unnecessary piece of legislation on our books. Short, sweet, to the point.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the actual bill itself, it is a two-liner. One sentence says, "This Act may be cited as the Regulatory Reform Act Repeal Act." The second sentence, "The Regulatory Reform Act is repealed." The minister put the necessary body and discussion around that as he just did. I would say again, very well-explained, obviously necessary, nothing there to debate, common sense stuff, clean up your books which we did here with this. We will be voting in favour of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. the Minister of Business, the Chair would like to welcome Chief Misel Joe of Conne River to the House of Assembly. He is in the public galleries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Business.

MR. DALLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will take a few moments to speak to Bill 12, An Act To Repeal The Regulatory Reform Act. I appreciate the comments from the member opposite and the minister today as well. It is obviously, a bill that would address regulatory issues that were created back in 1996, a part of the Regulatory Reform project.

Mr. Speaker, it is a piece of legislation that, I guess, is part of the ongoing work that we are doing as a government to address regulatory issues across issues across governments. I want to speak to it a little bit about not so much to rehash as to where we are today as a government, but I think it is important out there in the general public when we talk about repealing regulatory reform, to recognize that it was a working committee that recognized the need in government back in the mid-1990s. They were able to do some great work to address the issues of legislative reform, to make some necessary amendments, and obviously that project was successful.

The reality is as well, that as we sit in our Legislatures and over the course of time, we pass a considerable amount of legislation – thirty-odd pieces of legislation each time we sit in this House. Through that process it becomes cumbersome, I guess, in terms of legislation to manage and so on. The reality is, as was the case in 1996, there was a need to address the outdated, the legislation that has basically been spent. What we have seen in response to that, in the mid 2000s, government was able to recognize the need for continued regulatory reform.

Similar to what we have seen in 1996 – in this case we did not come up with a working group, we kind of embedded it in the department that I am responsible for, the Department of Business – we are across government. We would bring in some commitments that we would manage regulatory reform where we were able to build on the project I guess of 1996 and bring it to a point where we realize we do need to further pay attention to regulatory reform across government. We were able to eliminate some 83,000 unnecessary pieces of legislation and requirements and just as happened in 1996 with the Regulatory Reform project, we too saw fit that through this process we are able to improve the services for businesses and for people in the Province. At the end of the day, that was the goal of 1996 and certainly a goal that we share today in our government.

Mr. Speaker, the process that is ongoing, the repeal today does not reflect where we are and the need to continue regulatory reform. We put extensive time and effort into it and I want to say to the public today that we have embedded it to the point where we are looking at zero growth and we manage it through all departments and because of that we are certainly recognized nationally by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business; it is ranking second in the country only behind British Columbia, tied with Nova Scotia for regulatory reform. This is an opportunity and recognition by our government to build on what we saw in 1996, to build on the project and, Mr. Speaker, we are having tremendous success with it.

This particular bill even though we are repealing regulatory reform, we as a government are committed to recognize the need to clean up legislation and that if we have a strong, more-efficient regulatory environment we are going to need to be dedicated to it in the long-term. It is all about fostering a proactive, positive climate for the people of the Province just as it was back in 1996. We are continuing it, putting the face of the Regulatory Reform Act and certainly the bill we are speaking about today.

It is a pleasure as the Minister of Business to be able to stand and support the bill.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. If he speaks now he shall close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

I thank the hon. members for their comments on this bill.

Without further adieu, I will move this bill on to second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 12, An Act To Repeal The Regulatory Reform Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Repeal The Regulatory Reform Act. (Bill 12)

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

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

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, An Act To Repeal The Regulatory Reform Act, read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 12)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, we would now like to call Order 9, second reading of Bill 14.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 14 be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 14, An Act To Amend The Proceedings Against The Crown Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Proceedings Against The Crown Act". (Bill 14)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to introduce Bill 14, An Act To Amend The Proceedings Against The Crown Act.

Mr. Speaker, for those who may not be aware in this House and those watching on the outside, The Proceedings Against the Crown Act defines the rules by which a government participates in lawsuits. It includes both the right to sue and the right to be sued. Every province in this country has its own Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General represents the Province in all actions taken by the Crown and all actions taken against the Crown. The Attorney General's Office actually, Mr. Speaker, is the law firm for the Province and has a battery of solicitors that represent part of the Crown and what actions for and against the Crown. Sometimes we go outside, Mr. Speaker, and hire outside counsel when certain expertise is required. So from that perspective, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice and the Office of the Attorney General is a very interesting place to be because you are at the centre of all lawsuits both for and against the government.

Mr. Speaker, The Proceedings Against the Crown Act would include provisions, subject to certain exemptions. It would establish, for example, that government is legally responsible for all the acts of its officers or its agents. All of the officers, people who work for governments, people who work on behalf of government, established as officers or agents, the government of the Province is legally responsible for their actions.

The act also provides, Mr. Speaker, with respect of wrongs that are committed by any of the government's agents or public servants, the Crown is responsible and subject to all liabilities that it will be subject to if it were a person of age and capacity, as the same liabilities as a person who would be of full age and capacity. The Crown is vicariously liable for all the acts of its servants and agents.

The act, Mr. Speaker, also authorizes the Crown to use any defence that would be available if the proceedings were against private persons, or with a private person. The Crown is treated the same way as a private person in respect to proceedings against the Crown.

The act also allows the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador to make certain orders against the Crown that it would make against a person. It is that point, Mr. Speaker, that brings us to the proposed amendment in this act. The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador can make certain orders against the Crown in the same way it can direct the Crown, the same way in which it can direct a private person. That is the basis for the proposed amendment to this act.

The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to Amend The Proceedings Against The Crown Act to allow orders that are made against it by a dispute panel established under the Agreement on Internal Trade to be enforced as if such an order was made by a superior court of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the Agreement on Internal Trade is a very important agreement, a very important piece of business for this Province because it affects so many departments. Basically, it is an intergovernmental agreement between the provinces and the territories and the federal government, with the exception of Nunavut. The agreement is between all the provinces and the federal government. Basically, what it does, it focuses on reducing barriers to internal trade and promotes the free movement of persons, goods, services and investments within the country and across provincial boundaries.

Mr. Speaker, in case a government or one of those provincial jurisdictions, or a federal jurisdiction, is deemed to be not in compliance with that agreement on internal trade, well a dispute panel can be set up to deal with that variance. That dispute panel hears the case and makes a decision.

Mr. Speaker, the order that is made by that dispute panel does not have the same powers and cannot be enforced in the same way that an order can be made under the Supreme Court. The purpose of this amendment, Proceedings Against The Crown Act, is to allow an order made by that panel to be enforced in the same way as if such an order was made by the Superior Court of this Province. That is the purpose of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, from time to time government will introduce a bill that may involve more than one department, and that is the case with this bill. The Proceedings Against The Crown Act, Mr. Speaker, falls under the Department of Justice, but the subject of the proposed amendment in this case, having to do with trade, falls under the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. minister is recognized she will explain and speak to this bill in a more detailed fashion. My purpose here today, Mr. Speaker, is to introduce the bill because it comes under the responsibility of the Department of Justice, and I look forward to debate by other members of the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words with respect to this. I found it quite interesting, the minister's comments of course. He is quite correct when he describes the fact that as Attorney General you are basically the law firm for the Province in anything that happens. He mentioned, quite casually: well, sometimes we have to go outside because we do not have all the expertise that is necessary, I guess, inside the Department of Justice to handle all matters. We have some very well qualified, very exceptional people there who look after the legal files of this Province. I had the benefit of working with many of them, particularly the current Deputy Minister, Mr. Burrage, who has carried many big files for this Province to the Supreme Court of Canada numerous times himself. We are very lucky and fortunate to have individuals such as him work in our Justice Department.

