May 17, 2011                           HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS               Vol. XLVI  No. 26


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the Chair would like to welcome some special guests. First, the members of the Cystic Fibrosis Canada Chapter: Chapter President, Betty Sheppard; former National President, Mr. Phil Wall; Chapter members, Joan Monk, John Bennett, and Bernadette Nolan.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would also like to welcome three classes of Grade 3 students from St. Matthew's Elementary from the District of St. John's West. The students are accompanied by their teachers Mme Regular, Mrs. Bishop, Ms Ryan and a number of chaperones.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard; the hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands; the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's North; and the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

The hon. the Member for the District of the Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize Mrs. Hilda Bellows of Summerside in the beautiful District of Bay of Islands.

Mr. Speaker, April 10-16 has been marked as National Volunteer Week of Canada and the Canadian 4-H Council announced seven recipients of the 2010 Co-operators/4-H National Volunteer Leader of the Year Award.

Mr. Speaker, Hilda was one of these recipients who have been selected and the first leader ever to receive this award for Newfoundland and Labrador. She is presently co-ordinator and project leader for the Summerside Rockets 4-H Club, the largest and longest running 4-H club in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, Hilda also won the Leader of the Year Award for Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Council.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Bellows has provided twenty years of leadership within the club and plays a very important role in member recruitment and ensuring the 4-H members are actively involved in the community.

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian 4-H Council recognizes all 8,000 of their volunteers who help more than 26,000 youth "Learn to Do by Doing".

Mr. Speaker, Hilda Bellows is a great example of a dedicated and committed 4-H leader and I ask all members here today to show our appreciation for the unselfish time she provides to the children and youth of Summerside and surrounding communities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, May is Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month and it is a disease that affects the lungs. It is the most common fatal genetic disease that attacks children and young adults. It is a disease for which unfortunately now there is no cure at present and each week in Canada two children are diagnosed with Cystic Fibrosis and one person dies from the disease.

Cystic Fibrosis Canada is a national health charity with over fifty volunteer chapters and, especially during the month of May, will be organizing many activities and events to raise awareness and funds in support of vital Cystic Fibrosis research and care.

In speaking about Cystic Fibrosis, Mr. Speaker, as a life member of Kinsmen, I would be remiss if I did not mention the tremendous support that Kinsmen and Kinettes have given to Cystic Fibrosis Canada. Since 1964, Kin Canada has raised more than $35 million for Cystic Fibrosis research and treatment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in commending the work of CF Canada and Kin Canada for their efforts in trying to find a cure for this terrible disease.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the Mount Pearl Youth Action Team. This youth group works together for the betterment of all young people in Mount Pearl. They have been active for several years and they are truly a voice for youth in our community.

The Mount Pearl Youth Action Team is very busy this week because it is Youth Week in the City of Mount Pearl. It runs from May 15 to May 21. Some of the events and activities during Youth Week include the annual focus on youth awards, several public forums, a youth concert and a youth debate – which the Member for Mount Pearl South and I had the privilege of judging last night – and lots of other fun engaging activities. I encourage all youth to get out and enjoy the events and activities that will be ongoing during Youth Week.

The Mount Pearl Youth Action Team also gets involved in volunteering in the community, participating in food drives and helping with the Mount Pearl Citizens Crime Prevention Committee. They will be partnering this spring with the City of Mount Pearl to help clean up the Waterford River.

There are lots of good things happening with youth and I feel that it is important to recognize those who are involved in making a difference in our community.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the Mount Pearl Youth Action Team on the work they have been doing and wish them all the best during Youth Week 2011.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and 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 the recipients of the 2011 URock Volunteer Awards. This past Saturday night we had an amazing awards gala where we were delighted to have our Premier, the hon. Kathy Dunderdale, present the eight deserving recipients with their awards. Like last year, Mr. Speaker, the 2011 winners blew us away with what they have accomplished and the work they have done, not only in this Province but around the world.

The URock Volunteer Awards were developed to acknowledge the unique and creative ways young people are volunteering. Nominations may be made in two categories: individuals and organizations or non-profits. Individual nominees must have made outstanding voluntary contributions, be thirty years of age or under, a current or past resident of Newfoundland and Labrador. Organizations or non-profit groups must be led by young people and have made an outstanding contribution.

Mr. Speaker, the work of all these nominees was truly exceptional. Their stories were remarkable, they all made an impact on their communities, their Province, their country and the world. They are inspirational and examples of the kind of positive change that can be made with leadership, dedication, compassion and hard work.

Mr. Speaker, based on the calibre of all the young people who are nominated, and especially those who received the award this year, I have every confidence that the future of volunteer and non-profit sector in this Province is in good hands.

I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the recipients of the 2011 URock Volunteer Awards: Bishops College Youth Action Committee of St. John's; Bridgette Abbott, Musgrave Harbour; Juliette Dupre, St. Lawrence; Jonathon Earle, Red Bay; Corey Hudson, Norman's Cove-Long Cove; Liam Kelly, Paradise; Kara Snow, St. Anthony; and Courtney Young, Port Saunders.

Mr. Speaker, each recipient received a custom-designed electric guitar and were treated to performances from some of the Province's top musical acts. The talented Jonny Harris hosted the event and the amazing Holy Heart of Mary Intercultural Choir opened the show. It was a night that they will always remember.

I would like to thank those who took the time to nominate these outstanding young people in our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and also those who came out Saturday night to support them. Mr. Speaker, the URock Volunteer Award winners are leaders in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and I hope that by recognizing their amazing work, other young people will be encouraged to get involved in their communities and non-profit organizations and prove they too "rock".

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. We also would love to extend our congratulations to these recipients as well. It is good to see that they are from all across the Province, from far and wide, here in the capital city region but, of course, up in Labrador and the Northern Peninsula as well. That is great to see, and it is great to see that they are being recognized. When you have youth giving of their time and volunteering for their communities and the organizations in their communities, it is certainly good to see that government would indeed acknowledge and recognize them.

These young people who are volunteers today, of course, are going to be the backbone of our communities in our Province as the years go on. So, we would certainly like to extend our congratulations to them as well. It is also very positive when you see young people volunteering. Normally if you get involved in volunteerism at such a young age, you tend to stay involved in your adult life as well.

I think we are in very good hands. It was great to see they were acknowledged and recognized. We would certainly extend our congratulations to them as well.

Thank you, 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.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I am very happy to join with him and the Opposition House Leader in congratulating the winners, but in congratulating all of the youth in the Province who are doing volunteer work. Obviously, these winners were recognized by the organizations they work with because they were nominated. It is good that we do pick out those who stand out, but they are representative of a large group, as pointed out by the Opposition House Leader, right around the Province. It is good to see that the eight winners are from everywhere in the Province, Mr. Speaker.

We do not move forward without our young people. Everything that we can do to encourage them, both in the volunteer sector and every other way, is only good for our whole society here, the whole community, Newfoundland and Labrador. So, it is good that the government does take the time to have this event and to recognize the volunteers. I am sure that, as years go on, we are going to see these eight young people in many other ways operative in leadership in our Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to highlight the provincial government's newly-designed tourism Web site. We needed to update our Web site to keep up with the new designs and technologies, and to ensure we continue to meet the demands of visitors to Newfoundland and Labrador.

I am pleased to say NewfoundlandLabrador.com is getting a very positive response. In fact, at the Canadian e-Tourism Awards, held in March, the site was named best Web site out of fifteen nominations from across the country including Banff Lake Louise Tourism, Travel Alberta, Tourism Quebec, and Tourism and Parks New Brunswick. The Web site received the top score of ten from the judges in all the required criteria. Carol Alderdice, Chair of the Canadian e-Tourism Awards Council was quoted as saying, "You deserve it … you won this one hands down."

Mr. Speaker, the intention of the tourism Web site is to communicate timely information about the Province as a vacation destination and to increase the value of the Web site as a trip-planning tool. The site offers engaging content, a rich media experience, and motivation to travel off the beaten path in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Over the past number of years, the marketing of our Province has been absolutely incredible, highlighting the unique aspects of Newfoundland and Labrador and attracting potential visitors from throughout the world. Whether in print, on-line, or on television, our efforts have proven successful in making Newfoundland and Labrador a travel destination of choice.

With this recent acknowledgement from Canadian e-Tourism Awards, it is clear our innovative marketing efforts continue to pay off.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Actually, I have had an opportunity to visit the site and indeed refer it to some friends of mine who are outside planning a trip here and wanted to know what they could see in the Province. It is a great tool if you are going to be designing where you can go and what you can see in this Province. That is probably the first thing anybody who intends to travel does today anyway. You find out where you would like to go, and then you find out what is happening there and what you can see while you are there. As a promotional tool, this site is truly second to none in this Province in showing off our Province.

There is no doubt that in tourism there are some minor concerns, or major, I guess, in how you look at them. The minister is well aware, of course, that not only do you design your trip to get here, but what kind of experience are you going to have once you get here. Issues like Marine Atlantic, the TODS program, and rental car availability and so on these are all issues that need to be resolved positively. The minister was quite frank and upfront about this in the Estimates this past week. It is good to see that he is getting his head around those things and making sure that these irritants to someone's travel will indeed be worked on.

We are a world-class destination; it is nice to be sure that when you get here you have a world-class experience. It is great to see that this is another promotional tool in doing that.

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 his statement. It is great to see that our tourism efforts are continuing to be recognized with awards. I have not looked at the new Web site yet this year, but I am really encouraged now to go ahead and do so. I certainly remember our site from last year and, obviously, it is nothing but better this year, as the award attests.

Anything that makes our beautiful Province more accessible to tourists is good news. I agree with the Opposition House Leader, we have to make sure that when tourists get here, we have everything here to make their holiday a good experience. I do encourage the minister to work with the industry to make sure that there are an adequate number of rental cars available and that they are affordable as compared to other provinces. I notice lately there are a lot of Nova Scotia licensed rental cars in the city, so the companies do seem to be bringing in cars from outside to make sure there are cars here.

Also, Mr. Speaker, with the enormous amount of summer theatre in our Province, which gets promoted by the minister's department, I encourage government to continue to invest more money into the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council. I know we have extra money in this year's Budget, but I think we need even more than that as time goes on. We must ensure that we are producing professional grade theatre in all of our communities. As we develop the culture of tourism, we have to put the money there for those in the industry to make sure they can deliver.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this week a man in Western Newfoundland was sentenced to three years in prison for molesting and assaulting two small children. The convicted man had access to these two children because his wife was caring for the children in their home.

I ask the minister today: In light of this incident, can she outline for me what provisions may be in place to protect children who are being cared for in unlicensed family homes?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the protection of our children is the utmost important thing to this government and to the people of this Province. Mr. Speaker, nobody wants to see any harm done to our children.

Mr. Speaker, in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services we monitor and we regulate regulated family child care homes and in-child care settings. As part of that, there are procedures and policies that need to be met; standards that need to be met, and we are in there on a monthly basis, Mr. Speaker.

The reality is in this Province, there are unregulated spaces. We always encourage people to become regulated, not to say that all unregulated spaces are not safe because there are some that are very much safe, Mr. Speaker. Having said all that, Mr. Speaker, it is important that as a parent we are very comfortable and we feel comfortable where we leave our children. There are certain pertinent questions that we can ask, that I will get to next.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a precedent has been set both nationally and internationally for informal child care. Many areas are now requiring registration for informal style child care in their own home. Even in places such as Manitoba today, where it is not required, they have set up a voluntary license program and this includes having background checks for the child care provider.

I ask the minister today if she is open to examining that kind of a program for voluntary licensing which would give parents in this Province an option to find informal care that provides additional safeguards to protect their children.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member opposite would know, I think anybody can ask for a Certificate of Conduct or a police check. Certainly, as parents you want to make sure that the setting you are leaving your child in is a safe one from a health perspective, from an educational perspective, in terms of the meals that are provided. There are certain things parents can do in terms of asking for a Certificate of Conduct, for not only the person who is providing care for the child, but anybody who is over sixteen in that home, Mr. Speaker.

There is a balance that we have to strike in terms of regulating homes where there are more than four children or more than three infants. Mr. Speaker, we have to strike the right balance for public safety because there are people who do leave their children with their grandmothers, and I am sure in those settings they are very comfortable, or a family member, then in that case if they are comfortable, Mr. Speaker, we do not want to over regulate either.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am somewhat disappointed that the minister would not be open to examining the program and looking at it for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I asked the Minister of Natural Resources in the House of Assembly some questions regarding Muskrat Falls. He said that when Muskrat Falls is built, the annual increase in the cost of electricity from the project will be less than 1 per cent. However, in a written submission by Nalcor to the joint review panel, they insist that the increase will be at least 2 per cent a year, which is what power rates have been going up in the Province, on an average, for the past six years. That is double, minister, what you said the costs and increases would be annually, yesterday.

I presume you read the same report, and I ask you why you would have provided that information to the House?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in this House, we have done a fair bit of analysis regarding the rates that have occurred over the last ten years and what the projections are for the coming six to seven years. The best information that we have available indicates that the rates have been and will continue to increase as we move forward into the future. After 2017, they are projected to rise somewhere between 4 per cent and 6 per cent per annum. The information that we have indicates that with Muskrat Falls, after 2017, rates will rise less than 1 per cent per year, Mr. Speaker.

If there is any information that has been provided through the environmental assessment panel that may be able to provide further review by us as a government, we will certainly take that into consideration, but the information we have today, Mr. Speaker, indicates that rates will rise by less than 1 per cent per year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister can check the report; it was a submission to the joint review panel. It was submitted by Nalcor Energy and it outlines that the rate of increase would be at about 2 per cent a year.

Premier, neither one of your ministers would tell the people of the Province yesterday how much Emera Energy is going to make selling Muskrat Falls power to the Island. According to the Minister of Finance, Nalcor will earn $500 million a year in profit from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I am asking today: How much will the profit be for Emera Energy, that is going to own 29 per cent of our transmission sales in the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we will go back to basics again. Emera Energy will own $1.2 billion worth of electricity being generated out of Muskrat Falls, which they will use in Nova Scotia to replace coal-fired generation. They have made an additional investment of $600 million into transmission infrastructure here in the Province for which they will get an 8.38 per cent return – regulated return by the PUB.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has referred to that as a gouging of ratepayers here in the Province. That 8.38 per cent will be paid either to Emera, to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, or to Newfoundland Power; that is a regulated activity, the transmission of power here in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we know now is that Emera Energy – not only will Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have to pay the highest cost for electricity, not only will people in the Maritimes get it cheaper than we will, but we are also going to have a private corporation out of Nova Scotia that is going to tack on another percentage to us for transmission in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday it was reported in the media that Muskrat Falls would be exempt from scrutiny by the Province's utility board. I ask the Premier today, if you can explain to us when this exemption was granted and why is it that you did not allude to it in the House of Assembly?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, first of all let me begin by correcting a statement that the Leader of the Opposition made in her preamble. Mr. Speaker, we are not tacking on an 8.38 per cent to rates in this Province. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians pay that right now. They pay it to whoever owns the transmission, currently owned in this Province by either Newfoundland Power or Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, Emera is going to make an investment in transmission infrastructure here and they will get the same rate of return as the other two utilities. Emera is investing in Newfoundland and Labrador. They have become a Newfoundland and Labrador company as well, Mr. Speaker, and that is a very good thing.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the exemption; the exemption legislation for the Lower Churchill was passed in this House of Assembly by your government in 1999, exempting Lower Churchill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the Premier that Emera Energy is in Newfoundland and Labrador today because they are getting free power to take to Nova Scotia, they are getting 29 per cent ownership in the transmission capacity of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Premier, if they were not here that 9 per cent you are saying would be going to Nalcor or going to someone else.

Why don't you tell us what the dollar figure is going to be, what the take-home pay is going to be, for Emera corporation at the end of the day from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have to work hard to earn money to pay double the rates that you are going to charge them for Muskrat Falls?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I try to keep going back to the basics of electricity generation in this Province. She is comparing apples to oranges, Mr. Speaker. What is happening in terms of the development of the Lower Churchill does not have anything to do with transmission infrastructure. Transmission infrastructure has to be built and paid for by utilities here in this Province, Mr. Speaker. Currently, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro does so, as does Newfoundland Power. They, as a result of regulatory oversight by the PUB, are given a rate of return. For the $600 million investment that Emera will make in transmission infrastructure building transmission infrastructure to carry our electricity through this Province they will get an 8.38 per cent return on that investment. Do the math.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let's get back to the exemption for a minute now. Now that we have cleared up some of this and we know that Emera is going to make a fine chunk of change off the people of Newfoundland and Labrador – we are going to pay double the rates, Emera is going to walk away with a profit again – let's talk about the exemption.

On five occasions in the House of Assembly, Premier, you stood and said that this particular deal on Muskrat Falls would have to go through full scrutiny of the Public Utilities Board to determine if it was the most cost-effective energy to be provided to the people of the Province.

Can you tell me today that is still the case and that the Public Utilities Board will have full scrutiny of this deal to determine if it is the best cost of electricity for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, but let me also say to that, Mr. Speaker, it was their government that brought in the legislation that allowed for an exemption. It was their government that exempted the Lower Churchill proposed project of Premier Grimes and at least two of the people opposite to have an exemption from regulatory review.

MS JONES: Wrong again.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Not wrong again.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: An Order in Council signed by –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, an Order in Council exempted the Lower Churchill. You are wrong again on every account and we can produce it.

Mr. Speaker, not only did they exempt the Lower Churchill, they have exempted every hydro project that has occurred in this Province since regulation began in 1995; another case of not do what I do, do as I say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are into all the ‘Dundernomics' again today and all of the confusing statements, Mr. Speaker, and all of the non-answers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Let me say it to you this way: It might have been another Administration that changed the legislation so that every project could get due consideration and you know that, Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: You also know that it is up to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council and it is up to you to decide as to whether Muskrat Falls is exempt from the Public Utilities Board or not.

Now, you have said on five occasions in the House of Assembly, I have all of the transcripts here, that it would be required. It would go through a full Public Utilities Board review and that the information, Mr. Speaker, would be provided to the public.

I ask the Premier today: Will it go through a full review of the Public Utilities Board? When will it happen? Will there be public hearings held right throughout the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, not only in 1999 did they bring in the legislation allowing for an exemption; in 2000, they produced an Order-in-Council that exempted the Lower Churchill from review by the PUB, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, their then minister –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Opposition House Leader for his co-operation. Continuing to interrupt there is clearly against the rules and the regulations of our Standing Orders.

For the last time today, I refer to the hon. member. It has happened in the past. It is not going to continue to happen.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, their then Minister of Mines and Energy, and later their Leader and Premier, talked in the debate about the lowest-cost project not always being the best option for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, a different point of view again that you supported in 2000 and changed your tune today.

Yes, there will be a review by the PUB. We will have the PUB consider whether this is the lowest cost option.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The legislation, the Premier knows and she is being cute with words, is only there so that every project gets consideration. It has nothing to do with your Muskrat Falls Project. That is your decision. You cannot compare apples and oranges, I say to you, Premier, and that is exactly what you are doing today.

Now, will you tell the people of the Province how the Public Utilities Board review is going to be conducted? Will it be public hearings across the Province? Will intervener status be provided? What is the time frame for having it completed? Will it be done before the agreement you have signed runs out, or will the agreement be postponed until the Public Utility Board hearings are completed?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, not only did they not want the PUB to review the Lower Churchill Project, they did not tell even the Board of Directors of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro about the details of their deal.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have made information available to the people of this Province all over the Province, in Labrador and from coast to coast to coast to coast on the Island. We have given a number of briefings to the members of the Opposition. We are holding open houses. We put the information up on our Web sites. Mr. Speaker, we are going to a full arm's-length consultants review on whether this is the least cost project that will be made available to the people of the Province mid-summer and, Mr. Speaker, we are asking the PUB the same question and the process that they will use to determine that, Mr. Speaker, is still under discussion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We all know that Nalcor has the doors nailed shut and you made sure it happened, Premier. They are not subject to the Auditor General. They are not subject to the Freedom of Information. They are not subject to the Public Tender Act. The only way the public can actually see what is happening with Muskrat Falls and whether it is the lowest cost provider of energy in the Province is through a public hearing process and through the Public Utilities Board or a full audit by the Auditor General.

I ask you today, Premier - it is your game, it is your authority to make the decision - are you prepared to launch public hearings, provide intervener's status on Muskrat Falls so that the Public Utilities Board can go out and do a full review of this project in the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, do not do as we did, do as we say. Mr. Speaker, they did not want anybody to know about their project. They provided no information to anybody, Mr. Speaker. We have provided information to everybody, everybody who has asked. Mr. Speaker, we are going to third party arm's-length consultants to do a review on whether or not this is the least cost project for meeting energy needs here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have engaged the PUB to review and to determine whether that is the case as well and make that information available to the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker. We have been open, we have been transparent, and we have been accountable. Something they knew nothing about when they were trying to develop the Lower Churchill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is nothing open, there is nothing accountable, and there is nothing transparent, about having a deal that you do not want the Auditor General to touch, that you do not want to have subject to public tendering, that you do not want to have out there under freedom of information. There is nothing open and accountable to that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: I say to you, Premier, open it up. Let the people of the Province see what this deal is really about. Let them see why you want them to pay twice as much for electricity in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask you today: Open it up, put it out there, and let the Public Utilities Board do its job.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know from where she gets her information. Nalcor has just concluded a series of open houses right across this Province, that have been attended by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and all of their questions have been answered. When each of the people who came and participated in those open houses was leaving, they were asked to do an evaluation on the information they had received. Ninety-eight per cent of those evaluations say timely and good information was provided and all of their questions were answered.

Now, I do not know where you are getting your information, but the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are getting it from Nalcor, Mr. Speaker, and they are happy with the information that is being provided.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Some years ago this government commissioned one Mr. Bill Marshall to complete a review of the inland fish and wildlife program; I believe that was in 2005. A draft copy of the report was submitted, supposedly, to government with a final report to be imminent; however, various ministers have stated in this House over the years that the report has not yet been completed. We have heard a lot of comments in the public and in this House in the past few weeks about what is happening with the inland fish and wildlife program.

I ask the minister - we have been waiting five years now for this report to be released - where is it and when can we see it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, transferring the wildlife enforcement division out of the Department of Natural Resources to the Department of Justice was a natural fit because it is an enforcement component and naturally fits under the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice is a tremendous resource for expertise, support, training and so on. I would say this is an enforcement component and moving it to the Department of Justice was a proper fit.

Deliberations on that initiative have been ongoing for some time. Yes, during that negotiation we did receive the recommendations of Justice Marshall. We are still considering them. There is a lot of sensitive information in there about human resources. So with regard to releasing the report, Mr. Speaker, we are still considering the recommendations at this point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Maybe the minister can just give us a straight answer: When did you receive your report and when is it going to be public? Your government is on record as saying that any report done will be released within thirty days. Now, we are five years into this.

When did you get it? What was in it? When are we going to see what was in it, so we can verify whether the changes you have made when it comes to the wildlife program are indeed justified?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, we received the report from Justice Marshall some time in late fall 2010. I am not sure of the exact date. In November or December, I think it was. I would have to check my notes on that.

With respect to the report, Mr. Speaker, because of the merger of wildlife and inland fish at this point in time and the transition that is going, we are still considering the report in that context. We will release the report or the information from the report in a timely fashion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, last month the government moved thirty-seven fish and wildlife officers from the Department of Natural Resources to the Department of Justice.

I ask the minister: On whose advice and under what study was that done? What is the justification for having done such? Was that the Marshall report?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, government is always analyzing and considering its departments and its duties, and always making arrangements to better serve the public of Newfoundland and Labrador. Deliberations on the combination of wildlife and enforcement have been ongoing for some time. It has been the general discussion between both departments. It had nothing to do whatsoever with Justice Marshall's report. It is just that Justice Marshall's report was received during the deliberations.

Mr. Speaker, it is a natural fit to make this merger, and that was the general consensus of both departments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a very serious public issue. In fact, it is an issue of public safety.

For instance, the eighty-one conservation officers who are left in Natural Resources are no longer allowed to deal with nuisance wildlife. That job now falls solely on the thirty-seven officers who are in Justice. The problem is that 120 officers had a hard time handling the workload of nuisance wildlife, but the government just cut that crew to thirty-seven people.

I ask the minister: Given all the problems we have with nuisance wildlife, especially moose on our highways and roads, why would you cut that staff by 70 per cent?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member is getting his figures. Thirty-seven positions were transferred from Natural Resources to Justice and in line with the forty-odd position that we already had. We have a total, I think, of eighty-eight positions in wildlife and enforcement. The duties of road kill and dealing with wildlife in that sense have been transferred and come with those people. The same people who are looking after the road kill and nuisance animals are still with us and still doing the same job. The telephone numbers are the same that people can call; nothing has changed, 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, on May 11 the Phase II report from the Voisey's Bay Industrial Inquiry Commission was released to the public. The previous Administration said it was committed to ensuring that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador receive maximum benefit of our Province's resources. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that policy has often not extended to the men and women who actually do the work. Sadly, our workers have suffered at the expense of Vale.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment will he commit to take steps to ensure that workers in this Province have their rights protected and can fight from a level playing field when striking against a powerful multi-national corporation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows full well that we have lots of interest in protecting workers' rights. We bring in different types of legislation every year here to accomplish just that.

As I said to the member yesterday, it was our government that took the position of calling for the industrial inquiry because of the concerns that we have. The member also ought to recognize that it is not government's role to be in the middle of employer-employee negotiations. The fact of the matter is we solicited the report because we felt we needed to hear from an independent party about why exactly negotiations were not moving forward to the degree that they out to have, in the interest of both parties, and we wanted some recommendations for consideration as to how we might change things for the future.

We received the report, as I have acknowledged in this House on any number of occasions, and we are going to be prepared to consider the report, as I have said very clearly on a number of occasions. I am not prepared to stand here today and say that we accept nor reject any of the recommendations. We are taking them under consideration.

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 point out to the minister that there is a tripartite committee of government labour relations and unions to deal with labour relations, so that is the place where he should be dealing with this report.

Mr. Speaker, much of our oil and mineral resources are today being extracted and used by foreign multinational companies that are invited into our Province to share in our resource wealth. We have seen these giant companies using their considerable resources to wear down the rights of workers in this Province, and Vale is only one example.

Will government commit itself, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, to protect the processes and the values of collective bargaining that are being eroded by these multinational companies?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite aware of the tripartite committee. We had a discussion about it in Estimates this morning and the members in this House would recollect that it was in this sitting of the House that I brought forward legislation for our government that came as a result of the work of that tripartite committee. During the presentation of that legislation, Mr. Speaker, I talked about our government's commitment to work with that committee, to work in the interest of workers and to make sure that we pay particular attention to items in legislation that ought to be revised, revisited and adjusted from time to time, Mr. Speaker. I need not repeat our commitment to that. I understand the full nature of that.

The purpose of the Voisey's Bay industrial inquiry was to provide an investigation for us into what had taken part, to seek input from both parties as to why negotiations had stalled for so long. Why would they not find any simple resolution, Mr. Speaker, and, more importantly, to offer for consideration to us recommendations that the independent inquiry felt might facilitate a better working environment in the future, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

All I am saying to the minister is he has the tripartite committee. That is where the labour relations discussions should happen. They ordered the review, they have it. Now bring it to the correct table to have the discussion.

Mr. Speaker, the undertaking order for the Voisey's Bay nickel project called for a broad range of biophysical and socioeconomic monitoring programs to look at the impacts and benefits agreements and examine the effects in Labrador, especially on the north coast of the Voisey's Bay mine. Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing to read in the report that the project has not yet delivered what these communities expected in terms of higher status jobs and cultural respect in the workplace.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: What is he doing to ensure that Vale is following up on these monitoring programs for the benefits of the Innu Nation, the Nunatsiavut Government, and especially the North Coast of Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, I find it frustrating sometimes trying to follow the line of thinking of some members opposite in their questioning. Yesterday, the member opposite asked me a question about the report from the Voisey's Bay inquiry. I said very clearly that I want to take some time to process what is in the report and to listen to points of view from the public. The member opposite, Mr. Speaker, criticized me for wanting to hear what the public had to say, suggesting that consultation time was over and it is time for government to make a decision.

Now, that was yesterday, Mr. Speaker. Today the member is saying, take the report from the minister in government and give it to a committee and let them consult further. So, Mr. Speaker, my question for the member opposite is, what is it you want from this process? Do you want me to take time to assess the report like it ought to be done and hear what people have to say, or do you not want that, Mr. Speaker, because I am hearing very mixed messages across (inaudible)?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The Chair is always reluctant to interrupt during Question Period since we allot a specific time. There has been language used in the last two days in Question Period by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition which is clearly unparliamentary when she references a certain type of economics and references a member's name describing that process.

I ask the hon. member, that in the future if she would be kind enough not to be using unparliamentary language and reference her questions in a different way.

MS JONES: What word did I use?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition cares to speak with me in a private setting to explain what I have just brought forward then I would certainly be glad to meet with her.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Just with respect to that way, in using persons names inappropriately and so on considered unparliamentary, it is certainly insensitive in doing so. I would just point out that both members of the House have done that. The Member for Lake Melville constantly mispronounces the name of Mr. Danny Dumaresque. All I am saying is, what happens to one should happen to both.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

On both sides of the House, members should be sensitive to the language they use. Our parliamentary language has been clearly stated here that members who sit in the House of Assembly should not be referenced by their given names. It should be either by the executive position that they hold or by the district that they represent.

Other members may have used that in the past. While we sometimes reference people who are not here, by their names, the Speaker has problems with that as well. Is it fair to go and talk about people who sat in this House before, or others who are not here to defend themselves? It is clearly unparliamentary to reference people who presently sit in this Assembly while we are carrying on debate in this Assembly.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Social Services Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have passed, without amendment, the Estimates of the following departments: the Department of Municipal Affairs; the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services; the Department of Justice; the Department of Health and Community Services; the Department of Education; the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment; and, as well, the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

As Chair of the Committee, I would like to pass on thank you to the Committee members for their participation: the Member for The Straits & White Bay North; the Member for Port de Grave; the Member for Port au Port; the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the Member for Cape St. Francis; the Member for St. John's North; and the Member for St. Barbe.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit the report.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further reports by standing and select committees?

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

MR. JACKMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table some information that was requested by the Opposition yesterday around minimum species maintenance requirements.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to table the annual report of the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities on operations carried out under the Automobile Insurance Act for the period April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

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

I would like to enter again, for the ninth time I believe it is, the petition on behalf of the residents of La Poile. That concerns, of course, the lack of a washroom facility, restroom facility so that users of the ferry service between Rose Blanche and La Poile can have some decent, human, normal facilities. Right now, there is nothing.

The petition, Mr. Speaker – which says it all, by the way, the language of the petition says it all:

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 from time to time for the ferry services; and

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

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

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

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge 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/washroom facilities.

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty basic. If you use a public transit system, you expect to have the basic provisions, i.e. a washroom. If you go to Rose Blanche, whether you are a resident of La Poile, anybody else in this Province, someone involved in the fishery going down to do fish inspections, or a tourist who is visiting here and going down the coast, if you need to use the washroom while you are waiting for the ferry, tough luck. There is nowhere for you to go.