I noticed the comment though, about going outside sometimes. Of course, we are all aware of the recent case where the minister and Attorney General farmed out the tobacco file to a local firm which happened to be the same law firm that our former Premier worked for, unsolicited, potentially millions of dollars in legal fees and refuses to talk about it publicly. Now, I did not raise the issue of farming it out to an outside firm, Mr. Speaker, the minister did. That is exactly what happened and he refuses to talk about it. Anyway, that is an issue that people will deal with because it is still on the public burner yet, as to how we spend our money wisely or how we handle cases in this Province. Giving such potentially lucrative contracts to outside law firms without anybody knowing about it is just unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, it also raises the question, because we are talking about, in here, the Agreement on Internal Trade. As the minister said, that is an agreement between the provinces, Northwest Territories, Yukon, the federal government is involved. We have agreed to do certain things under that agreement, and there is obviously a tribunal set up and people make rulings. Someone complains because they figure you put up a barrier to trade, and we are not supposed to do that. When you do, someone can complain, you go to a tribunal, the tribunal makes a decision.

I am just curious if the minister could tell us, has there been any particular incident which prompted this amendment? Because that internal trade agreement has existed since 1994, and we find ourselves now in 2011, years later, putting this provision in. I am wondering, is this something that the provinces themselves came to recognize, that we did not have any teeth in our internal trade agreement when it came to enforcing any judgements and awards and tariffs and penalties that we imposed, or is there one particular case? I am wondering if the minister could tell us this, because that is very important.

We are seventeen years out from the date of the implementation of that agreement and we are putting in teeth so that, for example, if we as a Province have a complaint against Nova Scotia based under that internal trade agreement and the panel decides that we should be awarded some tariffs, or there should be penalties, now we are saying we are going to have the ability, or people outside, at least, will have the ability to enforce that against our Province. I am just wondering if there is a particular incident that brought this about.

Have there been no complaints filed under the internal trade agreements in all that time? What caused this to be recognized by our Province at this date and time? I am not saying it is not necessary. Obviously, if we are going to be part of the agreement, nationally and provincially, and we are all going to be subject to the same rules, obviously, we are going to need to have this in our law, otherwise other provinces are not going to treat us with the same respect. How can we expect, for example, to get a judgement against Nova Scotia and enforce it, or New Brunswick, or PEI, or Quebec, if we in turn do not allow those provinces to have the same benefits when it comes to us making a mistake under that agreement?

I am just wondering about the background that brought it to light at this time to justify and require the amendment. I am wondering as well if the minister can give us any comments that he might have, because this is very similar, we have another famous financial trading type agreement in our country. It is called NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, which Canada, of course, is subject to, and the United States and Mexico. As we are all aware, this Province recently, as a result of the Abitibi fiasco in Grand Falls where they expropriated the properties of Abitibi, cost the taxpayers of Canada $130 million. There was no similar provision under NAFTA and it has been talked about. I wonder if the minister could give us the comparison because we are here now setting up today a formula whereby if there is a tariff or penalty ordered under internal trade, we are saying in this piece of legislation we are going to allow other participants to that agreement to sue us and have their agreements enforced and their penalties enforced.

From my understanding, there is no similar such provision in NAFTA, and I am wondering if the minister can tell us in the context of this here , because there is apparently some incident or some review that has initiated us dealing with this amendment. I notice the Minister of Natural Resources was quite quick to raise the issue of relevance because I mentioned Abitibi and I mentioned the $130 million mistake. He does not want to talk about that, Mr. Speaker. It is relevant because there is a great comparison here between the Agreement on Internal Trade, which we are talking about here today, and our Proceedings Against the Crown Act, which we are changing, and the NAFTA provisions. I am wondering if the minister can give us that comparison about what exists there versus what exists here.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to stand today and have a few comments on Bill 14, amendments to the Proceedings Against the Crown Act. This particular act deals with or encompasses the Agreement on Internal Trade, Mr. Speaker, or AIT as it is more commonly referenced. It is an intergovernmental agreement between all provinces, territories, and the federal government, with the exception of Nunavut. So, in reference to a comment made just a moment ago by the Opposition House Leader there, this has nothing to do with one country against another country. This is the Agreement on Internal Trade only; therefore, NAFTA does not fit underneath the Agreement on Internal Trade. It is not country-to-country; it is provinces and territories within a country, the country of Canada.

For the last fifteen years, Mr. Speaker, AIT has focused on reducing barriers primarily to internal trade and promoting the free movement of persons, goods, services, and investments within this country. It is an agreement that supports, clearly, Newfoundland and Labrador's investments on a variety of different levels, Mr. Speaker. First of all, it creates opportunities for local businesses to compete on and to secure contracts in other parts of Canada. From a labour mobility perspective, it provides Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with employment opportunities over and above those that are available in this Province. So, Mr. Speaker, that agreement on internal trade which has been embraced by all provinces and all territories, with the exception of Nunavut, is very much something that we value as well.

In essence, we believe that this particular agreement is a strong agreement on internal trade. It contributes, Mr. Speaker, to the economic vibrancy of Newfoundland and Labrador as well. Over the last number of years, jurisdictions have collectively explored measures to strengthen the agreement and to make it more enforceable. That is what this particular amendment is about: It is how to make this particular agreement more enforceable.

Over the last number of years, jurisdictions have collectively explored those measures. Allowing monetary penalties is the means that has been agreed upon by the provinces and territories. Basically, what it means is that, in penalizing parties deemed to be offside with their AIT obligations, we will have now in place a strong and a meaningful deterrent, Mr. Speaker, that will ensure a concrete measure of enforceability. There is not much point to have an Agreement on Internal Trade if we find that a province or a territory is offside and we have no way then to make them compliant. So, what was deemed important was to have some sort of enforceable penalty here. That is the reason that this particular amendment has come forward.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador agreed to the amendment; therefore, were happy to agree to the addition of monetary penalties for government-to-government disputes, meaning province-to-province or province-to-territory disputes, under the AIT. We agreed to that in the spring of 2009, Mr. Speaker.

As part of adding those monetary penalties to the AIT, it is necessary then for each jurisdiction to make provisions to ensure the payment of monetary penalties and dispute penal costs. Again, that is the primary reason for the amendment to this particular act, Mr. Speaker.

In order to make those provisions and to make those amendments, we require an amendment to the Proceedings Against the Crown Act for Newfoundland and Labrador. Many other provinces have already made the changes to their respective legislation to ensure that they are able to meet their obligation, Mr. Speaker. We are in the process now of attempting to make the same amendment here so that we, too, can be compliant.

It might be a good point, Mr. Speaker, simply to give you an overview of the proposed AIT dispute resolution process that would follow, that would ensue. In the event that one jurisdiction believes that another is acting in non-compliance, so if the Province of New Brunswick believed that the Province of Manitoba was non-compliant, or if Newfoundland believed that another province was non-compliant, what would we do about that? What is the process? Well, the process is simply that a dispute resolution panel would be established. That panel would consist of representatives from various provinces. They would hear the case, they would deliberate on the case, then they would state their ruling: Yes, this particular province is non-compliant with the Agreement on Internal Trade; no, it is not non-compliant, it is compliant within the terms and conditions of the agreement.

Mr. Speaker, if it is deemed non-compliant, then we need something. We need a measure then, other than simply saying you are non-compliant, you should become compliant now. It is not very enforceable and not very strong. Instead, we need something that makes that particular agreement more compliant, more enforceable. If a government measure is deemed to be in non-compliance by that dispute panel that I referenced and an AIT party refuses to change - and that is an important point here. If the party, if the province in question refuses to change that non-compliant measure within a year, then the monetary penalty would be imposed.

Just to be clear, the government that is deemed to be non-compliant, the party that is deemed to be non-compliant, would have still one year to change their position, if you will, and to become compliant. In a dispute, an AIT party would only have to go to our courts for the monetary penalty or the penal cost awards, because obviously there are some costs as well to bringing the panel into place, if the penalties and the costs are not paid by our government within the required period of time following the panel ruling. So, only in that period because a government could just as easily say: Yes, we agree. We are not compliant. We will do something about rectifying that situation. We will change our position on that situation. If they say we are not doing anything here, we know we are non-compliant, or we do not agree that we are non-compliant then nothing happens. What do we do then to enforce? Then you can go to the courts, Mr. Speaker, for that monetary penalty, seeking that monetary penalty, and also the panel cost for that particular non-compliant behaviour.

While the dispute panel considers many criteria in determining the penalty, the maximum amount of the penalty is already determined, essentially, and it is based on AIT party's population. The maximum penalty, for example, based on population for Newfoundland and Labrador, the maximum penalty that we could face – doubtful that it would be anything in the maximum areas – but the maximum penalty that could be faced by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador would be $750,000, Mr. Speaker. Larger provinces such as Ontario could be assessed a maximum penalty of about $5 million, but again, I emphasize those are maximum penalties.

If an action of the provincial government is determined to be in non-compliance, payment would be made, Mr. Speaker. If it is the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that is determined to be in non-compliance, if we refuse to change the condition, if we refuse to become compliant then the grieving government, the grieving party would go to court, we would be found and then we would have to pay that penalty. The courts would determine but we know what the maximum cost is. If that all should come to fruition, Mr. Speaker, if that should come to pass and we have to pay that will be paid, Mr. Speaker, by my department, by the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is important to say, we respect the Agreement on Internal Trade; the AIT has proven to be very, very positive for us; we are very respectful of this particular agreement on internal trade. We view it as a tool, Mr. Speaker, as a very important tool to support local businesses, to support the economy here in this Province and to support our workers as well.

For us, any opportunity to make that particular agreement, the Agreement on Internal Trade, Mr. Speaker, further supports opportunities for Newfoundlanders, for Labradorians and for local businesses. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to support this bill which again is an amendment to The Proceedings Against The Crown Act, Bill 9.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, if he speaks now he shall close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

I thank the members for their comments and I also appreciate the presentation of my colleague, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development who presented the specifics of this bill.

I now move, Mr. Speaker, this bill move to second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 14, An Act To Amend The Proceedings Against the Crown Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Proceedings Against The Crown Act. (Bill 14)

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

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

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Proceedings Against The Crown Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, we would like to call Order 10, second reading of Bill 15.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Transportation and Works, that Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Petroleum And Natural Gas Act, be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Petroleum And Natural Gas Act be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Petroleum And Natural Gas Act". (Bill 15)

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

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, petroleum exploration, development, and production activities in Newfoundland and Labrador's onshore area fall under what is known as the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act which is administered by the Department of Natural Resources. Part II of that act, the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, provides the legislative authority to establish royalty regimes for onshore petroleum development in our Province.

With regard to the Province's offshore area, the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act allows the Province to adopt these same regulations when it comes to settling royalty regimes for offshore developments. Under Part II of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, the Province adopted the Royalty Regulations, 2003 which are the basis for the royalty regimes applied to the Hibernia South Extension, to the Terra Nova and White Rose oil fields, and that will also apply, Mr. Speaker, to the Hebron Project.

As a result of a review of Part II of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, the Department of Justice advised the Department of Natural Resources that amendments were required to this act to ensure the reliability and the enforceability of certain provisions in the Royalty Regulations, 2003. Although the Province has not had major reason to be concerned with these said provisions, lack of approval on the proposed amendments could result in the validity of these provisions of the Royalty Regulations, 2003, being challenged by existing and potential industry partners in the Province's petroleum industry.

Mr. Speaker, to ensure that this does not occur we are introducing four important amendments to this act. These amendments provide specific statutory support for four provisions in the Royalty Regulations, 2003; the first one referencing auditing; the second, search and seizure powers for the Province; the third is indemnification and information release as related to royalty audits; and the fourth is a confidentiality clause respecting royalty-related information. These provisions are all currently sections 41 and 42, 46 and 47 of the Royalty Regulations, 2003. Thus, we are simply ensuring that they have the appropriate support in the supporting legislation.

Mr. Speaker, our government has been very clear, as is set out in our Energy Plan, that we want Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to be the primary beneficiaries of development of our natural resources. In the area of offshore oil and gas development our government has been extremely successful in negotiating with companies who are spearheading developments to ensure they employ Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and do so with an understanding of gender equity and diversity. As well, we have placed ourselves at the decision table as an equity partner in the offshore oil and gas industry. Not only do we, Mr. Speaker, receive financial benefit as an equity partner, but we also have a say in the decisions. Again, we are at the table, we are players and more importantly, we are building our knowledge and our capacity as we are also developing our resource.

In the unlikely event that an operator will not supply us with the information we require regarding royalty calculations, this legislation confirms our legal right to search for such information and if necessary, to seize it. This power has not been used by us, Mr. Speaker, and given our strong relationship with our operators we do not anticipate that it will be. However, it is an important power to have. It has always been in the regulations and we feel should be in the legislation as well, which is what we are seeking to do today. Similar provisions to this exist in other provincial legislation such as the Revenue Administration Act and again, these provisions are rarely ever used. The existence of such a provision is often deterrent enough and results in mandatory compliance.

The Royalty Regulations, 2003 also remove personal liability for any individual who carries out duties under the act. Again, Mr. Speaker, such provisions also exist elsewhere such as the Revenue Administration Act. These provisions preserve the liability of the Crown, and remedies against the Crown. Accountability will remain, and the proposed amendments do not vary but instead confirm the authority for these provisions.

Mr. Speaker, we will also amend section 39 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act to confirm the provisions of the royalty regulations 2003, which ensure those working with this information, which is proprietary in nature, be kept confidential by those working with it or who have access to it. A breach of this confidentiality may result in a summary conviction.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, these amendments are not unique to this legislation and occur in other statutes in the Province. These amendments to the regulatory authority section of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act will help clarify and further enhance issues in Part II of the act that may have to be addressed by the Province. Although these amendments are not directly related to each other, failure to introduce these amendments may lead to the validity of the affected provisions of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, and the royalty regulations 2003, being questioned, as well as the authority of the Province being challenged on these matters.

We need to ensure the strength and viability of our industry, we need to ensure those operating in the industry clearly understand the rules they operate within, and we will continue to play a leading role in these goals. These amendments are an important part, Mr. Speaker, of this process.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time to provide my colleagues in the House of Assembly with some information regarding these amendments, and I look forward to any debate which may result, and also the passing of these said amendments.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the minister's comments.

To start the ball rolling, no question, we will be supportive in voting for this particular bill. I really liked the way the minister talked softly but carried a big stick. I guess that is the best way to put this. He talked softly in the sense of we have great partners in the industry, we have no problems and so on, but just in case we do have problems, we want to let you know who the sheriff is. That is not even a veiled threat. That was pointed, written right out here, and maybe he tried to couch it in some nice language.

The people might not realize that the minister's speech, which he just read, is a very important piece of legislation to this Province. The bulk of our revenue comes from the offshore today. Every barrel of oil that gets pumped out of the Hebrons, the White Rose, the Terra Novas and the future Hebron – Terra Nova, White Rose, this Hibernia South Extension, for example, we get money out of those barrels based upon what the minister calls a royalty regime. When the minister mentions royalties, of course, some people do not realize what that is all about, but basically what it means is the oil companies take our oil from the offshore and we have an agreement in place whereby we get a cut of it. That cut is called the royalty.

The formulas are all in place saying what our cut is going to be based upon when the particular oil field was paid for sometimes, what they call reaching pay out based upon production levels and so on. All kinds of wonderful criteria go in to decide what the Province takes out. The bottom line was, and his until we pass this, that we as a Province take what they tell us they took out. For example, if they say we are basing our royalties upon x-amount of production, we have to accept that. There is no way that if the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Natural Resources says we are not satisfied with that; we want to verify your information. Right now the Province does not have the right to audit the books, for example. That is what we are doing here. It is quite clear.

The minister is saying, in this paragraph that is going to be called (e.8) "respecting entry onto property or premises by the minister or a person authorized by the minister at reasonable times for the purpose of inspection or audit." Now, I do not know where those books might be. I guess it is only within our own geographic jurisdiction that this is going to apply. If we want the books of Exxon, for example, I do not know what we are going to do if the books are actually kept in New York somewhere rather than in the Province. That might be a way for the oil companies, if they feel this is the big hammer, they might feel: well, this is our way around that.

If he can pass a law saying he is going to come in, and in this next paragraph he talks about "respecting the search and seizure of documents". Again, it is fine to give ourselves this hammer, which I agree with, but if the hammer is only good in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and they keep all the documents out in New York or Montreal or somewhere else, obviously, we have an issue here as to where we can enforce this particular law that we are bringing in.