Someone suggested it is pretty graphic to be up in the House of Assembly talking about this. Well, it is more than graphic when you are subjected to such horrors during your travel, literally. If it is summertime, wintertime, or whatever, if you get short took while you are trying to wait for the ferry, too bad. That is the attitude we have had.

I have had several conversations with the minister about this. I believe we are one of the few if not the only public transit system left in the Province that does not have it. He has assured me he is going to take a look at this and see what can be done. I pray, as it says in the petition, everybody in La Poile prays, and everybody who uses the service prays that the minister can find it within his budget to come up with some funding to get rid of this problem that should never, ever exist in this day and age, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to present a petition today on behalf of women in the Province who are calling upon the government to reduce the age for breast screening in Newfoundland and Labrador from age fifty to age forty.

WHEREAS breast cancer is the most common cancer among Newfoundland and Labrador women, excluding non-melanoma skin cancer, with approximately 370 women to be diagnosed with breast cancer in Newfoundland and Labrador this year; and

WHEREAS we have one of the highest mortality rates from breast cancer and breast cancer in young women tends to be more aggressive; and

WHEREAS the benchmark for Newfoundland and Labrador's organized breast screening program is age fifty; and

WHEREAS women aged forty to forty-nine are not eligible to participate in Newfoundland and Labrador's organized breast screening program, while women aged forty to forty-nine are eligible in the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Northwest Territories, and the Yukon; and

WHEREAS there is empirical evidence that routine mammography screening of women in their forties can reduce mortality from breast cancer by at least 24 per cent, but Newfoundland and Labrador still does not allow women in that age group to self refer into their breast screening program;

WHEREUPN the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to allow women aged forty to forty-nine to be eligible for breast screening to begin at age forty and that all women be able to self refer through Newfoundland and Labrador's screening programs.

Mr. Speaker, this is a really important issue and it is an issue that has been debated, discussed and researched across Canada for the last number of years. In fact, Mr. Speaker, on a regular basis more and more provinces in the country are falling in-line with the new benchmarks for breast screening. The latest has been the Province of Ontario, which announced just in the last couple of weeks that they would indeed reduce the age of breast screening in their Province from age fifty to age thirty. They are even taking it a step further.

Mr. Speaker, all of the reports that I have read, and one of the latest reports was published this past fall and it was published by a renowned scientist out of the Toronto General Hospital by the name of Dr. Yaffe. Dr. Yaffe specifically studied breast screening and what reducing the mortality rates of women who were screened early right across Canada, and made specific recommendations to the Ontario government.

Mr. Speaker, this is a critical issue. This year, in our Province more than 370 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer. Mr. Speaker, we still have one of the highest mortality rates due to breast cancer of any other province in the country. It is unfair that the government not consider this openly, they not look at what is being done in all of the other jurisdictions of Canada and do, Mr. Speaker, what is in the best interest of women in this particular Province.

Right now, the best interest of women is to ensure that they have access to breast screening. No woman, Mr. Speaker, should have to go to a doctor and be turned away because there is no history of breast cancer in their family, or because they did not find something. It should be an option, it should be part of our self-health program and this is what the women in this Province are asking the government to do at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I am pleased at this time to enter a petition on behalf of the residents of Cape Ray. This is the third or fourth time and it is amazing because when you do it, it seems people even who do not live in Cape Ray all of a sudden they are aware of the problem, but once they know now it is of public knowledge of course the petitions keep coming because they want the issue to stay in the forefront until it does indeed get resolved. I am more than pleased to present that concern on their behalf.

The petition in this case, Mr. Speaker, reads:

WHEREAS the Department of Transportation and Works of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is responsible for the funding and maintenance of roads in the community of Cape Ray, in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the roads at Cape Ray are in deplorable condition, including the road leading from the community to the J.T. Cheeseman Provincial Park; and

WHEREAS the citizens of Cape Ray demand that the roads be upgraded;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to provide sufficient funding to complete the necessary repairs to the roads at Cape Ray

And as in duty bound your Petitioners will ever pray.

Well, Mr. Speaker, hopefully they will not have to pray too long because the road has certainly been left in a deplorable condition for too long. We tried successively now, too long being the last three or four years and it is amazing that this road is being used by the Department of Transportation and Works. It connects the community of Cape Ray to the provincial park which is, as I say, a provincial park operated, paid for, maintained by this Province. The Department of Transportation and Works uses the road as do the residents. They have the equipment in the area. It is only a short road, by the way, we are not talking here Trans-Canada Highway standards; you are talking basically a bit of gravel and so on and yet they cannot find it in their budgets to get this done.

Well hopefully, Mr. Speaker, the concerns of the citizens have been brought to this House and to the minister's attention sufficiently so that now somebody will give some directions and approval to get this done. It is not a big cost but it certainly is a very important part of the transit system out in that area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 residents of Labrador with regard to the Trans-Labrador Highway.

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 condition and are no longer suitable and safe for the traffic volumes that travel this route; and

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

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

Mr. Speaker, you cannot imagine how frustrating it is for the people who live in this part of our Province, the people who every day are using the Trans-Labrador Highway to commute from community to community to bring all the goods and services into Labrador from the Island portion of the Province. Mr. Speaker, they have to use that particular highway connection. For many of the truckers that I have talked to, it has been nothing only an extreme nightmare. An absolute nightmare. They constantly have to replace parts and do repairs on their trucks in trying to truck goods and freight into Southern Labrador, and into Central Labrador, in particular. It has been an absolute nightmare for them.

In fact, this morning I even talked to a reporter in Labrador who was telling me that only a couple of weeks ago they made the drive from Blanc-Sablon up to Goose Bay. It took them fourteen hours on that drive. There were sections of road they could not go any more than twenty kilometres per hour; on most sections of the road. The road was just so bad that that was how long it took. Mr. Speaker, this is a six hour drive. It is a six to seven hour drive for most people on a normal road, and it is taking fourteen hours in some cases for people, which is absolutely ridiculous. People are asking the government to do something, and they are asking them to do something immediately. They need to put some crushed stone on that road. They need to get the road graded up properly. We are getting into one of our peak travel periods in Labrador right now.

Mr. Speaker, last year, I think it was like 100,000 people who used the Apollo on the Strait of Belle Isle; that was more than who used the Ericson on the Gulf of St. Lawrence. This is the kind of traffic that is coming in and out of Labrador. You have to take very seriously the fact that people need to have a standard of road that they can drive on, that is safe, that is acceptable to the kind of transport they need to use it for. It is not a road, Mr. Speaker, so that people can just drive around at their leisure. We are not talking Sunday drivers here. We are talking about people who commute from community to community to go to work. For example, if you look at the shrimp plant in Charlottetown in one community; all the communities around that area commute there by road to go to work. They have to drive over that every single day, every day, and every night to get home.

The ambulance services in the area, most people who are taken out by ambulance are taken to the Labrador Straits. They have to take patients over that road in that ambulance. Is it right that they should have to be petitioning the House of Assembly every day to get someone to pay attention to what their need is, to what their concern is, and to address the issue? Unfortunately, but it seems to be the case.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call from the Order Paper, under Second Reading of Bills, 5, second reading of Bill 29.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act". (Bill 29)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 29, some amendments to the Fisheries Inspection Act, Mr. Speaker.

Just a little bit of a brief background on that. The Fish Inspection Act was introduced in 1954 and there have been several amendments to it since then. In 1990, there was a new act created and there has been some substantial redrafting of the act since then. Of course, the purpose of the act is to ensure that seafood is handled and processed in a safe, clean environment.

We have certainly moved away from the days when fish were brought in I suppose, in trap skiffs and were walked around in and flung up on the wharves with pitchforks and everything else. We have moved into a day where quality of food is paramount, not only from a consumer perspective but from a price seeking perspective as well. I do not think, I know it, that while there will always be challenges, the harvesters and processors have recognized that and they have instituted many measures to ensure we have the best quality of seafood that we can leaving this Province; also from a socioeconomic perspective, Mr. Speaker, to the point that we want to maximize employment around the resources. If there is anything that we have heard in the fishing industry for years is that so much of our product goes out and we have not maximized the amount of employment on land in our Province. These were reasons around bringing in the Fish Inspection Act.

The act sets out inspection and enforcement. The act requires that it be reviewed every five years. In 2004, it underwent a major review and revision, and in 2005 and 2006 the act was again amended. Then in 2007 and 2008, new regulations were added to ensure compliance with departmental policies and regulations. These included fish inspection, administrative regulations, fish inspection operation regulations, in-Province retail fish establishment regulations, and fish inspection ticket offences regulations, all in the interest of strengthening the industry. As things arise, then we make amendments to the act.

The latest review has been completed and the required amendments are identified in this bill. These amendments will enable the department to address specific deficiencies or oversights that have been identified in the review. These amendments will enhance the programs and services developed from this act that are designed to maintain seafood quality. These amendments will clarify legislative language and provide greater certainty of the enforceability of the department's legislations.

The amendments include: updating definitions to provide greater legislative clarity; designating an inspector as a peace officer; addressing the circumstances of a person falsely representing him or herself as an inspector; requiring photo identification. The fifth one is allowing inspectors to remove documents for examination and reproduction; permitting other inspectors or persons to accompany the inspector named in the warrant during the execution of a warrant; holding the proceeds of a sale and disposition of things seized in trust; and finally, addressing the circumstances of the provision of misleading information.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in 2010, the Auditor General reviewed the department's activities under this legislation, and in particular the inspection program. The AG outlined a number of areas in the program that required additional attention and the enhancement of approaches to improve the effectiveness of the program. The department is addressing those areas, and these legislative amendments will assist in this.

For example, the majority of the amendments deal with enforcement powers of Fisheries and Aquaculture inspectors. This will bring the department in line with other departments, such as conservation officers. This will provide the department a greater capability to effectively deliver the program.

The department has concentrated significant financial and human resources to this program. It is having the desired effect for maintaining and improving the quality of seafood and the reputation of Newfoundland and Labrador as a high-quality seafood producing destination. The effect of this goes directly to the bottom line, by increasing the value of seafood and returns to the industry and the Province.

Mr. Speaker, in 2003, Eric Dunne in his report stated: "The overall objective [of a regulatory framework] is to ensure that adequate deterrents are created or a satisfactory level of compliance is achieved." In reference to the proposed changes, the Fish Inspection Act is designed to accomplish this and having regular reviews and making amendments ensures the act is current and continuing to achieve its objective.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the comments that are made by the people opposite and if there are questions, I will certainly attempt to answer them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a privilege to stand and speak to this piece of legislation as it relates to the amendments of Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act.

Just to give an overview of our interpretation of the act, it is, as the minister suggested, basically a housekeeping exercise with respect to the Fish Inspection Act of 1997. Compelled, basically, by a stipulation that the legislation is to be reviewed every five years, and the minister outlined the years in which review has been done, and adjustments and tweaks and so on to the legislation have taken place. It also addresses some inconsistencies in the act that need to be cleaned up, if you will, as well, and certainly gives clarity to the powers, in terms of the day-to-day duties of the inspectors, and empowers them probably to a much greater extent, and to a certain extent for sure.

The main points I would like to touch on - and again, just for the sake if we have a misunderstanding, I am sure the minister can refer to it when he speaks to it again. In section 5 of the amendments, in section 8.1, the bill clarifies powers of fish inspectors and designates them as peace officers. Mr. Speaker, this change in designation basically makes it consistent with any other officer who is acting in this capacity. For example, our wildlife officers and an officer under the Occupational Health and Safety Division, I believe their titles are now peace officers. The significance of that, of course, is that a peace officer is a defined entity under the Criminal Code. So, inspectors will now have a similar status, in any offence, as a fisheries inspection officer who is now defined under that code.

It also enables the inspectors who are inspecting facilities to remove - if photocopying is not available, for example if there is documentation they want to take with them, ordinarily they did not have the authority under the act to remove that information and those documents. This act now allows them to do that, they are able to take materials off the premises.

From an inspection point of view, I would think that if you are in doing an audit and there is something there that is of concern to you, then certainly you want to be able to secure those documents, to quarantine them I guess, if you will, so that you can take them and do your proper investigation. Sometimes it may not be possible to photocopy them because of the size of the documents and the bindings and other things, but in this case they would be able to do that.

In section 7 and section 9.(2), the bill also permits an inspector who is named in a warrant to be accompanied by another inspector, especially when carrying out a search under a warrant in a premises where they can search for and where they can seize anything that will provide evidence with respect to the contravention of the Fish Inspection Act. I am sure that is an important change as well, the fact that they can have a second person there, someone to accompany them in that situation. That really just provides for extra protection and enforcement and just ensures that the whole process unfolds in a proper manner.

Mr. Speaker, section 9(3)(b) of that section as well removes the seize of all fish and replaces it with, "seize fish or marine plants, or containers or cartons of them, at, in or on the place". Again, really, it is just proper wording, nothing too significant.

In section 8 of the amendments, this section ensures that the proceeds of a sale, as the minister referred to, goes into a special non-interest bearing fund which is established in the Consolidated Revenue Fund, as I understand it, by the Comptroller General of Finance. This would be when there is no correct resolution to the inspection and to the situation the product has taken. Rather than losing the product, rather than having the quality of the product jeopardized to the point where there is no real value to it, then the intent is to be able to sell it until there is an outcome in the case.

Previously, there was no mechanism that spelled out that particular process and whatever was sold basically came back to the Crown. So in this case there is a special fund set up, Mr. Speaker. It also protects not only the value of the property that has been seized but, obviously, it also protects the property of the person who has been convicted as well. That is important in that whole process, so it is something that is good to see.

In section 9 of the amendments, 12.1, the previous act was silent on someone who was impersonating an inspector. This was amended to ensure that it now becomes an offence if you impersonate an official inspector. I do not think that there has been any case of that in the Province; I may be wrong, but my research tells me there was not. In this case if you are found guilty of an offence of impersonating an inspector, the person will be liable to pay a fine not exceeding $500. Of course if that person became in default of the payments, they would sent to jail for a period of not exceeding six months. Again, it is a protection there. Probably, in other jurisdictions, it might be something that people are concerned about, but I am not sure that we really have an issue outstanding with people impersonating a fish inspector, but should one decide to go into that line of work, so to speak, then obviously there are laws and so on there to cover that particular type of crime.

It is also an offence to provide misleading information, as it would be in many walks of life, certainly an inspection. The information that you are gathering at the time of inspection, whether it is going to the books, whether it is looking at the fish that has been caught and so on, it certainly is important that the information that is being given to the inspector is proper information, that is it accurate and obviously that is true. This legislation substitutes the word false with the words false and misleading. Sometimes I guess it is a play on words, but sometimes things are just misleading more so than false. It is the intent of the conversation or the way it is said, the way it is presented and so on, so this covers that as well.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of other sections there, section 13.(1), this part of the act prevents a person from processing fish that is unfit for human consumption. Previously, the act stated that it just prohibited a person from marketing the fish. There was no law that said they could not process it. Now, I am not sure why you would process it if you were not going to market it, nevertheless I guess it was a loophole in the act that allowed someone to possibly participate in that type of a process if they wanted to. This section now says that if it is not fit for human consumption not only can you not market it but you also cannot process it. Again, a significant small change, but I believe it is an important change in terms of ensuring the quality of our fish market, of our products and so on in our Province.

One other section, section 6.(1)(a) of the act previously specified that an inspector or an officer designated by the minister could enter an establishment or a vehicle used for the transportation or storage of fish or marine plants; the words "fish landing station" were added in this new amendment to clarify that means the wharf and the facility, obviously, in which the firm is operating. These are two separate inspection sites. What takes place on the wharf is not necessarily the same obviously as what takes place in a facility. Previously, the Act was silent when it came to the actual fish landing site and that, again, has brought clarity and change to the Act to cover that for us as well.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the Fish Inspection Act is very important to the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador. The enforcement of it, the regulation of it, and just the assurance that it is being properly regulated certainly is important for our Province. It regulates the fish inspection procedures, it regulates appropriate fish inspection protocol and these are essential to ensuring that the quality of seafood is maximized.