I do not know if the minister has contemplated any possible scenarios whereby that might happen. Is there anything that requires them to keep their books concerning the offshore here in the Province at the present time? Do they just have an office down here, for example, that looks after their management in terms of what supplies we need for the offshore, whether it be piping, whether it be food supplies, whether it be certain security services, helicopter services and so on, and the actual money piece of the game is decided somewhere else.

That is a very important issue the Province is trying to deal with, and I appreciate where the minister is coming from and why the Department of Justice would have suggested this amendment. The minister has been very polite here as to we have a good relationship and so on and we do not anticipate anything untoward happening and so on, but it has happened. We have had this situation in the past. We have had cases in the past where the former Administration had years and years of torment trying to resolve what the actual royalty pay out should be. You get into that quagmire whereby the oil companies say: This is what we owe you; and the Province says, we think you might owe us more than that. The company says we do not, and the argument becomes endless as to: How do you prove what the final answer is?

I can appreciate the problem the minister is grappling with and trying to resolve, and we need this type of legislation. Again, how big a hammer can we have and how wide can we swing that hammer if what we are trying to hit is not even here in the Province. That might still be a very logistical problem that you might have. I understand the relevance of what the minister is trying to accomplish here in the government. I think it is necessary, particularly the fact that if we are going to have a future in this - we have been in the game now for some-fifteen, seventeen years. A lot of money has come out of it and we just need to make sure as a Province that we are getting our just desserts, that we are the major beneficiaries. It is no point in thinking we are the major beneficiaries if we do not have a way to verify that we are.

Under this legislation here, it is pretty broad ranging; it gives the minister or his authorized persons the right to enter upon, because you just cannot willy-nilly enter upon somebody's premises without authority. Number two, search and seize documents. Another pretty broad power, and what I call a cover-off clause, cover your behind clause. The minister put in a clause saying: Well, if we did something like that you cannot sue us. We are okay, we did it. I have nothing wrong with that either. We did the same type of provision in Abitibi when we did it. If we did something wrong, Abitibi cannot sue us.

It will be interesting in knowing as well, if the minister could give some further detail around the (e.11) piece when it talks about, "respecting restrictions against use or disclosure of information obtained by or on behalf of the minister under this Act and the regulations…" If there is any particular circumstance that has occurred and envisaged that it might occur which would require that type of authority, and particularly the reference to summary conviction.

Under the Criminal Code piece that I am familiar with - we are not talking here about Criminal Code offences, we are talking about a specific regulatory offence. I am sure summary conviction in this case must be defined within the act somewhere that we are talking about here, the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, and what kind of maximum penalties we would be talking about should somebody breach this particular regulation.

I raise that because it is not right here in the particular bill we are dealing with today and I think it would be, I do not know about important, but it would certainly be informative if we had all that information. When we say if somebody disclosed information inappropriately we are going to punish them, yes, and we are saying we are going to punish it by summary conviction, well what does that mean?

The other piece – and I just raise this as a cautionary thing and that is in subsection (2) when the minister talks about this being retroactive. Now, nothing may ever come of this. The companies in the interest of wanting a good, open, transparent, accountable relationship with our government may, as the minister says, having this in and of itself may be deterrence enough and nobody ever gets into a spat. That may well be the case and hopefully that will be the case.

In that retroactivity piece, I am just wondering how responsive the people who signed onto the royalty regimes back years ago are, all of a sudden, going to have a law put upon them that allows this government to go back and do exactly that. For example, we have been in the business since 1997 and there were raw moments, disputes when we did not feel we got our fair shake from these partners that we had in the industry.

Does government envisage that you intend to go back? Are there outstanding disputes, for example, right now over some particular years and the royalties that we have been paid as a Province, and this is a way to get back into those years? Because those disagreements, we will call them, have been protracted for so long, that this might be the hammer that the Province finally needs to bring them to a successful conclusion? If you have been negotiating any outstanding royalty issues, and the minister, I would appreciate it if he could let the people know that, are there years in our oil industry, without getting into commercially sensitive information, for example, we have been at this since 1997, I believe, Hibernia pumped its first oil, are there any particular years still outstanding in this Province that we have not settled up, we will call it, with the oil companies on any particular year on what they were supposed to give us for royalties? I know there were some years ago some outstanding ones. I am wondering if the minister could tell us if there are any still outstanding. You do not even have to get into details even as to who they are with or what amounts you are squabbling about.

I think it would be interesting for the people to know if there are outstanding resolutions, because then that ties into this amendment, this will give the minister another arrow in his quiver to go back to that table, I would think, of an unresolved dispute and say: Whoa, just a minute now, we might have a little piece of ammunition here that we could help resolve this a bit quicker because we want all your books from A, B, and C years, back in 2004, or 2005, or whatever. I am just wondering if the minister could explain that.

Sometimes legislation comes through the House and it looks a bit innocuous. People give it a quick reading and say: An Act To Amend The Petroleum And Natural Gas Act, what does that have to do with us? Potentially, this amendment right here, as innocuous as it may seem if you just read it and did not understand or want to learn about it, could pass under your nose and that is the end of it. This really is going to give our Province a hammer. It is like the guy says when you go to the poker game. You go to the poker game with your best of friends, but your cards are your cards, and the cards speak for themselves. Even though you are going to have great friendly relationships and all that stuff with the Exxons, the Chevrons, and everybody else in the world, it is about protecting your back and it is about protecting the interests and the backs of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian. That is what this is doing here, a way to verify that we are getting a fair shake.

So, I do not have any disagreement, Mr. Speaker, whatsoever with this bill. I think it is well intended. I think the people in the Department of Justice were insightful to think of it and recommend to the minister that it should be brought forward. Not from a disagreement point of view, I make quite clear, it is a case of wanting to understand it more myself what other things were behind it, particularly the retroactivity piece. Very rarely, Mr. Speaker, do you make legislation that is retroactive. In fact, it is shunned upon.

For example, in federal law when it comes to tax laws, I do not think you are even allowed to do it. You cannot make a law to say something today that is going to impact somebody for something that happened yesterday, two days ago or ten years ago. So, retroactivity is shunned when it comes to the legal world, unless there is a very, very valid reason for it.

In fact, my understanding is, and I stand to be corrected and I am sure the Minister of Justice can correct me as well if I am wrong; there have been lots of pieces of legislation where the retroactivity provisions of same have been struck down and ruled not to be valid. I do not know if the minister would have some commentary in that regard as well. I think the biggest hammer probably is in number 2. The hammer in clause 1 here is on a go-forward basis, but you have a massive hammer, a sledge hammer, when it comes to number 2 by making this retroactive.

So, I look forward to hearing the other speakers comment on this issue, Mr. Speaker, and certainly the minister's commentary in second reading when he gets an opportunity to provide some further explanation.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to this bill. I think it is actually a very important bill. It is very short, but the content is very important, and I am really glad that the minister has brought this bill to us.

I think it brings out an important point, though, and that is the difference between something being a regulation and something being in legislation. For anybody who pays attention to the House, I think they will know that I have questioned, on a number of occasions with some of the bills, why some things are being left for regulations and why they are not in the legislation. I think what we are discussing here today is sort of a symbol of why I asked that question because regulations, for me, are things that help things move smoothly, help legislation move smoothly. The things that are in legislation need details about how things move smoothly, and that is what regulations should be about; whereas, something in legislation is something that is of such weight that the legislation makes it legal.

I think it is extremely important that what is now being proposed for legislation, which is giving government the power to make sure that it can protect the interests of the Province with regard to royalty regimes, that that protection is of such importance that it should have legality to it. Putting it in legislation gives it that legality, gives it a weight that is quite different from having it in legislation. I, too, would like to echo the fact and I think it is really good that the Department of Justice picked up on this and were doing their job of due diligence in terms of looking at a piece of legislation from the perspective of whether or not the piece of legislation, with its accompanying regulations, would be able to do what it should do in the interests of the people of the Province.