We want a good product. We want to be able to offer the market the best seafood product it can buy. In today's market, like any other product, we are competing against other countries around the world. We are competing against other products as people change their menus and so on; there are other options available in terms of food that were not available probably twenty years ago. Mr. Speaker, it is very, very important that when we offer our seafood products around the world at the different shows that we go to and other things that we can be assured that we bring the best quality to bear on that particular process. Certainly, fish inspection plays a wide role in that particular case.

There appears to be, Mr. Speaker, nothing controversial about the proposed changes. It is more housekeeping than anything else probably. They merely clarify and capture the powers of fish inspectors and so on.

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to refer to the minister's comments in terms of – he mentioned the AG's report. We know that the Auditor General, in his review of 2010, was very critical when it came to the Department of Fisheries and fish inspection. It is one thing to have an act that tells us where we should be going but it is another thing to really see it put in practice, to see the deficiencies of it and so on, and see areas where we are not doing very well.

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General said that we are just not doing enough, basically, to ensure that fish quality and food safety is preserved in terms of fish products that are landed, produced, and exported from our Province. That is a very serious accusation. It is not an accusation, it is a fact.

To know that we are not in compliance in terms of the processes in our Province, in terms of fish inspection, in issues of quality assurance, in issues of sanitation requirements, in issues of how we store our product, in issues of how we handle it, in issues of how we transport it from one site to another and take it to market. When we see the Auditor General coming down with evidence that these processes are not adequate and are not being followed according to the act, which is there to guide and protect that whole industry, then, Mr. Speaker, certainly for myself I have grave concerns about that.

I would just like to highlight some of those things because I think they are very important as they relate to this act here this afternoon that we have before us in terms of the amendment. We see in the Auditor General's report, for example, that there are 425 identified landing sites with 115 plants involved. I realize in terms of our geography that is a challenge for sure to be able to ensure that proper inspections are taking place at 425 landing sites around this Province. Some of them may be close and some of them may be far away from the regional offices of DFA and so on.

In 2009, I believe the number was around 3,500 or so. In 2010, the numbers are a little bit higher, somewhere around 3,700. What the Auditor General pointed out, Mr. Speaker, is that 48 per cent of the 3,500 or so inspections in 2009 he deemed as not actually being inspections at all. One thing that is significant is noting that there were 717 inspections that took place at these sixteen sites.

We have 425 landing sites, we have 3,500 inspections, and about 20 per cent of those are done at sixteen sites in particular.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne): Order, please!

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure whether that would be because of the number of landings that are there. When we look at the numbers in that sense, it would suggest that probably these are the easier ones to get to. In that case, that would certainly be of concern for us as well.

What is more important, perhaps, to note is that 48 per cent approximately of the total inspections that took place were failed inspections for different reasons. For example, there were times when you went to do inspections there were no fish. So I am not sure about the communication procedures and processes in place. When we look at almost half of the inspections that our department and our people attempted to do, then there were no inspections taking place then certainly it would cause concern.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note, we talk about our fishery, we have talked about it a lot in this sitting of the House, all concerned that our industry is doing well and concerned about the issues that are out there. Mr. Speaker, there were 70,000 vessel landings of fish last year as noted in the AG's report; 70,000 landings of fish in this Province. I would suggest that is a pretty big part of our economy when you consider the spin-off from that, the employment that it generates and so on, Mr. Speaker. To have 70,000 landings of fish in Newfoundland and Labrador certainly is quite impressive. The total weight or the total catch involved, Mr. Speaker, was just under 200 million kilograms of fish involved. Mr. Speaker, the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, for the one who might think otherwise, is certainly important to our economy. There is just so much there.

Mr. Speaker, the concerns that the AG put forth, many things he kind of summarized for us in terms of inadequate planning and scheduling of the inspections in terms of going out to places where there were no fish, there were no landings, this kind of thing. No annual inspections or work plans. The AG said that inspection took place more on cod, for example, then on the high risk species like shrimp and crab. It said that 42 per cent of the inspections failed because basically there was really no direction as to where the people were supposed to be going.

I could go on and I am sure the minister is quite aware of the Auditor General's report and his comments as he spoke to it is that the department is working on correcting those items. I certainly understand and respect the fact that you cannot correct everything overnight and I am sure that the minister has good intentions in following through on these recommendations. I would look forward with interest to the AG's Report next year and seeing certainly an improvement in the whole fish inspection process and the findings that have taken place from one year to the next.

Mr. Speaker, obviously one of the items that received the least attention as far as the Auditor General was concerned was the fact that there was only one inspection from the seal pelt part of our fishery last year. Some 67,000 seal pelts were taken in 2010 – compared to less than 40,000 this year, as we know – but there was only one inspection that took place of all of these pelts. I would suggest, as we are trying to rebuild an industry, an industry that served us well for so many years, certainly we want to be a little more in tune with what is taking place, and from an inspection point of view wanting to see what is there for sure.

Mr. Speaker, those are my comments on this particular piece of legislation. Again, I would suggest that fish inspection is very, very important to us in our Province, to the industry, and these changes, I am sure, as they come in place, will be changes that will move us forward.

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 am glad to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act. It is certainly something that is very important, to have a Fish Inspection Act, which is a good act and an act that has been continually amended, which is a good sign that we are on top of issues. The amendments today are especially important. They are important because they deal with maintaining good quality of seafood and fish in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

Quality is a really important issue. If we are going to be producing, no matter what it is we are producing whether it is seafood, whether it is agricultural goods, whatever it is, quality is important because we are in a global market, we are dealing with products from around the world when we are out there trying to sell our product. It is very important that we can ensure that the product we are producing is of top-notch quality. Both so that we can sell it, and secondly, so that we can be sure that what we are sending out into the market is going to be good for people, it is going to be healthy, it is not going to in any way endanger them.

We do know, Mr. Speaker, from the wider food industry, there are many times that products get out there into the public that are not good, are tainted, are contaminated, and you have to have recalls done. So, the more we can make sure that does not happen to us with regard to our seafood and fish, the better it is both for our reputation and for the sales of our product, Mr. Speaker. The last thing we want to have happen is to someday hear that we have a batch of crab out there, or a batch of shrimp or whatever that has to be recalled because of contamination. It is the last thing that we would want to happen. So far, as far as I understand, Mr. Speaker, we have a good record but we want to maintain that good record. It seems to me that is what this bill is all about, the bill that we are dealing with today. I am not going to go through every part of it. The minister explained it and my colleague for The Straits & White Bay North has gone through it in quite an amount of detail, but there are some things that I want to reference that I am glad to see.

First of all, of course, I am glad to see that not only do we have inspection –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: - but that the new bill, Mr. Speaker, is recommending changes that will make sure that we have effective enforceability of our act. It is no sense having inspectors out there who do not have the power and authority to do their inspection and to act on what they find. Of course, that is what this bill does. The first step of designating the fish inspectors as peace officers gives them a power that they have never had before. It puts them into the legal arm of government, Mr. Speaker, and they have the ability to not only inspect but to make sure that what they find is brought into the criminal system. The fact that they have the powers of search and seizure is extremely important because if they find something, they need to be able to take what they find in order to have proof of what they have discovered. If they find a contaminated product, it is not enough for them to go out and say we have found it, they have to show that they found it. The search and seizure allows for that to happen, Mr. Speaker. Then, that product and the evidence can be brought by the inspection officer straight into the legal system as the person or persons are charged with the criminal act.

It is extremely important that we have this legislation in order to make sure that our inspections and the system of inspection is effective. Effective is not just being able to do the searching, not just being able to seize but also to be able to bring the issue into the criminal system and to make sure that the rules are enforced.

The other thing about this act that is extremely important, Mr. Speaker, it does not have to do so much with the inspection officers but does have to do with what happens to those who get caught. I think it is important that people who have been caught, people who have broken the law, who have a product that is not a safe product, once they are found guilty, have to pay for the infraction. Under this new bill, under section 8.(5) we find that, "Where a person is convicted of an offence under this Act or the regulations or of a violation of a condition of a licence issued under this Act or the regulations, the judge by whom he or she is convicted may, in addition to a penalty imposed under this Act, (a) order that the (i) fish or marine plants, or containers or cartons of them, by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, be forfeited to the Crown and disposed of as the minister directs".

I will not go through all of the bill, what happens is that the product goes to the Crown and then the Crown takes care of the disposing; also any costs that are incurred, as the Crown does that, have to be paid by the person who has been found guilty. The money that comes because of that then goes into the Consolidated Revenue Fund of government. This is extremely important, Mr. Speaker, that not only are they penalized but that the product is taken completely away from them, going to the Crown and being disposed of. So, there is no chance that the product at any point can get used before or after the person or persons are found guilty.

Mr. Speaker, it is an important bill. One of the things that it relates to and I want to mention as I stand this afternoon is to once again talk about the importance of the marketing of our product. This is an issue that I have brought up a number of times on the floor of the House and want to use this opportunity to do it again, because marketing is what we need. We have a good product; we know that we have good fish. Any of us who eat the fish and the seafood from our waters knows what a wonderful product we have –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A certain level of discussion is to be expected, I believe, in the House as members carry out their duties. I would ask members to keep the volume to a minimal, or to bring those discussions outside the House.

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

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

I am talking about the need for marketing and that having a good product means that we have something to be really proud of. We are proud of our product, but this bill allows us to be even prouder of our product and make sure that as we move forward with putting a marketing arm in place – I keep saying this to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture that he says he is committed to a marketing arm. Once again I am saying to him: I am calling on you to make sure that a marketing arm gets put in place, as was recommended by the MOU process; that, as we move forward in getting a marketing arm in place, we know that we have something we can be really proud of and have no fear in marketing, Mr. Speaker.

The need for the marketing arm has been demonstrated. It was demonstrated through the MOU process. It is being called upon. The government did try at one point to get it. I think the way in which they tried to do it failed. I do have a great hope now, and I said this to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture at Estimates last week, that because the MOU process recommended the marketing arm, the will is there now with all sides, with all parties and with all stakeholders, to make sure that we put a marketing arm in place. If we are going to operate on the level of the companies and the stakeholders in the EU, the United States, and the rest of Canada – especially the EU, Mr. Speaker – we have to make sure that we are out there aggressively marketing our product. The stronger we can make legislation, like the Fish Inspection Act, the more we can with assurance go out there and market our product.

I encourage this minister to please become more aggressive with regard to getting a marketing arm in place, just as we have marketed our Province. The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation stood today in the House and spoke strongly about how wonderful it is, and I agree with him, that we got awards for our Web site that is now the new Web site, updated again, that is on-line with regard to marketing our Province under tourism. We need the same aggression and we need the same resources going into marketing our fishery, Mr. Speaker.

I do challenge the government. I have said already in the House, and I am saying it again while we are still under the aegis of the Budget being discussed, that this government is speaking with its dollars. We have in the Budget for this year $64.7 million for Tourism, Culture and Recreation, and only $44.6 million to Fisheries and Aquaculture. To me, this is a sign that the government does not have faith in this fishery as an economic base in this Province. This is something that I am challenging them on, Mr. Speaker. We need to know that this government has faith in this fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: The very fact is, Mr. Speaker, we find in the line item in the Budget to deal with quality assurance that the government has made a big drop in revenue with regard to putting money into quality assurance. It is not enough to have better inspection. It is not enough to give power to the inspectors. We also want to make sure that where they are ensuring that there is not something for them to find, that money does go into quality assurance. We also have to put money into the marketing, which we are not doing.

We obviously have the expertise to market. We have learned how to market this Province, and there is no doubt that is working. Well, just imagine if part of marketing the Province was also marketing the fishery as part of tourism and culture as well, marketing the fact that we have these wonderful fishing communities, Mr. Speaker, marketing that we still do have that culture there. It is not just pictures on our wall. That we do have people still fishing. The boats may be different but they are still there doing the work. This is the work that we have to do, Mr. Speaker, this is the work this government has to do.

What we have here today in Bill 29 is a really good piece of getting wonderful, quality product, Mr. Speaker, making sure that we continue to have quality products. Also, it gives us assurance that we have something that we can stand proudly on the global stage and say it is there, it is something you will enjoy, and we are giving you reasons to want to buy our product.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to approve this bill; I will be voting for it obviously. I thank the minister for bringing these amendments to the floor.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture speaks now he will close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We get to the collegiality of the House and then it happens, Mr. Speaker. We spoke about this piece of legislation, and I was fine with all the comments and I do not want to get into the politics of it, Mr. Speaker, but I just cannot let the comment go.

The Leader of the NDP somehow alluded to, that we do not make a commitment to the fishery. I have to shake my head, Mr. Speaker. I have to shake my head, because I try not to get into these types of debates but you are driven there sometimes. Just to speak to that, since we have been in government, Mr. Speaker, the budget of this department has increased fivefold.

Mr. Speaker, the budget for the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture is more than the other three Atlantic Provinces combined. For the life of me, I cannot see how anybody can get up and say that we, as a government, are not committed to the fisheries. That is kind of like saying that people in the Province are not committed to the fishery. This Province –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Stay and listen to him.

MR. JACKMAN: I hear a voice behind me, Mr. Speaker. I hear a voice behind me.

Mr. Speaker, this Province, while the oil and the resources are there, no one will ever be able to detach the water and the fish from the blood that runs through the veins of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They never will, never, never will.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: The biggest challenge we have in this Province, Mr. Speaker, is that at some point industry will come together and do what needs to be done to make this fishery right, or the forces of business and everything else will lead that way and we will just follow along. What we need to do in this Province, we need to take the leadership. I have said this over and over again; government cannot do it by themselves.

Now, the aquaculture industry in this Province is one example where industry and government have worked together. That sector of our department is growing in leaps and bounds. Look to the Coast of Bays region, look to where it will be in the future, but it is because industry and government are working together. I look for the day when the wild fishery will see the same type of co-operation and leadership from the industry. Government is there to support and facilitate that. So, for the Leader of the NDP to get up and be critical of government as to its role and our commitment to the fishery is just unbelievable, and I have to shake my head from time to time, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, back to the legislation, some of the questions that were proposed. I would like to inform that we do have thirty-three inspectors in the Province. The number of landing ports in this Province is an issue; there is no doubt about it.

In response to both parties, I have written both the ASP and the FFAW, and this is one of the points that I have asked them to consider. Is there a way in this Province, that we can reduce the number of landing sites? Because, Mr. Speaker, you could double the number of inspectors, and with the number of landing sites that we have in the Province edging up toward 500, to get the number of inspectors to all these sites, you know what that entails and the distance that is covered throughout the Province. . Consider, for example, cod. At point A, you could have one fisherman in that community that day who lands 500 pounds of cod. An inspector might have to travel three hours to get to that particular point and arrive there and hear that another three hours away we have another individual who has gone fishing and lands that cod. So getting those inspectors around to all of these sites is a challenge, there is no doubt about it. The department works as hard as it can to get to these sites.

The other species, crab and shrimp, the volume that gets landed, in particular crab in a tight season, if I could say that, and these two species where issues can arise; that is one of the two areas that we concentrate the number of inspections and thus we have people on-site pretty regularly there.

To the Member for The Straits & White Bay North who raised the issue around seal inspection, I have information from staff that there was in fact more than one inspection done. It was a database issue whereby inspections were logged but did not get entered and we are reviewing that particular system.

Mr. Speaker, to conclude, this legislation, as the Member for The Straits & White Bay North indicated, is really housekeeping, but it is the basis of the act that is important. I went to Brussels a little while ago and to realize that we produce 0.1 per cent of the seafood globally tells you where we are in that larger picture and the importance of making sure that we do provide the best quality product that we can.

We are no longer of the day where we are confined to just Newfoundland and Labrador. I contend and I will say this, and it is a very sensitive area, the issues that arise and the disputes that arise every spring in this Province are now spread throughout the world via Internet. The news that gets reported as to the dispute that we recently had – and thank God it is settled – around lobster and those that arise, the minute they hit the airwaves they are gone into the global media and into the global seafood market. I contend that it does create problems and it damages our industry. I go back to the point where we finally, somewhere along the way, have to get industry to work together and work with government so that we avoid those types of situations.

I conclude by saying, Mr. Speaker, that the staff at the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture is very committed to this, to the issues that were raised by the AG. We continually work to provide the best quality product that we can and that is what strengthening this legislation is about.

Thank you to all of those who participated in the debate and thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection 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 Fish Inspection Act. (Bill 29)

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: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 29)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call from the Order Paper, Order 3, Second Reading of Bill 21.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act". (Bill 21)

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

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, that Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act be now read a second time.

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

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This particular bill, Mr. Speaker, is An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act, and the part of the act that we are dealing with is the mining taxes and the mineral rights taxes section of the Revenue Administration Act.

Hon. Members may recall that at one time the tax legislation of the Province was in different pieces of legislation. The gasoline tax had its own legislation. The payroll tax, which is really known as the Health and Post-Secondary Education Tax Act, had its own legislation. The gasoline tax had its own legislation and a number of years ago it was decided that all of the taxes that are administered by the Province would be combined or consolidated in one piece of legislation, having the same rules, the same enforcement provisions, the same appeal provisions. That was passed in this particular House.

The other taxes of the Province, our personal income taxes and our corporate income taxes and the HST are administered for the Province by the Government of Canada, by the Canada Revenue Agency which administers those taxes and collects those taxes and then remits them to the Province. We are seeking approval today to amend the Revenue Administration Act to make several technical changes relating to the mining tax.

I have said earlier in this House that the mining industry is certainly sizzling. Certainly up in Labrador West, certainly up in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and certainly on the Baie Verte Peninsula. We are seeing rejuvenation after the recession, a tremendous demand coming out of the emerging economies like China, Brazil, and India for commodities such as our oil and such as our minerals; a tremendous demand.

I just noticed in the Estimates that mining taxes and royalties for the year 2010-2011 were $225 million, and for this year, 2011-2012, the mining taxes and royalties are forecast to be about $350 million. We have certainly come a long way. I do not have the actual figures for what was in the Budget forecast for 2010-2011, but if memory serves me I think it was less than $100 million because of the low demand caused by the recession.

There has been a major rejuvenation, a major comeback. The economy is sizzling. The mining industry is sizzling. There is lots exploration going on. As a result of that, as a result of increasing demands coming from China, Brazil, India and places like that we are seeing revenues, a revenue increase as well. That is what happens when the economy is doing well. When the economy is doing well the fiscal capacity of the Province improves because revenues start coming in, people are working, they are paying more taxes, businesses make money, they pay more taxes and the treasury of the Province benefits.

I have said here before that some tremendous debates have taken place in this Legislature; debates about the repatriation of the assets of Abitibi to the people of this Province, debates about the Upper Churchill, debates about the Lower Churchill, tremendously interesting debates. This will not be one of them, I do not believe, because it is basically technical amendments.

I would ask Joe and Martha to go and get a cup of tea at this point in time, Joe Chesterfield. This might be a good time to get a cup of tea.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MARSHALL: For people who are interested I can tell you that the mining and mineral rights tax legislation is a generic tax. That means it applies to all mining operations that exist in the Province except for those projects that had a previous agreement.

Honourable members should be aware that sometimes for major projects a specific agreement is entered into between the developer and the government. These are one-off agreements. Eventually government gets around to preparing generic legislation or generic regulations that will apply to all people and all other developers in the future. We have seen that in the oil and gas industry and we have seen it in the mining industry.

There are a number of companies up in Labrador West - I think Javelin may be one of them and Wabush Mines may be another - that has their own agreement relating to taxes. Then the legislation was brought in, in this House, to impose a generic tax that will apply to all mining operations in the Province, other than those that have their own private agreements. Consequently, the amendments we are talking about today will apply to all mine operators under this act, other than companies such as IOCC, Wabush Mines, and others that happen to be governed by separate legislation.

Now, we call this Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act. While they are referred to as taxes, in reality we are talking about royalties here, the royalties on mineral resources similar to the royalties that are paid by the oil companies to the government for the oil that comes out of the ground. Whether it is oil or whether it is minerals, they both provide a share of the economic rent as it relates to the Province's ownership of the resource. Economic rent essentially is the return gain from an economic resource above the factors of production.

What it means is that a company that operates in this Province will pay income taxes just like any other company, any mining company or any oil and gas company. In addition, because they are taking out of the ground an asset that is owned by the people of this Province, they have to pay another tax known as a royalty, which is usually a percentage of the value of what they take out of the ground. In terms of the oil industry, it is a percentage of the value of a barrel of oil; in the mining industry, it is the value of the minerals coming out at the opening of the mine.

For mineral resources, we are attempting to extract a royalty based on the value of minerals at the pit's mouth that is in excess of the cost of production. Now, this tax or this royalty is not designed to take a share of the profits from value-added activity such as processing that might take place. Consequently, the act does allow deductions for processing activities and provides incentives for processing and smelting in the Province in order to work back to get the value of the minerals coming out at the pit's mouth. Like offshore royalties, mining taxes are in addition to income tax and are a deductible expense of the calculation of income tax. So, the mining taxes or royalties are paid in addition to the income tax, as I said previously.

The term mining and mineral rights tax, there are two different types of events from which we are extracting Crown royalties or a tax. The first component is a tax on the mining operations in the Province. There is an effective 16 per cent tax on a mine operator; however, that tax is reduced if the mine operator pays what is called a non-Crown royalty, such as a net smelter royalty, to another person. I understand that the person who may discover the mineral, they usually assign it to a larger exploration company, or a junior mining company, and will receive, in return, something called a net smelter royalty. Now, this non-Crown royalty gives rise to the second component of the tax, which is the mineral rights tax. The mineral rights tax is imposed at the rate of 20 per cent on the recipient of a non-Crown royalty. This will ensure the government gets its share of the economic grant that is generated by the royalty holder.

So, this is the general thrust of the legislation in simplified terms, perhaps oversimplified terms. We do attempt to impose government's royalty based on the value of the mineral at the pit's mouth but, in practice, seldom is the product actually sold at the pit's mouth. The product is often further processed by the mine operator, but it can also be processed by another corporation that is not operating at arms length from the operator – and I will say more about that later.

The Revenue Administration Act received Royal Assent in 2009. As I said, all of our provincially administered taxes were consolidated under this act, with common definitions and with common administrative and enforcement procedures. Part VII of the Revenue Administration Act imposes the mining and mineral rights tax substantially as it had existed in the legislation of 2002. One of the items in the bill that is before the House today will fix a minor error created in the transition from the old act to the new act when the act was consolidated in 2009, while other items in the amendment address technical issues identified since the coming into force of the 2002 legislation. I will address these items as they appear in the amendment.

Now, the first clause is clause 1. In this clause we are seeking simply to amend the definition of an operator for the purposes of mining tax. An operator is currently defined in the act as a person who has the right to extract minerals, carries on a mining operation on or under the lands within the Province. So that is a person who has the right to extract the minerals. That means that person probably has a licence or a lease from the government and has the legal right to take the minerals out of the land. Now, there may be situations, of course, in the Province where somebody is extracting minerals from the land who does not have the right to do so, that person may not have a licence and they may not have a lease. In those situations under the current legislation, the Province does not have the legal authority to impose a tax. The change that we are requesting would simply allow government to impose a mining tax on all mining operations in the Province, whether or not that person holds a proper mining lease to extract the minerals. This will ensure that the Province will receive the revenue from all mining operations that are carried on within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The second amendment, or the second clause I should say, set out in clause 2 of the legislation, is a very important one and it is with respect to something called contemporaneous documentation. The amendment that government is seeking is to require that operators that are dealing with non-arms length persons, which would include persons or companies that are related or associated such as a parent company, a subsidiary company or a sister company – as I said, you could have the minerals sold at the pit's mouth to a company that the mining operator is not dealing with at arms length. We are requiring that that person prepare and provide to the Department of Finance documentation that supports the prices they are using for intercompany transactions. This documentation would have to be prepared at the time the negotiation of price takes place. That is contemporaneously and not at a future date when it is required to be submitted to the department for review.

The federal Income Tax Act of Canada contains requirements for Canadian corporations to keep contemporaneous documentation for transactions with foreign affiliates; however, there is nothing in the Income Tax Act that requires that this type of contemporaneous documentation be prepared for interprovincial transactions. The purpose of the amendment in clause 2 of the bill is going to build on the information requirements that are already contained in the federal act. This amendment will assist in ensuring that non-arms length intercompany transactions are recorded at fair market value so that, in turn, the company will pay its fair share of mining taxes to the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the next clause is clause 3.(1), mining taxes paid cannot be deducted when determining the amount of the mining taxes payable; however, other taxes that are imposed under the Revenue Administration Act, for example the gas tax, or the health and post-secondary education tax, or the retail sales tax, they are intended to be deductible expenses in determining mining tax liability. The Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act specifically excluded, and I quote, a "tax imposed under this Act" in the calculation of net income, specifically precluding the deduction of mining tax or mineral rights tax as a deduction for mining tax. During the consolidation of the Revenue Administration Act, this provision was carried over with no change. The result gave an unintended effect that all taxes levied by the Revenue Administration Act being non-deductible when determining mining taxes payable. This was clearly not the intent. Taxes such as gasoline tax, as long as they were incurred in mining operations are an allowable deduction in the calculation of a net income. Unfortunately, this was missed when the legislation was reviewed back in 2002 and this amendment seeks to correct this unintended error as contained in the act by specifying a tax imposed under this part. In other words, mining tax is not deductible. It is also proposed to amend the act retroactive to May 28, 2009, to limit the application of this section to mining taxes calculating net income.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to section 3.(2), an amendment will also be made to specifically exclude research and development expenses when determining net income. Allowable expenses include all expenses directly attributable to and reasonably incurred in mining operations and in the processing and smelting. Although research and development are certainly important to the mining operation, they are not directly incurred in the activity of mining. While the law is not contested in this area, it is government's interpretation of the act that research and development expenses are not deductible; however, for certainty, we are adding this provision to provide greater clarity for mine operators.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, subject to a ten-year limitation and a maximum of $2 million annually, the Revenue Administration Act allows a credit against a mining tax otherwise payable for corporate income tax paid to the Province in a given year; however, it is not clearly defined which has to be calculated first, whether it is the corporate income tax payable or the mining tax payable. Now provincial mining tax payable is a deductible expense in calculating taxable income for corporate income tax, and corporate income tax payable is a credit against provincial mining tax payable. This creates a curricular calculation that would continue indefinitely.

This curricular calculation did not exist prior to 2007, because prior to that date provincial mining tax was not an allowable deduction in determining corporate income tax payable. Instead of deducting the actual royalty to calculate taxable income for income tax purposes, resource companies were allowed simply to deduct 25 per cent of resource income. However, the federal government removed the 25 per cent resource allowance deduction. They then permitted the deduction of actual provincial mining taxes when determining corporate income tax. This created the problem with the circular calculation.

The proposed amendment in this bill will not change the annual or the lifetime amount of the credit; it will not change the tenure time frame in which an operator can claim the credit. The proposed amendment will simply clarify that the amount of the credit will now be based on the actual corporate income tax paid to the Province in the preceding year, not the current year, thereby removing the circular calculation.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this explains the purpose of the legislation, and I would urge a passage of same.

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

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

Just a few words; this is, as the minister indicates - I would not call it housekeeping because it is more so than housekeeping. It is a very valuable piece of legislation in terms of what ultimately ends up in the coffers of the Province and allows government to have available for spending on programs and services, for example. It is more than just, like we sometimes do here, fixing a word or a phrase for example in a piece of legislation. This could be, and is no doubt, worth millions of dollars in the future to the Province because we are making this amendment and determining what taxes are ultimately paid by the mining companies.

Mining, of course, has become a very important piece of our provincial economy. When people think of our economy nowadays, they sometimes think it is only the offshore, in terms of oil and gas; but, of course, the mining industry is a substantial piece of our revenue today.

We had a tough time in 2009. A lot of the mining companies worldwide, not only here, but worldwide had a major fallback when it came to the global recession. For example, I believe the Iron Ore Company in Labrador had it planned for an expansion, but because of the recession they backed off. I understand now that it is back on because things have rebound.

Expansion plans were in the works in Wabush, for example, and because of the economy they had to back off, but again, rebounding now because of the world economy. That is what happens to a lot of our resources, we do well or we do not fair as well, depending on what happens globally and what happens internationally. It is the same as the price of a barrel of oil, some of the government members and the Minister of Finance would have you believe sometimes that we are getting better off these days in terms of our money because he sort of goes out and finds more money. Well, more money is found because somebody in the international market, in the movements of the international economies dictates that you are going to get more for a barrel of oil today than you did yesterday.

The same thing happens in the mining industry. If there is no demand for our iron ore, for example, or any other product that we mine in this Province, it does not get mined, it does not get sold. If it does not get sold, we do not have money coming back in the form of royalties and taxation. We are at the whim of international markets when it comes to what we get for our resources. These are non-renewable resources. The mining industry is non-renewable, the offshore oil is non-renewable. It is very important, of course, that we as a Province get what we are entitled to get, and that is always subject to debate. I am sure the mining companies when you are negotiating these projects never feel that what you are asking for is fair. The Province maybe figures, well, we need to give them some incentives to get them here; but, yet, we need a fair return.

In the past we have had debates in this House and during provincial elections about the giveaways. Back years ago, not one spoonful was a mantra that you heard back in the Tobin days. Governments accused other governments of not getting enough. No more giveaways, the government says.

It depends on how you look at things if it is a giveaway or not. Some people in this Province, quite a few, actually, think that the 20 per cent of the Muskrat Falls, if it ever happens, that we are giving Emera is a pretty good giveaway, twenty years of free power. Yet, people in this Province are going to pay double light bills. Put that in your think hat and figure it out. You say: well, maybe we just gave away. We gave away 20 per cent.

Somebody used the analogy; it was like the guy who had a well on his property. His neighbour came up, moved into the neighbourhood, and said: Do you mind if I take the water out of your well? That is similar to taking the water, of course, from Muskrat Falls and going to use it over in Nova Scotia. Of course, the neighbour who moved into the neighbourhood, his name was Emera. In that particular case, he said: Can I hook on your well? He said: Yes, well you have to run a pipe, of course. You just moved in so you have to run a pipe over to my well to get it out. That is the Maritime Link. So the guy said: Yes, I will pay for the pipe to your well. In return for me putting that in, I get 20 per cent free. That is what he does. For the next thirty-five years, he is going to get free water from me. He did not pay anything for the water. He paid for his pipe to go get the water. In this case, it is the same thing.

It is the same thing in the mining industry. You have to be careful of the deals you negotiate and just how good you have to be or ought to be to attract the business to get the development, because there are benefits to this. There are benefits besides the taxation.