So, from that perspective, this is a really important piece of legislation. The fact that these things were in regulation before showed that we thought they were important, but now we are showing something much more important: They need to have legs, as it were, they need to have strength, and they need to have legal backing. Of course, going into a property or premise that the minister might authorize, for the sake of inspection or audit, is something which one can say is an invasion of the privacy of the company. In order to protect the people of the Province and the interests of the Province, that kind of inspection should be able to happen. Having it in regulation could mean that, in actual fact, a corporate entity could actually go to court and say: Well, where did they get the power to do this, it is only one of their own regulations that they are following? If it is now something that is going to be passed here in the House, with the power of our Legislature, then it becomes something totally different.

We can even do, as we are doing here in this bill, we can even protect the minister and the government for enacting the legislation itself, for taking actions under the legislation. That is what the third subsection of section 39 is all about. That the minister and persons who are authorized by the minister if they take the actions that the legislation say they can take, they cannot be taken to court legally for doing those actions. Respecting the indemnification of the minister and other persons authorized is extremely important and it points out the strength of having something in legislation.

It does beg the question of whether or not it was just seen by the Department of Justice; one has to ask why did the Department of Justice go looking at this? I, too, have to ask the question, as the Opposition House Leader did: Are there some things going on behind the scenes that made somebody say, you know what, we better give ourselves protection, we better make sure that the things that we think we can do, we actually can do, just in case, down the road? Just in case, down the road usually means that perhaps something is happening that is making somebody say: just in case, down the road. Whether or not there is something happening, I still say it is due diligence that we are putting these regulations now in place as part of the legislation, it is extremely important.

There are a couple of points I want to make about that, I have made my main point and I am not going to keep going for the sake of just doing it, but it seems to me that when it comes to dealing with the corporate sector, or any sector, "everybody in the game" is there and they are protecting their own interests. Just as government has to protect the interests of the people of the Province, corporations are also protecting their interests.

We have all kinds of examples, Mr. Speaker, both in our own Province as well as worldwide, of corporations, in protecting their interests, doing things that a government does not like, that a government has to fight against, doing things that citizens very often do not like and have to fight against, not because the corporations are in and of themselves evil, but because they are there for their own interests. Even when there is an agreement, even when there is a contract, and you know there is a contract, in a sense, between the corporations that come into our Province to benefit from our resources, between them and our governments, there are agreements that are in place and one of those agreements, of course, whether they like it or lump it, is the agreement enshrined, one in our own legislation, whereby they have to pay royalties.

Everybody is going to do whatever they have to, to protect themselves. Corporations are not going to take governments interpretation of something and government is not going to take a corporation's interpretation of something. So, we do have to make sure that everything is nailed down and we do have to make sure that we have the power to protect the interests. That is what this legislation is all about.

We have issues that have happened, for example, in the Province in the offshore with regard to spills, the issue with regard to the Cougar helicopter accident. In cases like that, even those kinds of occurrences can have an effect on a corporation's interpretation of their financial situation and their ability to pay their royalties when they are supposed to pay them, et cetera. I think we have enough things going on to say we need to make sure that we can use the power that is needed to protect the interests of the people of the Province and the Province as a whole, the whole economy of our Province.

Having said that, as I said when I first stood up, I am glad that the minister has brought this legislation to the House and, of course, I will be supporting this piece of legislation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise again this afternoon, this time to speak to Bill 15 which is An Act To Amend The Petroleum And Natural Gas Act. Mr. Speaker, the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act came to be in 1997. It is a very comprehensive piece of legislation; it contains two main parts, forty-eight sections of legislation, and it provides some important direction and guidance for the petroleum and natural gas sector.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the previous speakers for their comments and I am pleased to hear that they will be supporting this bill, as I will. Petroleum exploration, development and production activities in Newfoundland and Labrador's onshore area fall under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. Part II of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act provides the legislative authority to establish royalty regimes for onshore petroleum development in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the Province's offshore area, the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act allows the Province to adopt these same regulations when it comes to setting royalty regimes for offshore developments.

Mr. Speaker, these royalty regimes that we are talking about have applied to the Hibernia Southern Extension, they have applied to Terra Nova, they have applied to White Rose, and they have applied to the Hebron development as well. They are all based on the regulations that are contained in Part II of this act that we are proposing to amend today; however, a number of the provisions that are contained in the Royalty Regulations, 2003, which do not have direct statutory support in the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act , this is something that needs to be addressed. The purpose of these amendments is to provide that support, to ensure that provisions that are already in the regulations actually have full force and effect, as previous speakers have articulated quite well.

Mr. Speaker, these proposed amendments that we are presenting today support and they also clarify the provisions that are included in the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. I think it is important to note, Mr. Speaker, that what we are talking about here are not new powers, these amendments support the provisions that are already included and have been in effect for quite some time. These powers have not had any negative impact on the Province or on industry, Mr. Speaker. These amendments are being undertaken in the best interests of the people of this Province and we absolutely need to ensure as a government that we receive full and fair benefit for the development of our natural resources.

Mr. Speaker, as part of our commitment to the people of this Province, we have become a full equity partner in a number of offshore oil developments: North Amethyst with 5 per cent, the Hibernia South Extension with 10 per cent, and Hebron with 4.9 per cent. Our government's role as equity owners has helped increase awareness within the Province of the real value of the oil and gas industry. It is having a profound impact on our economy and on society throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. I think our role in these projects, having an equity stake, has helped people understand the important role that royalties play when it comes to our financial position as a Province and the significant infrastructure needs that we have as a Province as well.

These amendments that we are proposing today, Mr. Speaker, reflect our government's intent to ensure that the existing regulatory regime addresses the needs of both the Province and the oil and gas industry. These amendments also support our commitments that are outlined in our Energy Plan to review the Province's current regulatory structure that certainly impacts the petroleum industry. These amendments also are part of our ongoing commitment to address other important strategic energy issues. These issues certainly relate to royalty regimes and to the existing regulatory structure that we operate under.

So while we are taking this action, it certainly does not mean that a current operator is acting in an untoward way in the offshore. We believe that this legislation is a necessary tool so that in the unlikely event that we need to investigate further the activities of our operators, that we have the authority and power that we need to do so.

With the proposed amendments, the Province will reinforce the powers of search and seizure. That authority exists for auditing purposes where information for royalty calculations is not being provided or is denied. We absolutely need to ensure compliance by all the proponents that are impacted by the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act.

With these proposed amendments, we are codifying that the Minister of Natural Resources will indeed have access to the courts for a court order that authorizes search and seizure authority when parties are not compliant. Mr. Speaker, these proposed amendments also ensure that the Minister of Natural Resources and employees of our Department of Natural Resources have protection also against personal liability related to duties associated with the carrying out of activities under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act.

So, Mr. Speaker, if I could make a few concluding comments, to summarize, this act again that came into effect in 1997, governance petroleum exploration activities and royalties related to these activities. It relates to onshore activity, not to be confused with the Atlantic Accord which governs offshore.

Part II of the act provides legislative authority to establish the royalty regimes for onshore petroleum and the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act adopts part II and also the regulations extend their application to the offshore area and onshore area for projects in both areas.

Mr. Speaker, we are amending this act to deal with four specific instances that were discovered. In the subsequent drafting of the royalty regulations in 2003 it was recognized that there are provisions arising that were not specifically contemplated in section 39 of the act. We are simply addressing those four instances to ensure that we have the authority and the powers we need to fully provide effective governance and oversight to the industry.

Mr. Speaker, I support Bill 15; these are obviously necessary amendments to the act and I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly an honour and a privilege for me to rise here and speak for a few minutes today on this vital piece of legislation that helps tighten the regulations for this valuable industry for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Since we have been involved with the oil industry our Province has certainly excelled and we are quickly becoming a key player in the global petroleum industry. Development of this sector to our maximum benefit as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is critically important to our government and I am sure as well to all the people of this Province.

Today's legislation strengthens our regulatory regime in the best interest of our long-term future. It harmonizes the act with the regulations and certainly to date we have had excellent relations with the companies in regard to receipt of the regulatory requirements; all efforts to strengthen this will bode us well into the long-term.

These amendments are about improving the accountability of the oil companies and the credibility of our officials to monitor royalty activities. The most important part of all of this is that it guarantees to all of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that we get our just reward for the resources which are owned by the people of our Province.

The proposed amendments, as has been referred to earlier by my colleagues, support and further clarify the provisions that are already included in section 39 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. It is an opportunity now for all of the stakeholders, both industry and government to get in on the same page with reference to proper reporting of royalties and again ensuring that maximum royalty is returned to our people.

As an equity owner in the offshore development, the average Newfoundlander and Labradorian is certainly now very well aware of the royalties that accrue to us from this industry, and we are certainly aware of the benefits that they bring to us. Our citizens see the value in developing a sustainable offshore industry that ensures that every single red penny that we are due, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, is returned to us as a province, so that we can invest it into improving our infrastructure and the various activities we undertake as government. It is through these important documents that are signed by this administration, that we guarantee our fair share in the revenues that are accruing from this sector.

These revenues, as citizens of our Province certainly well know, are crucial towards our ability to build our infrastructure and enhance it. We can look around, and in the last few years since we have realized the revenues from offshore, great benefits in health care, significant investments in education, in road work, all across the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. What we have here in this legislation today is a better policing system that guarantees that we will have the money we need to continue to invest in health care, education, and the roads. Certainly, the wealth that has been afforded to us by this industry, is something unlike we have ever seen in Newfoundland and Labrador, and it is something which we will benefit from for centuries and decades to come.

The money we need for these services and our systems is justifiably obtained now through the amendments in this act, and again, certainly policing is not necessary as I said earlier with respect to the fact that industry has certainly been very cooperative with us, but enables us to make sure that in future, the safeguards are there, that we can access the information as required.

So, I certainly am pleased to stand here today for a few minutes to speak to this bill here in the House of Assembly, and indicate my support for it. As a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, the arrival of the oil industry to our Province has certainly enabled us to become a ‘have' province. I am certainly a proud Newfoundlander and Labradorian, and proud of the efforts our government has made in developing this industry in the most sustainable manner.

So, thank you again, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to passing this bill later.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members who spoke to the bill, the Member for Burgeo & La Poile, Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, Mount Pearl North, and Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune. I appreciate their comments and their interest in the bill.

Like has been said, Mr. Speaker, this bill, I think the Opposition House Leader phrased it as carrying a big stick but speaking softly, and in some ways that is reflective of what it is we are doing here. We are now enshrining in legislation powers that government can have to, as I indicated, do search and seizure; to do audit; to ensure that we are indemnified and cannot be sued; to ensure that there is confidentiality amongst a relationship. All of that, as has been already pointed out by previous speakers, already exists in the regulations; not in the legislation but in the regulations.

What happens, Mr. Speaker, is we do pass legislation here many times and then after that legislation is passed, lots of times we will see regulations come into effect at some later date, and that happened in this case. The legislation was passed and a couple of years later the regulations were defined, after consultation, and brought into effect. Those regulations, from the time of passing the legislation to the enacting of the regulations, put powers into the regulations that were not supported by the legislation.

One of the questions that came from members opposite was: Has something occurred that caused us to go back and review this to make sure that we have the appropriate legislation in place? The answer to that is, quite simply, there is an ongoing review all the time of the legislation that the Province has. There was no one specific incident or one specific thing that happened. It was just a part of a normal review, as I understand it, of the Department of Justice. They were reviewing the regulations, compared them to the powers and authority of the legislation, and recognized there were some discrepancies there and felt that we needed to build up the legislation to ensure that it supported what the regulation said.

The hon. Member for Burgeo & La Poile asked about the powers that we are building into the legislation being in lawful effect for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and he referred his question specifically to the location of the books. When we talk about auditing, we are talking about auditing the books of these companies to ensure that what they are reporting to us is, in fact, accurate; because what they are reporting to us is what we use to determine the royalty calculations. So, obviously, if there is any inaccuracy in what is being reported, then potentially there could be inaccuracy in the royalties that are being paid.

Specifically, Mr. Speaker, usually these royalties are done with an operator, operating on behalf of a consortium of companies. The operators have offices here in the Province, basically in St. John's, as I understand it. Although, I am not 100 per cent sure they are all based in St. John's, but certainly in the Province they are all based. The operator is the person who operates on behalf of the consortium. They keep the books, for lack of a better word, related to costs. So, we do have authority to go into those offices here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador because of the legislation that we are now debating.

In some cases, some of the partners in the consortium may not have offices here in the Province. They may, in fact, be outside the Province. It might be in Alberta, would be a common one. It may be over in Norway, for instance, or the United States. When we need to, we do visit these offices. The operators and the partners in the consortium allow us into these offices to view their books. That has been ongoing, Mr. Speaker, for a number of years. Again, I want to be clear, there has been nothing happen that caused us to want to do this other than the normal review. There has not been an incident where we have not been able to get what we want.

When we have to go to the offices outside the Province, it is done on good faith. The members of the consortium who may have an office in, for instance, Calgary, would allow us to visit their office if we needed to look at information that was there. They give us full and absolute disclosure with the proviso that we keep the information confidential. The information we are looking at, Mr. Speaker, really is private to the companies. It is confidential information that the companies have and it would certainly be commercially sensitive if it were to get out in the public domain. It would create, I would suggest to you, some competitive issues and competitive disadvantages, potentially, for some of these companies.

It is important that we take that view of confidentiality, as is done in other cases. If a Revenue Canada inspector comes into your business, you have to show them everything, but they do that under an oath that they will keep that information confidential for the purposes for which they are looking at it. We do the same.

All the offices here in the Province, we can enter them at any time. We have a great relationship with the operators. While we do have disagreements from time to time, I would not want you feel that there are not disagreements, we certainly do have disagreements from time to time, but when we need extra information to validate something or to confirm something, that information has been readily provided. Based upon the review by the Department of Justice and what was in the regulations that was not enshrined or reflected in the legislation, Justice says we should now change the legislation, amend the legislation to ensure that it is in sync or in harmony with the regulations. That is what we are doing.

There was also a question asked, Mr. Speaker, regarding fines and so on. I believe the question was: With regard to a summary conviction, what is the maximum fine that could be applied if somebody were found guilty of one of the summary convictions as is outlined in the act? The answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is the maximum fine, financially - there are actually two components to it. The maximum fine from a financial perspective is $5,000, but there is also a provision for somebody to be imprisoned, for somebody to be jailed and that could be up to a maximum of twelve months. Again, if the justice who would be hearing the case would agree, then the person could actually incur both. You could incur up to a $5,000 penalty and you could incur as well up to twelve months imprisonment.

In terms of the retroactivity, Mr. Speaker, I want to be, again, very clear. We are not making these legislative amendments retroactive because we have a problem in the past that we want to fix. We have a backlog of work; I will be upfront about that. Our auditing, because of the volume of work, we are catching up but we have made some great strides in the last twelve months. We have put more resources in place and we are catching up on our auditing.

Are we a little bit delayed? Absolutely, but we are not delayed because we cannot get the information, we are delayed just because of volume. We are delayed sometimes because of the amount of information that we have to review, but we have put resources in place for that. From a retroactivity perspective, it was just done to harmonize with the implementation date of the regulations, not because we intend to go back and review something or claw something back or revisit something.

We are quite satisfied as a government with the progress that has been made to date. As a matter of fact, there have been a couple of areas of dispute based upon old information or past years audits that we are now winding up irrespective of what is being done here with the legislation. It is certainly not a situation where we feel we need to make them retroactive to be able to go back and open up something that we feel was not done appropriately the first time.

The companies and the operators have been very forthright we believe. They have provided the kinds of information that we need to make informed decisions. They have provided the information that we need to be able to validate the information they send to us on a monthly basis, on a reporting basis, and we are quite satisfied that the amounts we are getting are accurate.

In some cases we dispute the amounts, I should also say that. We dispute the information that is presented to us. We will allow or not allow certain things because there are certain costs that the operators can apply to the development and exploration work they are doing which will offset some of the royalties that would have to be paid. We challenge that, it is not just a blind faith acceptance. We do, as a department, challenge that and we do sometimes go back and say: you think you could have maybe taken $1 million of expense off, we are only allowing $300,000 of expense, and that other $700,000 is not an eligible expense and it will be calculated as a part of a royalty. So, not everything is agreed to. There are sometimes, as I said, disagreements or different interpretations apply to the data, but the significant point, I believe, is that the data is made available. In the sense of full disclosure, and full openness, and full transparency, we are able to look at the information that we need to look at, and when we look at that information, we able then to make informed decisions as we believe we need to do.