For example, in the mining industry there are lots of people in this Province, lots of young people in this Province, who have secured employment as a result of the economic activity that is spurred by these mining operations. Labrador City, for example, which exists and holds its existence because of the mining. Wabush is the same thing. We had a gold mine in my district back in the 1990s called Hope Brook Gold. Now they left an awful mess when they left, they left a lot of mess – they left a whole arsenic pond that had to be cleaned up; another issue we often hear today about governments, mining cleanups and so on, and the mess that they leave around. That is part of the reason why you have to impose taxes sometimes. Mining companies are not particularly concerned about how the residents make out. They want their product to sell to make a profit; that is what they are all about. What mess they leave behind is for someone else to think about.

In the case of mining we alluded to the fact of just how important it is to us in this Province, and I refer here to The Economy booklet for 2011 that was circulated by the Department of Finance as part of the Budget documents; every member in the House of Assembly gets it and it is available online and it is available to everyone in this Province. Of course as I say there was a downturn in 2009, it rebounded in 2010 and the demand and the prices for the mineral products that we produce here returned to their high pre-recessionary levels which were great for this Province – strong demand elsewhere.

Sometimes when you hear people talk dollars, we hear it so often that you do not recognize or realize just how valuable it is. For example, the value of mineral shipments in 2010 from this Province, the value of the shipments was $3.8 billion. If you take everything that came out of the mines in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for 2010, the value was $3.8 billion. We, as a Province, get a cut of that through the royalties or through the taxations. Sometimes there is a lot of intermingling as the minister pointed out; we call it a royalty it might be a tax sometimes, it is just how it gets interpreted. In fact, it is beyond my head sometimes when you delve into these legislative pieces exactly – you have to be not a rocket scientist but certainly a tax expert when it comes to figuring out what it is you are getting based upon the legislation that you are passing.

There is a whole pile of background, backup statistical tax information that supports this piece of legislation. Now the legislative draftsman tries to take all that and put it into common language so that hopefully the ordinary person – my Joe and my Martha – can understand it.

By the way, the minister said Joe and Martha should go get a cup of tea. I do not think so. Actually, I thought he did a pretty good job of explaining it. That is why my Joe and Martha appreciate it when members stand up here and explain what is happening. People have a better understanding and a better appreciation of what goes on here in the House of Assembly, and what their members are doing for them, if there are explanations. You cannot get up and just criticize, people want to know what do you do in the House of Assembly all day long? What are you up talking about mining tax for, what is it? That is why we have to do that. There is a responsibility and an onus on us to do it. The Minister of Finance – give him his credit – takes the opportunity to do that, albeit, sometimes it is a very complicated issue, such as a mining tax.

Iron ore, for example, and the Member for Labrador West; in 2010 iron ore production and value more than recouped the pre-recessionary losses of 2009. Total iron ore shipments exceeded 19 million tonnes in 2010, an increase of 17.5 per cent relative to the year before, 2009. I remember having a discussion in this House with the Minister of Finance in 2009, the predictions were we were not going to have a good year because of the recession. Lo and behold, we predicted there was going to be a rebound, but nobody anticipated that the rebound would ever be as good and as quick as it did happen. Thank goodness, that puts more money into the coffers of this Province.

Again, I want to emphasize that it is not this government that has put the money in the coffers. They take credit for it, but the actual money that goes in the coffers, from these minerals, and from our oil and gas, is from the companies that produce it, sell it on the international market, and it is always the international market that determines what we get for it. The higher it sells for, the more we get, but that price is never a factor of what government does. It might be an inflationary fact, it might be an exchange rate fact, it might be how fast you produce it is a question – because the more you produce, obviously, the more you get, and the price that you get internationally. Most people understand that, and people see past the spin of we did this, or we did that.

One particular mining incident – and I asked the minister this expressly, and he might be able to give us the information – I'm wondering have there been any specific incidents that spawned this piece of legislation we are dealing with today? For example, was there some mine we became aware of, as a Province, where we were not getting our just due? Was it Voisey's Bay, for example, that we are tweaking here? Was it something in iron ore in Lab West that we are tweaking here? Usually, you do not get these types of amendments unless there is something that drives it; there is something that has happened.

That is usually what it is; there is a specific case that comes to mind to say: we never thought about that. Not to say that it is wrong because anything you do, you try your best – hopefully you try your best, I would not believe anybody is in here not to try to do their best for the Province, but sometimes things happen that you just did not think about. When you do think about it or most often when it is brought to your attention because you have had a chance to see how it is operating, then you say: ha, that is not how that was intended; we are not getting our just desserts here, we need to tweak this and fix this. I am wondering if there was a specific incident that would have happened here.

When it comes to the mining industry of course, we have people like the Iron Ore Company of Canada to thank for providing countless numbers of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians over the years with jobs – countless. As I say, Labrador City owes it existence to the mining industry. We are also going to do pretty well off Voisey's Bay, which is a mining entity.

As anyone who was around here years ago well knows, despite the protestations of the Conservative Party at that time in this Province saying it was a bad deal and you could drive Mack trucks through it – and I believe there are a few members left here in the House today, Mr. Speaker, who actually stood up and spoke against the Voisey's Bay deal. A few of them actually stood up here in the House of Assembly and said Voisey's Bay was a bad deal and voted against it. There was only one person I do believe on the Conservative Party ranks at that time in this House who spoke for it and that was the former Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, Mr. Manning, who actually stood up in this House and spoke in favour of Voisey's Bay –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the member to try to keep his comments within the confines of the legislation that we are debating.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

It is very taxing to talk about this issue. Back to Voisey's Bay and that is relevant, Mr. Speaker, because that is the single biggest generator of mining tax, I would think, in this Province today. In fact, I see the Minister of Finance nodding his head and I do believe, I do not have the exact figures in front of me, but since we are here determining that we are trying to get more royalties, more tax out of our mining industries by doing this, it would be interesting to hear from the minister exactly what proportion of our mining tax today as we speak comes from Voisey's Bay.

We heard the figures of how much it was worth in 2010, but I am wondering if the minister can give us a break out and say exactly how much tax we receive today in the last fiscal year from Voisey's Bay. Now, I realize we are not getting the full value at this point. As I understand, much of the Voisey's Bay stuff is not being processed here in the Province. Not that processing is involved in this piece of legislation, but obviously we all know there is a processing facility geared to go in Long Harbour which is going to be great in terms of employment and opportunities for people who have skills in the mining industry, particularly in the processing industry.

I understand much of the ore that comes out now actually goes out of this Province. In fact, my own son is involved on the vessel that ships it out. So, he has gained employment. He is an officer on the ship that actually transports the minerals from Voisey's Bay, of course, to I believe it is Thompson, Manitoba right now via Quebec City. It is trained up to Thompson.

That is going to change, of course, under the contract. That is coming back. That was all put in the agreement. What was taken out is coming back. There are penalties if you do not bring it back as well – pretty substantial penalties. In fact, it is worth their while to bring it back than it is to not bring it back. We are not dealing with some two-bit operator here; we are dealing with a pretty substantial international company that not only would its business operation be at stake but their continued interest in this Province, shall we say, if they did not comply with the agreements they have.

So, Mr. Speaker, mining is indeed very important to our Province and there is a lot of mining exploration. Because there is mining exploration, of course, what we are doing here today will ultimately lead to more dollars, hopefully, in the coffers of this Province. The more exploration there is, the more finds there will be and the more types of minerals we will have here. Once you start to take the product out of the ground, of course, that leads to the very tax that we are talking about here and the royalty we are talking about here. Hopefully, because you are making moves today to tweak things so that we get the best return we can get from the use of our resources, that will make it better for everybody in the future when it comes to having money available for the programs that we so direly need.

So, Mr. Speaker, I will certainly be voting in favour of this piece of legislation. I think it is a positive move. It is not the last one, I am sure, when it comes to the mining tax of this nature. It is another in a process. I am sure we will back here in a year, two years, or three years from now and something else will have developed or evolved to the point where we say we have to tweak that again.

If it is right to do, it should be done. We should not sell ourselves short. I do not think there is anybody here or has ever been in this House of Assembly who willingly and knowingly sold themselves short and sold the people of this Province short.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank the minister and his staff for providing the briefing because it is a complex subject. I must say we asked the minister if we could have a briefing on what this particular piece of legislation was about, the minister made his staff available to our research staff, and we did indeed do the process so that we would have an understanding of what we were talking about here. It is based upon our review and our research of it, along with the information provided by the minister's officials that, when you get here, you are able to say we will vote for or vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, we will indeed be voting in support of this particular piece of legislation.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now, he will close debate.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. the Opposition House Leader for his comments. With respect to the question: Was there some mine? Obviously, I cannot divulge any names or talk about revenues government receives through any particular taxpayer. That information, of course, has to stay private

Obviously, the purpose of the legislation was to deal with a number of housekeeping issues, especially the issue of contemporaneous documentation, because we have to ensure if a company is transferring its minerals, if a sale is taking place, to someone with whom they are not being at arm's length, government obviously has to have the necessary information to ensure that the reasons for the pricing are documented and the reasons are documented at the time the transfer takes place to ensure that everyone who is subject to taxation in this Province pays their fair share of taxes and is treated equitably and fairly under the legislation.

I cannot say what any particular mining company, how much revenue they were saying, but obviously the company that the hon. member mentioned is a significant player in the mining industry of this Province. We are delighted that they are here. I am sure that company, and indeed all mining companies, will follow our laws, follow our rules, pay our taxes and royalties as they are assessed, and ensure that they obey our environmental laws as well, in particular.

The hon. member mentioned Hope Brook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MARSHALL: The hon. member mentioned the Hope Brook Mine, a gold mine in his district. I was not in the House at that time but I think government at the time paid for a wharf. I remember thinking how can you have a gold mine where government has to come in and do something for it, but I am sure there were good reasons for it. At least, I hope there were.

I do not agree with the example of the pipe that the hon. member mentioned. The difference, of course, is that this pipe gives us a benefit as well, because we will go through that pipe free, and be able to sell some of our surplus power to other markets, such as the Maritimes, and such as New England. We will sell it on-the-spot market, and we will get a return for the people of the Province, which will go into Nalcor, and through Nalcor, to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and provide them with benefits.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments, and it was an interesting debate. With that, I will sit down.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration 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 Revenue Administration Act. (Bill 21)

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: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole on tomorrow. (Bill 21)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call from the Order Paper, Order 6, second reading of Bill 31.

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

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice, that Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, be now a read a second time

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000". (Bill 31)

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

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the things that I have had an opportunity to do in the four years that I served as Finance Minister in this Province is to deliver the Budget of the Province and deliver four surpluses, which enables the government, when it has a surplus, to do some things that benefit the people of the Province and that people appreciate. One of the things, of course, is that you get a chance to spend money on infrastructure, which is a foundation for economic growth.

Another thing, too, is you get a chance to pay down some debt that previous governments have over the years built up, which means that interest on the debt is high. So by paying down some debt, you get that interest down. Instead of going out to our money lenders, instead of going out to our bankers, that money is now available for progressive social policies, programs and services for the people of the Province.

Another thing you can do is to do what we are doing with the Muskrat Falls Project, which is to lower the electricity rates that the people of the Province are going to have to pay in the future. The recognition that non-renewable resources are going to be gone some day, the oil and the minerals will be gone some day. Hopefully it will be many, many years from now. Some day they will be gone and we have to ensure that we have other revenues, renewable revenues, to take their place that will provide wealth to the people of this Province and to our children and our grandchildren.

One of the things I like to do the most is to be able to put money in people's pockets so that people can pay their bills. We know that electricity bills are going higher. I saw a story on CBC News that said across Canada electricity prices is going to rise 50 per cent in the next five years. That is because many places in the country produce their electricity based on oil or based on coal.

Oil prices, as we know, are going higher and higher. Oil, not that long ago, was selling for $10, $20, or $30 a barrel. It is now $100 a barrel. That is the West Texas Intermediate and Brent is even higher than that. That is fortunate for us because the oil that we have off our shores is benchmarked off the price of Brent, which is a higher price, which means higher revenue for the Province. The oil that we use, the oil that we buy, is oil that comes in from places like Russia, Iraq, Iran, the Middle East, and Africa. Those prices are going up as well.

If we produce our electricity based on the price of oil, the experts that we have who advise us tell us that if the price of oil is high now and it is going to go higher, that means that the electricity that is produced in places like Holyrood which produce electricity based on oil, the cost of electricity is going to go up and up. That is electricity and heating cost is the same. Even lately we have been reading stories about inflationary pressure on the price of food going up as well.

The costs go up and therefore governments have to do everything they can to put money back in people's pockets so they can pay those bills and they can cope. That is something this government has been doing since we came into office and it is something we are doing in this particular Budget. It is something that we are going to continue to do as long as we are in office: help people pay their bills.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we are going to do in this Budget, we have introduced this year – I think every Budget I have had the honour to deliver we have had some tax measures in it which lowered taxes because of the revenues that have been coming in so we can give it back to the people. Every government would do that. It is not just our government that wants to do that, every government wants our people to prosper, and we do as well.

I guess there are different approaches that you can take. Some governments believe in taxing, some governments believe in high taxes. Social democratic governments like the Quebec government, for example. The Quebec government has very, very high taxes compared to ours, and they justify that by saying that this provides public services that benefit people. The NDP government in Nova Scotia, they brought in legislation that removed their provincial share of the HST on heat and light, but to pay for it they raised their HST. They raised their provincial share of the HST from 8 per cent to 10 per cent. In other words, they put the HST up on everything else and took it off heat and light.

There are other governments that just want to lower taxes but do not want to spend money on social programs. We are somewhere in between. We want to lower taxes and we have done that. We have reduced taxes in this Province that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador next year are going to pay $500 million less in taxes than they were in the year 2007. That is half a billion dollars back into the pockets of people to help them pay their bills, to help business attract skilled tradespeople who pay high taxes and look at what their disposable income is going to be and look at what the tax bill is going to be.

We have a number of tax reductions in our Budget. One was effective October 1, there is going to be a new residential energy rebate of 8 per cent equal to the provincial portion of the HST. Two, there will be a new non-refundable Volunteer Firefighters' Tax Credit aligned with the one that is in the federal Budget. Three, we are going to raise the payroll tax exemption so that businesses in the Province will have to pay less of a payroll tax. The one we are dealing with right now is a new non-refundable child care tax credit based on child care expenses currently deductible from income.

In the Budget, Mr. Speaker, I announced that we were introducing on behalf of the Province a provincial child care tax credit and at that point in the Budget Speech we said that currently a parent may deduct eligible child care expenses from income. We said that we were going to add this tax. Now, my understanding of this is that under current law, under the Income Tax Act of both Canada and the Province, that there are eligible child care expenses that are deductible from your income in calculating your taxable income. I further understand that the maximum limits have not been increased by the federal government for some time. The federal government has not increased these limits since 1998, so they are now pretty much outdated and insufficient. That is one of the reasons why we have decided to introduce this enhanced or supplementary child care tax credit in order to help make child care more affordable for families in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Effective for the 2011 tax year, we will provide this additional tax relief. It is a new non-refundable tax credit for eligible child care expenses. In the Budget Speech, we said that under this initiative a person with eligible child care expenses of $7,000 would save an additional $539 in provincial income tax. This initiative will return about $3 million to almost 12,000 families in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have been told, and I have mentioned this in this House on a number of occasions, in the year 2015 there is going to be 5,000 unfilled jobs in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador without people to fill them. There are groups of people in this Province who want to work and are not working and would fill these positions, or some of those positions I should say, if some barriers to them going to work could be removed. One of the greatest barriers I have learned since I have been in this House is the lack of child care, which means that mothers do not have someone to look after the kids and therefore they cannot access employment opportunities that they could if proper child care existed.

There were a number of initiatives announced in the Budget, and I know the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services can speak to them, certainly, with a lot more knowledge than me. We announced in the Budget, the Child Care Tax Credit, which will be a non-refundable provincial credit calculated at 7.7 per cent of those child care eligible expenses, and could be deducted from income for income tax purposes. As I said earlier, the intent was to make child care more affordable for families in the Province. The measure will cost just under $3 million, we anticipate, and it will put this money back in the hands of about 12,000 families annually. As I said, it is in addition to the ability to deduct those same expenses in calculating taxable income, which is a feature that reduces both the federal income tax and the provincial income tax.

The non-refundable credits are applied at the tax rate applicable to the first bracket, the lowest income tax bracket in our Province. The value of the credit is the same regardless of a person's income. I suppose if you want to give help in child care, you can either deduct the expenses – but if you do that, you are benefiting people with a higher income. By going with a credit and using the 7.7 per cent, then regardless of what income, everybody gets the same benefit. The tax is calculated at 7.7 per cent of income, and then the expense is credited at the same rate of 7.7 per cent. Limits applied for income deduction will have to apply to the credit as well in order to minimize compliance and administrative burdens, as well as administrative costs.

The maximum credit, as I mentioned earlier, will be $7,000 per year for a child ages zero to six, $4,000 per year for a child ages seven to twelve, and $10,000 per year for a child eligible to claim the disability credit. As I said, these limits have not been changed by the federal government since 1998. So, they are insufficient and they are out of date. We cannot change those. We have to rely on the federal government to change those, but we can bring in this supplemental or enhanced credit. I believe Saskatchewan is the other province in the country that has done this.

Our tax credit will improve the tax benefit provided for child care expenses. A family that spends $7,000 in child care will now receive an additional reduction of tax payable, or an increase in their income tax refund of $539. That is some more money in people's pockets to help them cope with one of the expenses that they have.

Someone making a taxable income of between zero and $24,999, there are 3,758 taxpayers who will benefit. The average benefit will be $107. In total, rather than break it down, the totals are going to be 11,898 taxpayers - 1,000 taxpayers, as I indicated - the benefit is going to be about $2.9 million and the average benefit will be about $240.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that others will take part in this very important debate and I look forward to the discussion.

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Again, we will be supporting this particular piece of legislation, Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. Of course, the minister has explained that this is another step in the process we all know we need in this Province to go further when it comes to assisting parents, when it comes to caring for their children and helping them in any tax manner that we can and put a few dollars back in their pocket. God knows, the economy is going to work a lot better if the parents are able to work, and meanwhile have the comfort and security of knowing their children have good care, regulated care, proper care, are safe first and foremost, properly looked after. At the same time, the parents get some credit or recognition and help when it comes to the expenses they pay out to see that their children are properly cared for.

It is no a no-brainer, if we have children, they are our most valuable and precious asset and we want to make sure they are properly cared for. The parents, at the same time, are valuable contributors to our economy and our Province and we want them to work because everybody is better off when they work, and at the same time their children get the care they deserve.

When I was up speaking to the Budget a couple of weeks ago, some of the government members might suggest that Opposition members are always critical of the government and the Budget. It is not so, Mr. Speaker. This member spoke out and pointed out quite clearly what he thought were a few positive initiatives that government had in this Budget and have no objection of doing so.

I am sure all governments wish they could please everybody absolutely 100 per cent of what they are asking for. That is not reality, unfortunately. Sometimes you have to cut the cloth. If you only have a dollar, you have to spend so many cents on different programs and try to help everybody a little bit. Hopefully, we will find ourselves some day in a position as a Province where we can satisfy all the needs. At this particular time we are not able to do that, albeit we are doing pretty good now in terms of money into the coffers. We still have a ways to go, but at least this is a positive initiative when it comes to providing some assistance for child care expenses.

I noticed as well, positive, this is retroactive to January of this year. Government did not say we will wait until next year and click it in. You have it. As of now, when this bill gets passed in this House it will be retroactive to January of this year, which is positive in and of itself. You are not putting it out there as bait. You are not saying we have a piece of legislation that comes in, in January, we have an election in between, and if you defeat us you do not get it. This is going to be done now, which is good, positive, absolutely.

Now, I am not one to try to figure out the formula, and I noticed the minister did not touch it with a ten-foot pole either. The minister spoke in general terms, but the formula itself in section 17.2, my mathematical accounting skills certainly cannot take me there to computing what that means necessarily in everybody's pocket. Of course, it depends on everybody's individual circumstances, but it is certainly a value move.

While we are talking about income taxes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a very, very big bouquet today to a lady in this Province who has done more because of her persistence in the realm of income tax than anybody I can think of, and her name is Elizabeth Harvey. She lives in Isle aux Morts in my district.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is this relevant to the –

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: It is very relevant, Mr. Speaker. This lady won a major tax battle in none other than the Federal Court of Canada today with the assistance of the group's lawyers which are going to put thousands of dollars back into the pockets of fishermen in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does this have any relevance to the child tax credit?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: It is certainly relevant, Mr. Speaker, from an income tax point of view. The minister got up here and spoke about what it is like to put dollars back in people's pockets. Maybe people in this House do not want to hear about how relevant this is to the fishermen in this Province, Mr. Speaker. This is about income tax. This is about what we have to do to put money back in people's pockets.

Mr. Speaker, if you are not allowed to give the lady in this Province credit for what she has just done for thousands of fishermen in this Province, I say boo to the government. I am here to give this lady credit and if the Conservative members here - I know the Member for Lewisporte does not feel like that, Mr. Speaker, because he moved a private member's motion in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that Bill 31is An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, and as such it is not a money bill. It is simply designed to create a child tax credit.

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

I am going to be voting in favour of Bill 31, and I will convey to Ms Harvey how I was shut down in this House and could not give her the credit she deserves because someone deemed it not to be relevant.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly a pleasure to speak to Bill 31.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: I know the hon. member opposite is still upset with the fact that he just raised something, Mr. Speaker. I would just say to the hon. member there is a time and place for everything in this House and right now we are talking about the Income Tax bill. Certainly, you are the one to rule on that but nobody on this side of the House does not want to give credit to Elizabeth Harvey for all that she did. Mr. Speaker, there is a time and place and we will certainly do that another day.

Right now, this is to talk about the Income Tax Act and the amendment to it, particularly around the Child Care Tax Credit, Mr. Speaker. As Minister Responsible for Child, Youth and Family Services I would just like to take two or three minutes to speak to the importance of this tax credit.

Mr. Speaker, as it is known, we announced last year in the Throne Speech that we will be doing a ten-year child care strategy. This is going to be one of the fundamental pieces of work that we will do as a government because one thing I do agree with, with the member opposite, is there is no resource greater in this Province than the children of this Province. Whatever we can do to help them, Mr. Speaker, is certainly critical.

The Premier has made her intentions known around child care, what it is she wants to do for child care and how it is so critically important that we get it right, not only from an economic perspective, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the economy of the Province and from a labour force perspective, but also in terms of an opportunity for equity, for women to be in the workplace, but most importantly for children to have an opportunity to –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. member speak and I would ask all hon. members for their co-operation.

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

It is a very important issue and I thank you for that.

As I said, this is a very important issue. I am not going to belabour the point – the Minister of Finance went into all of the technicalities and the financial numbers behind it all – other than to say we are very committed to our ten-year strategy. That strategy will make up the components of availability and affordability, Mr. Speaker.

In this Budget we started by tackling the availability piece and also, from an affordability side of things, Mr. Speaker, this Child Tax Credit will go a long way.

If there is anything at all that we can do as a government and certainly along the way with the strategy we are consulting with many of the stakeholders involved. I have received lots of feedback from parents themselves on this particular child tax benefit. A lot of people still do not realize all of the finer details of what is in the Budget, but when I told a lot of people around my age range about it they thought that was wonderful, really nice. They equated it to about one month free of child care per child.

As the minister said, it has the ability to put $539 back into the pockets of people who have children up to age seven and $309 after that, Mr. Speaker. So I will not go into the fine details other than to say that we are very supportive as a government of parents and of children, and of advancing the needs of the children in this Province so they can have the best child care system there is.

On that note, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say I support the amendment to Bill 31.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am glad I made it in time to speak to this bill, Bill 31, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. Obviously, I know it has been said by the Finance Minister in presenting it and spoken to already, but I do want to make a few comments.

This bill is necessary because of announcements made during the 2011 Budget on the Child Care Tax Credit. The Child Care Tax Credit, while it is a good thing to do, Mr. Speaker, it is really just a small piece of what needs to be done with regard to child care in this Province. In order to get the credit, Mr. Speaker, you have to have enough income to even have a tax credit that is going to mean anything to you. Without new seats in child care, which we do not have – we have a child care pilot project which the minister responsible for child care says has a potential for creating new seats. We do not have seats and I can guarantee that this tax credit is not part of creating new seats either.

So the tax credit does not make up for a real universal system of child care in this Province, something which we need desperately. We need a system that is totally accessible. We need a system that is publicly delivered and publicly administered. It needs to be totally publicly funded.

That does not mean that you would not have some money going into it from those using. We do know that our child care programs that are working in the country, whether we are talking about Quebec, Manitoba, or Ontario, there is some money that parents put in, those who can afford. We also know that the bulk of the money in Quebec, for example, is money from the government. That is what we should have in this Province as well, Mr. Speaker.

The other thing is that a well-designed childhood education and child care system would be a real boost to our economy. Now, I have said this before in the House, Mr. Speaker, but I think we need to say it over and over: A tax credit puts some money in some pockets, a small number, but when you have a full childhood education and child care system it affects the whole economy. You get more people working and that has been proven wherever a full child care and childhood education system is in place. You get more people working, particularly women who would probably be at home if the system were not in place. You get more people working also in the actual system itself. You get better trained workers in the system who are making better salaries than people who are currently working in the child care that we have here in this Province.

Everywhere where a full childhood education and child care system has been put in place, whether we are talking about Europe or we are talking about Canada, you get a boost in the economy. It is measurable; in Quebec it is almost a 25 per cent growth to economy that is attributed to having the full child care program in Quebec.

If we are concerned about revenues, if we are concerned about increasing the economy of our Province and if we are also concerned about taking care of our children then obviously a tax credit will not go near any of that. A tax credit is just looking at things from an individual perspective not from the global communal perspective, Mr. Speaker. If we really want to increase jobs and we want jobs that are permanent what is a better way of doing it then creating a full early childhood education and child care system?

This government is short-sighted in what it is doing with regard to child care, Mr. Speaker, and I just want once again to say that what we really need is a seamless early childhood education and child care program. As I have said already that is publicly funded, administered and delivered. We need that up to the age of six and we need an after-school program for school-aged children.

A tax credit is only a band aid when it comes to a child care program. An integrated program of early childhood education and child care which would be administered preferably by the Department of Education is what we need, Mr. Speaker.

While I am not going to say I am going to vote against this bill, I am going to say that I find what the government is doing at the moment is just a Band-Aid and is just short-sighted.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to make those points.

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

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It has been an interesting debate. This is a very important topic to enable women to access the workforce and to help them in looking after their children so they can remove a barrier to them. It is one of at least four proposals in this Budget that will help put money back in people's pockets. With that, I would urge passage of the legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read the 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 Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 31)

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

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

Now? Tomorrow? Presently?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 31)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would now like to call from the Order Paper, Order 7, second reading of Bill 33.

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

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice, that Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 2, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 2, now be read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 2". (Bill 33)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice – Minister of Finance, sorry.

MR. MARSHALL: Do you know something I do not know?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to speak to second reading of Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 2. The Explanatory Notes of the bill tell us what it is all about. There are two clauses in this bill and they deal with two things. One deals with what is called a payroll tax, to raise the exemption threshold under the payroll tax, to move that up to $1.2 million.

More importantly, the other section of this bill respects the refund, rebate or reimbursement of an amount equal to a tax paid, in whole or in part, by a recipient under Part IX of the Excise Tax Act of Canada. That, of course, is the rebate of the 8 per cent HST which is the provincial portion of the 13 per cent HST on heat and electricity, to rebate that back to the consumers in the Province and to take our hands out of people's pockets.

As I said during the debate on the supplementary child care tax credit, one of the things that we have had an opportunity to do because we have been running surpluses over the years is to use those surpluses. We do not keep the surpluses. I know there are some people out there - because I ran into one - who says: Why are you keeping those surpluses? Of course, we do not keep the surpluses; we use the surpluses for other things, as I mentioned in this House. We can pay for infrastructure, we can pay down the debt, we can try to invest to diversify the economy for the day when the oil and other non-renewable sources of revenue are gone, or we can lower taxes. We can take our hands out of people's pockets so that we can leave money in people's pockets to help them pay their bills.

I mentioned earlier the increase in electricity that is being experienced throughout the world and here in Newfoundland and Labrador because of the fact that we are producing electricity based on oil, based on Bunker C oil burned at Holyrood, and that we have to get away from that. We have to displace that with cheaper forms of energy, particularly hydro.

As I said previously, there are four tax measures in this Budget: the Volunteer Firefighters' Tax Credit, the child care tax credit, and this particular piece of legislation here. So let's talk about the exemption threshold. Let's talk about clause 1 of this legislation. Under the payroll tax, or the Health and Post-Secondary Education Tax Act, there is a tax on the payroll equal to 2 per cent of the labour cost of a business. There is an exemption under the legislation so that you do not pay the tax on the amount of the exemption. I think it was in 2007 that we increased the exemption from $500,000 up to $1 million. What we have done in the Budget this year is that we have raised the exemption from $1 million to $1.2 million. That is a $200,000 increase, which will mean that a certain number of businesses that pay that tax will now pay less tax than they previously had to.

So, the Budget announced an increase in the payroll tax exemption from $1 million to $1.2 million, effective January 1, 2011. Payroll tax to the rate of 2 per cent is payable by all employers in the Province whose annual remuneration in the Province exceeds a predetermined exemption threshold. Employers who are associated with other corporations or who are in partnership with other employers and remuneration to employees are required to file an allocation agreement for the purposes of allocating the exemption threshold.

The increase in the threshold will simply mean that an additional ninety employers in this Province, ninety businesses in this Province, will not have to pay any payroll tax while the tax burden for 845 others will be reduced as well. This measure puts $2.3 million back into the hands of the Province's employers. The payroll tax provides over $120 million in revenue, including government entities and its other (inaudible). It is approximately $70 million net of government entities. If we are to eliminate the payroll tax in its entirety, it would be a loss to the Treasury of $70 million.

Mr. Speaker, we are the only Province in Atlantic Canada that imposes a payroll tax of 2 per cent. When you look at other provinces, Quebec has a payroll tax between 2.7 per cent and 4.6 per cent; Ontario, between 0.98 per cent and 1.95 per cent; and Manitoba, 2.15 per cent and 4.3 per cent. Other provinces such as Quebec, Ontario, and BC also impose a health insurance premium tax, which we do not do in this particular Province.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the number of employers paying the payroll tax in this Province - I believe there are only about 4 per cent of employers paying it. I may be wrong on that number, but the great majority of employers in the Province do not pay the tax. I think it is 3.9 per cent that pay the tax and over 78 per cent of the tax is paid by employers with a payroll of over $10 million.

Mr. Speaker, that is clause 1. Now, clause 2 is much more interesting and I believe is of much more interest to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is the removal or the rebate of the 8 per cent tax, the 8 per cent HST, which is the provincial portion of the HST, from heat and from light, or I should say from electricity. It is not just electricity that is used to heat your home, it is all electricity, and this will put money back in people's pockets.

Now, we should start off by talking briefly about the HST. Our Province, along with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, used to have the provincial sales tax, the retail sales tax, and the federal government had the GST, and we harmonized. We were the only ones that did at that point in time. The harmonized sales tax replaced the 12 per cent provincial retail sales tax, and in 1997, when this happened, the HST was 15 per cent, and it consisted of an 8 per cent provincial component of the HST, and 7 per cent federal GST. The HST has now been reduced to 13 per cent. The provincial 8 per cent share remains the same, but the federal government has reduced the federal share from 7 per cent down to 5 per cent.