So, Mr. Speaker, I believe I have answered most of what has been asked. We will get an opportunity in Committee if there are some things that I may have not covered or something that I may not have explained well enough; I will do my best in Committee to try to do that.

I will conclude by saying that this is a very important piece of legislation, as has been mentioned by other speakers, it is creating a stick that government can use, if it so wishes to use it. I, again, will highlight for you, though, that we have not had that kind of a relationship with the partners and operators in the offshore industry. It has been very much a good working relationship. Not to say that there have not been disagreements or different interpretations, as I said, but we have been able to keep moving forward and we have been able to settle any grievances or any outstanding issues that we have had. We are doing that today, as I speak, we are still moving forward on things. We are also catching up. I indicated a bit of a backlog, and we are catching up.

I believe things are moving well. I believe that this will only help harmonize the regulations and what they say with the legislative authority that we need to be able to enforce the regulations. We have not been challenged on the regulations, we have not had to do some of the things that we are putting into legislation here, but based upon the best interpretation of the Department of Justice, they feel we should harmonize the legislation relating to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act with the regulations that we have related to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act so that there is no opportunity for misinterpretation, or no opportunity for somebody not to provide information that they should provide to the Province.

So this, Mr. Speaker, is tightening something up, it is reinforcing the authority that the Province has, it is enabling the Province to ensure that the people of the Province are receiving the maximum benefit from the offshore that they should be receiving, and it gives us a level of certainty and a level of confidence that the information that we are using to make decisions is, in fact, the appropriate information.

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'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Petroleum And Natural Gas Act. (Bill 15)

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

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

Now? Tomorrow? Presently?

MS BURKE: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, "An Act To Amend The Petroleum And Natural Gas Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole presently, by leave. (Bill 15)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Order 14, second reading of Bill 19.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000, Bill 19, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 19, An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000, be now read a second time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000". (Bill 19)

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

MR. O'BRIEN: It is a pleasure to rise in this House and address this very important bill, An To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000. Just to give you an overview with regard to what this act governs, it governs, really, the planning and development, and control of development, of municipalities to ensure that development occurs in an orderly and consistent manner. That is essentially what this bill does overall, Mr. Speaker. It really addresses the issues surrounding development, because if you did not have that kind of control over development, then you would have a haphazard approach to any developments across Newfoundland and Labrador and there would be certain things that would not be addressed, such as you could have an industrial development happen in a residential area, and you would not want that; neither one of us would want our houses next to or adjacent to an industrial development, and this prevents that.

Also, it gives adequate provisions within the act, that the provision of core municipal services would be provided, such as roads, water, and sewer, and a proper account has been taken of the issues such as traffic flow and drainage and all those kinds of good things. So, that is essentially what the Urban and Rural Planning Act does in governing and guiding municipalities across Newfoundland and Labrador regarding development and moving their municipalities forward, from a development position.

This act deals with amendments in three areas: the appeal of board membership, delegation of ministerial authority, and also, cost of amendments to protect the roads, local areas, and protected area plans. The regional appeal board membership, right now, under the act, there is no provision given for an appointee of the board, if they were to resign or become sick and no longer be able to perform their duties, to be replaced in an orderly manner; or either to have that particular person, if they were to resign for some reason, to be able to stay in their position; or if their time runs out in regard to their appointment, they would not be able to stay in their appointed position until another appointee could be vetted and found for that particular board. That would be viewed as a gap in the legislation, so there is no smooth transition from one appeal board member to the next member replacing that particular member.

That is a good piece. It is present in some of the other acts in regard to some of the legislation that I governed when I was the Minister of Government Services, and it is also in place in the Financial Services Appeal Act, and the Income Support Appeal Board. So, this really addresses that gap in the transition piece between one appointee of a board to the next.

The other piece is the delegation of ministerial authority. What that authorizes me, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs, to delegate my authority and functions, pursuant to the act, to an employee of the department. This is a piece that is needed regarding the flow of work that goes through Municipal Affairs that has to be addressed in a timely manner, to move things forward for municipalities across Newfoundland and Labrador, and make sure that everything is being addressed and has been addressed in an orderly manner. This gives me the authority to delegate my authority to a particular employee of the department. Just to give you an overview in regard to something that I would consider delegating my authority to an employee to have addressed are duties that would include technical reviews of plans and related documentation.

Also under the act, there is an amendment in clause 1 of the bill, and that addresses the charging of costs related to amending area plans. This would authorize the Minister of Municipal Affairs to charge all costs associated with the amendment of a local protected area or a protected road plan to the person requesting the amendment. Right now, as it sits under the act, the Department of Municipal Affairs absorbs those costs. They can be several thousand dollars in some cases, where a commissioner has to be appointed. There is a lot of work that the commissioner would have to address. Also, there is a public consultation process that has to be addressed as well. So, these kinds of amendments could amount to several thousand dollars, and I think if a person wants to have an amendment, or requests an amendment to the area plan, then that person should be responsible for any costs that are incurred. Sometimes, and a lot of times, it is all around development of an area. A developer may want an amendment to the particular act to address a development. I think they should take that into account when they ask for such an amendment. I also have, under the act, the right to forfeit such costs. That would apply to not-for-profit organizations, such as churches and the like, that may want an amendment for some reason or other to the area plan. I have, and the minister will have the right to forfeit those costs in relation to those types of people.

This is essentially what this act does today, Mr. Speaker. I think it is very important. As I said, the Urban and Rural Planning Act is a very important act. It brings clarity and it brings control to development across Newfoundland and Labrador. To make it work a little bit better in regard to some of the items we have to address on an ongoing basis in Municipal Affairs, I think these particular changes are prudent, and certainly have been addressed and discussed with municipalities across Newfoundland and Labrador, and MNL as well.

So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat in the House and welcome any comments by my colleagues across the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a privilege this afternoon to be able to stand and speak for a few moments to Bill 19, An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Plan Act, 2000.

Just a couple of the things; as the minister has already outlined, there are three changes. Two of them really of insignificant consequences, I suppose. I will probably work through them a little bit backward, if you will.

Section 109.(1), currently the minister may delegate his authority to the Director of Urban and Rural Planning, I believe it is, and this new act allows him to direct that to any person. He has given some explanation as to whom that person would be, and I appreciate that, and under what circumstance he would delegate that responsibility as well.

The one thing that would concern us as an Opposition, in my understanding, is that under the restructuring within the department, the position of Director of Urban and Rural Planning has been eliminated. I am sure that has been a vital position to those involved at a municipality level and so on in terms of looking for direction when it comes to planning their rural areas in particular. For that position to be eliminated would be of a concern for us. I would trust it does not speak to the priority of urban and rural planning by the government. I am not really sure if I understand why the position is eliminated. Some of the responsibility probably that this person could be doing will now be done by some other person which has not been designated in terms of the act but will be designated by the minister. I would appreciate if the minister could speak to that at a later stage when we are in committee or whatever the case might be. That basically is all on that particular section.

In terms of section 41' this section talks about the terms of appointment for a board member being normally from three years, I believe, and being allowed to be reappointed or extended to a five-year term and possibly beyond that as well. I understand that the need when it comes to people on boards, sometimes that can be a difficult thing to get. In some circumstances it may need to be overlapped, I guess, in terms of the appointments, in terms of time. Basically, the only concern there would be that we are actively recruiting board members by the department and that we do not get into a position where people are in positions perhaps longer than is beneficial, which is very easy to happen in any type of board. I believe turnover is good; new blood in a situation is always good and so on.

Section 33 talks about the amendment in terms of cost. It provides that costs respecting the amendment of a local, protected area and, or protected road plan shall be charged to the person requesting the amendment, and to provide for a waiver of these costs by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. The minister explained that as well, and I would just like to make a couple of comments on it, Mr. Speaker.

Currently, we know these associated costs are borne by the Department of Municipal Affairs. In this new legislation, essentially what is happening is this amendment will allow the department to transfer those costs onto the person requesting the amendment to the Urban and Rural Planning Act. He gave us some idea of what that cost could be. I believe the minister said it could be, at times, several thousands of dollars. It is significant. He also noted, of course, that he has the power and the ability in the act to waive that cost in terms of, his example was, non-profit organizations and so on.

What I would be concerned about is at the municipal level. We know there are a lot of municipalities today that are struggling financially. Mr. Speaker, for them to probably be faced with another cost in terms of something that is important, in terms of their planning stages and so on, for them to have to look at probably bearing several thousands of dollars again to get something through that would be important to them, then we would be concerned about that as an Opposition party, obviously.

What I find as I attend the MNL, and as I travel my district to meet with councils and local service districts and so on, we realize that all of these municipalities are operating on very thin budgets. There is not a lot of extra money to go around. As a matter of fact, they are finding it extremely difficult to even balance their budgets, to even be able to offer the essential services to the people of the communities they represent. For this legislation to potentially burden them, and I am not necessarily saying it will, but in the case of them requiring this service, the changes in the act, then this change in legislation will burden them with a cost. If I am wrong on that, then I would ask the minister to clarify that to me when we come to committee stage.

We understand also, that there probably are several requested amendments right now in the department that seem to have gotten bogged down, I suppose, or whatever the case might be. Hopefully, this proposal to the changes in this legislation will help with that process, especially with the minister having the ability to assign some person in the department to move these files through, so to speak. Certainly, from that perspective it would be a good thing. Again, I will ask the minister to clarify, but I trust this change in particular would not be one that is just a matter of a department downloading an expense to a group who probably would be challenged to be able to cover the same.

Mr. Speaker, those are all the comments I will make on this act. It is a fairly straightforward one, and I look forward to the minister's comments in response to the questions that I have outlined at a later time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 19, An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000. It is pretty straightforward. The minister has done a good job of explaining the bill and I thank him for that. I do have a couple of points that I would like to raise. I am glad to see, first of all, that the department has been in touch with Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador and that they approved this. I think actually they moved a resolution at their AGM to this effect, so it is good to know that the municipalities see this as something worthwhile doing and something that they are in favour of.

I will not go and explain everything again because the minister has done it already and my colleague in the Official Opposition has made reference to the details, so I think anybody who is watching us knows the details of this bill. I do note that right now, though, at this moment I think there is a backlog of twelve applications regarding the requesting of amendments to protected road plans. It is my understanding – well it is, it is in the bill – that anything that is on the books at this moment will not be affected by the bill. All those twelve - and I think I am correct in saying that - applications that are on the books, the costs will be covered by the department. Anybody with applications coming in after the passing of the legislation would be affected by the legislation but not anybody who has an application in there at the moment.

I think all of the applications at the moment also are commercial applications, I do not think there are any applications from not-for-profits or that type of organization. It really does not matter because the twelve current applications, no matter who has them in, the costs will be paid for by the department is my understanding. The minister can confirm that but we got that from his officials. I thank the officials, by the way, of his department for giving us a briefing on this piece of legislation.

The question I would like to raise of the minister is with regard to section 31 of the bill, it has to do with the hearings. I understand the reasoning for this and I do understand that it was developers in particular, I think they see this kind of thing as a cost of developing; I think they do not see it as an unreasonable expectation of government. The only concern I have is: What protections will be put in place by the department to make sure that the work that is done, the studies that are done, the consultations, et cetera, are done in an unbiased way and that will be fair to a community itself, to a municipality, and to government? What protections will be there to make sure that everything is done according to Hoyle?

Will there be directions? Will there be regulations for developers to follow, not just what has to be done in terms of having the consultations, et cetera, but with regard to accountability back to government for what they do? Will there be somebody watching what they are doing to make sure that they are not prejudiced in how they are carrying out the procedure, prejudiced in a way that benefits them but is not good for the community? I think that would be something communities would be concerned about.

I am very glad to know – and I am presuming it would be pro forma. The way the bill puts it is in section 33.1(2): "Notwithstanding subsection (1), the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may waive the costs required to be charged by the minister under that subsection." It is "may", which means there is discretion.

When the minister spoke, he spoke, for example, about the possibility of not-for-profit organizations such as churches and I would say there may be others, maybe environmental groups or whatever, that may be looking for the permission to do an amendment to a protected area but certainly would not have the money to put into the process that would have to be followed. Would it be pro forma if it is a not-for-profit group, for example, that it would be automatic and that they would not have to pay, or will they have to prove that they cannot do it? It would seem to me that it would be good to know that if you are a not-for-profit that it would be automatic. I would like the minister to speak a little bit more to that point.

The land use planning section of the act reviews municipal plans and development regulations. It partners with municipalities to develop regional plans. It also delivers training and planning support to councils. I think that is all a very important part of the department, but I want to use this opportunity, since we are speaking about land use of both protected areas and other land use, we still need a provincial land use plan. I do not know where that is on government's agenda at the moment. I think we have a lot of protected areas and a land use plan would be something that would give some direction for further usage. That is really important. We need, I think, better guidelines with regard to the use to the protected areas.

So, I would like to think that government is on the road to coming up with a provincial land use plan. We have heritage areas, we have traditional rights-of-way, different paths, et cetera, and we have the protected areas for environmental reasons. So, what is our overall plan? I do not know if the minister can speak to that, but I would be interested in hearing what is happening at the moment with regard to our provincial land use plan.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I think I have raised the points I want to raise. Of course, I will be supporting the bill. I look forward to hearing the remarks by the minister.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs speaks now, he will close the debate on second reading of Bill 19.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am happy again to take my place in the House and address some of the issues that were raised by my hon. colleagues across the House. I will try to do so as quickly as I possibly can and, hopefully, I am clear enough to explain.

The first one is in regard to the delegation of ministerial authority. That ministerial authority will be delegated to, say, the Director of Engineering. Back when the organization happened some years ago, the reason why the Director of Urban and Rural Planning position was actually eliminated was because we created two regional directors out in their regions, one in Western and one in Central, and then we had one in headquarters. Then, engineering reporting to the headquarters became a lot less than they used to be before because all of them used to come into this department and into the Director of Engineering at the time. So, then we could actually incorporate the duties of the Director of Urban and Rural Planning to the regional director. That is the reason why it was eliminated.

I hope that explains it. It works quite well, but in the meantime if there is an issue in regard to that, we will certainly address that internally and make sure things happen in an orderly fashion. That is what this is all about.

The other question, I believe, was in regard to downloading to municipalities. Well, municipalities would not actually request an amendment to the rural and urban plan; it would actually be developers or someone who wants to build outside of the municipal plan. Right now, under the municipal plan, they can charge the cost of any amendments to the municipal plan to anybody requesting an amendment right now. So, really there is no downloading to that effect with regard to municipalities. We are cognizant of that.

Yes, I want to confirm that the twelve outstanding requests will – the costs, all costs will be taken care of by Municipal Affairs. Also, I think there was a question, I cannot remember exactly what the question was, but you must remember, I think there was, you wanted to make sure everybody was protected in the process. If I could say this, any requests that are made for amendments to the plan will be made in conjunction with the municipalities, with the developers, then it would go to our engineering group and go through a process of protecting there. We would not want any type of development out there that would cost, there would be undue costs to the municipality or outside their own plans, their own regional plans. So we would work in conjunction with the municipality very closely to make sure that there is no undue costs or is outside their plans, or whatever it may be, that it is addressed in the process. I hope that clarifies that to a certain degree, or I can go to Committee stage and clarify it further.

I believe, the land use plan itself, regarding provincial, that crosses many departments. We work in conjunction with each other in any requests for land use across Newfoundland and Labrador. So, we are working together on any uses for land in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is really the plan that we have, and there is a protocol in place for addressing all those issues.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat in the House and certainly welcome any other questions that might come in Committee stage, and I thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 19 be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000. (Bill 19)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 19 has now been read a second time. When shall the said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole on tomorrow. (Bill 19)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, that this House do now adjourn.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

This House now stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow, being Monday.

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