The HST is known as a value-added tax. It is applied to the same basic goods and services as the federal GST. So this means that the 13 per cent HST is applied to all goods and services taxable under the federal Excise Tax Act; it is not called the HST Act, it is called the Excise Tax Act. Other participating provinces in that harmonization, as I said, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and now recently, Ontario and British Columbia have harmonized or have agreed to harmonize their sales tax. That has been to the chagrin, I think, of people in British Columbia in particular. I understand that there will be a referendum out in that province to see if they go forward.

The harmonized sales tax, the HST, is administered by the federal government through the Canada Revenue Agency. They administer the legislation, they collect all of the HST, and they send us our share, they send us our 8 per cent. As a result, registrants such as businesses or individuals who are registered to collect the HST on taxable sales, collect one sales tax, and they remit and report to only one government agency, instead of having to deal with two separate governments. As a result, the HST has the same operating rules as the goods and services tax.

The HST is a broadly-based tax, with few exemptions for individuals. There are rebates for charities and for non-profit organizations, and credits are issued to low-income families and individuals. They receive the GST credit cheque in the mail, I think it is four times – it is quarterly.

Now, there are also provincial rebates from the tax. There is the 8 per cent provincial component of the 13 per cent HST for books that are purchased in Newfoundland and Labrador, and for building materials used in Labrador. The book rebate is a point of sale rebate, while the rebate for building materials for Labrador is a mail-in rebate administered by the Province.

As part of Budget 2011, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is introducing a tax rebate equal to the 8 per cent provincial portion of the HST on residential electricity and on heating. All residential electricity will be eligible for the rebate, not just the heating portion. The rebate will come into effect on October 1.

The Budget announced the rebate on residential energy of 8 per cent. This is the equivalent amount to the provincial portion of the HST that is charged. This will return $38 million to the pockets of the taxpayers in the Province through lower energy bills and will benefit all residents of the Province. It will reduce the financial burden of the residential energy use on all families in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We are doing this without increasing the HST on everything else. In Nova Scotia, as I have mentioned previously, the government there removed the provincial portion of the HST from energy, but to finance it they had to increase their provincial portion of the HST on all other things from 8 per cent to 10 per cent. We fortunately do not have to do that.

The HST, as I said, is a federal tax. The Province does not have the authority to refund any portion of a federally imposed tax and as such the Province must rebate an amount equivalent to the provincial portion of the HST imposed on residential energy. So the amendment in this bill will authorize the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, which is the Cabinet, to make regulations under the Revenue Administration Act respecting a refund, rebate, or reimbursement of an amount equal to the tax paid in whole or in part under Part IX of the federal Excise Tax Act. This will allow the Province the ability to audit and to administer the rebate in a similar manner to other provincially administered tax programs, thereby maintaining consistency in tax administration and application in our Province.

Eliminating the provincial portion of the HST on residential heat is a fair way to ensure that every single resident of Newfoundland and Labrador benefits directly from the development of our natural resources. It was the feeling of the government in doing this Budget that it was time for all the people of this Province, not just those in one particular income bracket, to receive some benefit from the prosperity that the oil industry and the mineral industry have been bringing to this Province. Our climate dictates that heat is an absolute necessity. This is a measure by which all earners in all income brackets should no longer have to pay the provincial portion of HST on their energy use.

Mr. Speaker, when I was in Corner Brook recently, I ran into a gentleman in the parking lot of Coleman's grocery store –

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is reminded about relevance.

MR. MARSHALL: Relevance.

This particular individual said to me that this HST rebate was no good to him, because he already got the rebate, the home heating rebate. I explained to him, and he was very happy to hear that the home heating rebate, the rebate that is taking place in this Budget, is in addition to the home heating rebate, which will continue to assist lower income earners. The estimated benefit to low income families during the 2010-2011 heating season is $17.6 million, and the rebates will be granted to approximately 68,000 families.

The home heating rebate has come a long way. I think in 2002-2003, it was only being offered to people with federal benefits. I think the amount of the rebate was $100, and I think approximately 11,000 people were receiving it. Now, fortunately, the rebate is going to be available to all our citizens, regardless of how they heat their homes, whether it is by home heating or whether it is by electricity. Now I think there are about 68,000 people benefiting from that particular rebate. Now, with this new rebate, the residential energy rebate, everybody is going to benefit.

The program is slated to begin on October 1, 2011, in time for the next heating season. The Department of Finance is continuing to work with energy suppliers to develop the most effective and efficient means to implement this particular program. We are very anxious to have it up and ready by then. There are a number of difficulties. The officials are working with the heating companies and with the electric companies to try to eliminate the tax right from the bills so that we do not have to do the rebate. Hopefully, we will be successful in doing that.

This particular initiative is a wonderful initiative that is going to help to put money in people's pockets – $38 million, plus the other rebate, which is $17 million. So that is $55 million helping people deal with the rising costs of energy. There are other things as well. There are subsidies being paid for people on the island and in Labrador who use diesel generated electricity. There are subsidies being paid there. There is also money in this Budget, as well, for the retrofit. This was a program we had. Additional money has been put in there, because sometimes rebates are used and while they help for that year they do not have a long-term effect. By helping people retrofit their home with energy efficient materials, it is helpful as well. That is there as well, and also some money to help people under the provincial Home Repair Program.

So, there are a number of things here that are going to help people deal with the rising costs of living. Of course, keeping with relevance, I do not think I can talk about Muskrat Falls right now, but hopefully –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MARSHALL: Pardon?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MARSHALL: So, Mr. Speaker, we are very happy to do it. I know that a number of people have written to me over the years and have encouraged the government to pass this legislation. I know that the Opposition brought forward petitions, certainly the Leader of the New Democratic Party has mentioned this on occasion, but there was a woman on Humber Road in Corner Brook who was the first woman to say it to me. I heard the –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MARSHALL: No, it was a woman. I will not embarrass her by saying her name.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister is reminded to address the Chair.

MR. MARSHALL: Sure.

She was the first person to say to me - because I think I had knocked on her door and I was talking to her about removing the tax on insurance. A number of years ago, we removed the tax on insurance. We also brought in the biggest personal income tax cut in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador. We raised the seniors' income benefit, so seniors get a cheque of $900. I think it was only $300 - it used to be - now it is $900. They get the cheque with their HST cheque in October month. I was telling her about all these things, and she said to me: It would be great if you can remove the tax on electricity and on heat. So as soon as we pass this legislation in this House, I am going to go back to Humber Road and I am going to knock on that woman's door and I am going to tell her that she should be very pleased, and thank her for making that suggestion to me a short time ago.

I thank everybody. I thank the lady that the Government House Leader referred to earlier who, I understand, was behind a petition in this House to do this, and I am extremely pleased that this government is the one that has removed this tax from heat, and I know that will be a benefit to the people. It is another way of putting hands in people's pockets - and it is something that we have done in every Budget since we have been in office, and it is something that, as long as we are in office, we will continue to do. Sometimes we cannot do what people want us to do. Sometimes we cannot give certain groups money they are looking for, but there are things like this that apply to everybody. There are things like this that take our hands of people's pockets, help people, especially pensioners, and especially seniors on fixed income, to help them cope with the rising costs.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the discussion that is going to take place here today. I am sure a lot of members would like to speak on this wonderful piece of legislation. We are obviously delighted to bring it in, and I urge passage of the legislation and look forward to the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I appreciate the minister's explanation of what this particular piece of legislation is going to achieve. It obviously will leave more money in the pockets of our employers. It will obviously leave money, when it comes to the excise tax piece, the HST piece, more money in the pockets of everybody who pays bills for warming their homes in this Province. It is a positive piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, and the Official Opposition will be voting in favour of it.

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

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

I am happy to stand and speak to Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 2. Of course, as the minister has explained – and I thank him for his explanation – we are making these changes because two changes are being made to two tax issues and the administration of those taxes. The first one, as the minister explained, has to do with the payroll tax, which is paid at a rate of 2 per cent by employers, and the second part has to do with the provincial portion of HST being taken off home heating.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I will be voting for this bill, particularly because of the second part of the bill which has to do with the tax being taken off home heating. With regard to the health and post-secondary education tax, or the payroll tax – people need to know that it is the health and post-secondary education tax – we see the government here extending the exemption limit from employers with income of $1 million dollars to employers with income of $1.2 million effective January 1, 2011; so, going back to January of this year, Mr. Speaker.

The minister made some reference to numbers, but he was not quite sure what they were. My research tells me that we have now about 20,000 employers in the Province of whom only 900 are paying the payroll tax, but that 900 do have a large income since the payroll tax on those 900 results in $120 million in revenue. This tax, obviously, is an important tax for us; that is a fair amount of revenue. I know that there are employers out there who ask not to have the tax at all, but the minister - on this we agree, I think this payroll tax should stay on. Another way of doing it, of course, would be to raise the income tax level for the companies who have the highest income. That would be another way of doing it. It is quite possible that the larger corporations would prefer to see it that way instead of having the tax called the payroll tax, remove the payroll tax and adjust the income tax system. That could be another way of doing it. I agree with the minister that we should be getting the revenue from the corporate sector, but if you were to remove the payroll tax and adjust the income tax system, you could do the same thing.

So, I think I would be more inclined to look at that as a possible way to go. Having said that, I am not going to vote against what the government is doing here, since the payroll tax is in place. I would say to the Minister of Finance that it would be very interesting for him, in preparation for next year, to look more at changing the structure of our corporate tax whereby the income tax paid by those with the highest revenues would go up a bit to make up for the $120 million. There should be a whole restructuring of our income tax system anyway, whether we are talking about the corporate income tax or the personal income tax. I would like to see this government become more creative around the income tax system and our revenues by looking at our structure, by having the big earners, whether it is corporate or individuals, pay at a higher rate, and increase revenue from the income tax sector, Mr. Speaker.

So, having said that, I will not spend more time on the issue, but I do encourage the Minister of Finance to look at our income tax structure, as I said, both for the corporate and the personal level. I would like to see more progressive tax changes around that. I would love to see that in the next Budget, Mr. Speaker.

The other piece of this bill is something very close to my heart, as the Minister of Finance knows, and as people who are watching us today know. That is the piece with regard to the removal of the provincial portion of the HST from home heating. The way in which the government has chosen to do it, I am quite pleased with, and that is removing it both from electricity and from home fuel. Obviously, it would have been very difficult to remove the tax –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind all hon. members that the Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. member speak, and I ask for your co-operation.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It would be difficult to have removed the tax off electrical heat only. I think that may have been almost impossible. It would have been so complicated that the choice to remove the HST from all electricity I think was the only way to go in order to get at not taxing home heat.

This is an extremely important thing, Mr. Speaker, that we are doing here today in passing this. I thank the Minister of Finance for listening to what I have been saying for a couple of years, and I am sure he has spoken to individuals who have said this is the way to go, but here in this hon. House it is an issue that I have raised many times and have questioned the minister on. I am very happy to see that an opposition voice can be heard and that we can get a decision made to help the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker.

The timing of this, Mr. Speaker, is really important, because right now home heating is going up at quite a rate. The cost of home heating, especially since 2001, has been rising constantly, electrical home heat. The price of furnace oil has doubled since 2001, Mr. Speaker. People are paying quite an amount of money for fuel and electricity to heat their homes. Removing the tax from home heat means that people are going to get a break from the rise. It should be done anyway, but even more so.

Now we know that Nalcor applied to the Public Utilities Board for a 7 per cent rate increase based on the rising price of oil. So, we definitely, absolutely need to have this tax taken off, because the tax, while the rate would have remained the same, the amount of tax would have gone up because the cost of oil would be gone up, Mr. Speaker. As the rate would go up, then the tax would have gone up. It is extremely important that we are taking off the provincial tax.

Government has said, and the minister has said that the Department of Finance will be consulting with energy suppliers. I am presuming that is going to start happening soon, because we certainly do not want to have something not happen on time. The minister has said his goal is to have the program begin on October 1, 2011, in time for the next heating season. I hope they start the process immediately of consulting with energy suppliers to find the best way to implement the program.

I have heard the minister say, I cannot remember if he said it today or not, but he said it when speaking to the Budget initially, after the Budget was brought in, that none of us wants money coming out of people's pockets. The system they bring in has to make sure that the work that goes on between the suppliers and the Department of Finance happens right at the source, right at the moment that things are being paid for, so that no money is coming out of the pockets of individuals. It would be very difficult to get into that reimbursement. I agree with the route in which it seems the government is going and I certainly will be looking forward - we probably will not be in the House of Assembly when this gets operative but I will certainly be looking to October 1 to see that we are going to have this new system brought in on October 1.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, one more point also to augment the program of dealing with the cost of heating, whether it is oil and electricity. I also encourage the minister to continue, and other ministers who are affected by this, to continue looking at a real energy efficiency program because an energy efficiency program will augment what is going to happen for people with the tax removed for home heating.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to say I shall be voting for this bill.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Finance speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I am obviously delighted that all parties are in favour and voting in favour of this particular legislation to help put more money in people's pockets to help people pay their bills.

I should point out and express my appreciation to the Premier, who is not in the House right now. When the Premier became the Premier, the Premier indicated to me, as Minister of Finance, that by the way, this is something that we were going to do. We can all take credit for it, we all love it, and we all support it. I want to thank everybody who has written us, and thank the Leader of the NDP and thank the Leader of the Opposition for their petitions, and thank the people who have written, but I particularly want to thank the Premier who is the person who said we were going to do this. She said it was going to be done, and it is now done.

Mr. Speaker, we have reduced personal income taxes, we have reduced the low income tax reduction. We have removed people from the tax roll. We have increased the Home Heating Rebate, so it benefits 68,000 people at $17 million. We have increased the Low Income Senior's Benefit. We have an age amount tax credit, which is the highest in Canada; not Atlantic Canada, the highest in Canada. We have a heating allowance for low-income tenants of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. We have a Provincial Home Repair Program that has now been extended for another three years with $24 million of extra. We have a Residential Energy Efficiency Program, three years, at $12 million. We have subsidies through the Department of Natural Resources to help people who rely on diesel power on the Island and on the Labrador Coast. We are bringing in, in this Budget, a dental program for adults and seniors. We previously brought in a drug program for adults and seniors. We eliminated the tax on insurance – that horrible tax on insurance – and now we have eliminated the 8 per cent HST on heat.

Mr. Speaker, we are putting money back in the hands of people to help them cope with the cost of living. All members of all parties should be congratulated in supporting progressive policies such as this which help the people of this Province.

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 Revenue Administration Act No. 2. (Bill 33)

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

Now? Tomorrow? Presently?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 2", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 33)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider Bills 21, 29, and 33.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bills 21, 29, and 33.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (T. Osborne): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Bill 29, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act". (Bill 29)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 10 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 through 10 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 10 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Bill 21.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act". (Bill 21)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 5 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 5 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, Bill 33.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 2.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 2". (Bill 33)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 and 3.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 and 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 and 3 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 2.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you.

I move, Mr. Chair, that the Committee rise and report Bills 21, 29 and 33.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bills 21, 29 and 33 carried without amendment.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bills 21, 29 and 33 carried without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and has directed him to report Bills 21, 29 and Bill 33 without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

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

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

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

MS BURKE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, before I put forward a motion to adjourn, I would just like to remind all hon. members that the Resource Committee will meet in the House at 6:00 p.m. today, to review the Estimates of the Department of Business.

Further to that, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. the Resource Committee will meet in the House to review the Estimates of the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, the Rural Secretariat, the Newfoundland and Labrador Research Development Council, the Status of Women and the Francophone Affairs.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, that this House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is 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 2:00 o'clock tomorrow, being Private Members' Day.

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