PDF Version

May 7, 2013                       HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                   Vol. XLVII No. 16


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we start today's proceedings, I want to welcome some special guests to our galleries. There is a delegation from the Town of Grand Bank. There is Mayor Darrell Lafosse, Councillor Bruce Warren, and Town Manager Wayne Bolt.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we will have members' statements from the Member for the District of Port au Port; the Member for the District of Bonavista North; the Member for the District of St. John's West; the Member for the District of Kilbride; the Member for the District of Torngat Mountains; and the Member for the District of Exploits.

The hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: I rise to congratulate the winners and nominees who were honoured at the Stephen Awards Banquet in Stephenville on April 27 as part of Volunteer Week.

Debbie Brake-Patten was honoured with the Citizen of the Year Award, while Amber LeRoy was the recipient of the Youth of the Year Award, both being recognized for their outstanding volunteer service to the community. Jesse Byrne won the Junior Male Athlete of the Year Award, Jillian Forsey was presented with the Junior Female Athlete of the Year Award, and Chris Dugas was presented with the Senior Athlete of the Year Award. Also, twenty-three Certificates of Merit for Outstanding Volunteer Work were presented.

Congratulations are extended to Val Alexander, Larry Bentley, Debbie Brake-Patten, Stephen Brown, Irving Campbell, Irene Collins, Jeff Dehart, Cyril Gale, Frank Gale, Darlene Greenham, Amber Harper, Lisa Henley, Valarie Hulan, Arch Locke, Albert Le Roux, Brenda MacIsaac, James Mercer, Roxanne Mercer, Brenda Pittman, Greg Reid, Colleen Ryan, Donna Sheppard, and Terry White for their contributions.

I ask all hon. members to join with me in congratulating all the winners and all the nominees of the Stephen Awards on their invaluable contributions to our communities, our region, and our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CROSS: I take great pleasure today in throwing a bouquet to a wonderful bunch of people from Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CROSS: The Pearson Park Committee was struck just a few short months ago with a desire to construct an outdoor fitness and recreational area adjacent to Pearson Academy in New-Wes-Valley. They model their desires from other projects that have recently shown great success around the Province.

Principal Juan Gill summoned several leaders from around the region that comprise the Pearson Academy community from Deadman's Bay to Greenspond. Mr. Speaker, I say they followed a model, but after the first meeting they broke the mould in every way.

On the day they found out they were receiving a Helping Hand award from Let Them Be Kids Foundation, they shattered the first-day volunteer sign-up record for Newfoundland and Labrador with over 300 pledges.

On April 28, a community channel telethon was held. It realized $91,234 in contributions. Not only has there been a growth in funds, but also growth in a sense of community and region, and on June 22, Pearson Park will literally grow before our eyes.

Let everyone here, please, join in my congratulations of these worthy citizens.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Roberta Stanford on receiving a Volunteer Award at the recent Volunteer Recognition Night. I had the pleasure, Mr. Speaker, of attending this event, which celebrated the important contributions of volunteers throughout our Province.

Roberta received this award for her work with the Citizens' Crime Prevention Association of Newfoundland and Labrador. Roberta first became involved with the Clarenville Crime Prevention Committee back in 1989 and joined the provincial executive in 1995 where she served as both chair and vice chair.

Through her commitment and passion over the past twenty-four years, Roberta has had a profound impact on crime prevention across this Province. She was a driving force in recognizing projects such as the Rachel Project, anti-violence campaigns, and crime prevention awareness. Roberta recently played a lead role in mobilizing her charity to receive $29,000 from the recent RCMP Klondike Night.

Mr. Speaker, many of us in recent days have brought attention to the generous contribution made everyday by volunteers in this Province, and I ask all hon. members to join me in thanking Roberta Stanford and all our volunteers for the important role they play in the development of our communities.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, in today's world the ability to express oneself publicly in oral and written form is becoming increasingly more important. Our schools are very aware of this need, and consequently, most of them place a great emphasis on public speaking as part of their curriculum.

On March 7, 2013, Hazelwood Elementary hosted its Annual Public Speaking Event. Students in Grades 4-6 prepared poems or speeches, and the finalists at each grade level presented to an audience of parents, friends, and judges. I had the honour that night to help judge the finalists in Grade 6. After a daunting task, the judges arrived at a winner for each grade level.

Maria Nash, with her recitation of A Rock Makes a Wonderful Pet, was the winner in Grade 4. Lucas Thornhill won in Grade 5 with his speech, Gaming: Happiness or Hypnosis, and Megan Moret was the Grade 6 winner with her speech entitled, The Dangers of Facebook.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the three grade level winners at Hazelwood, as well as all the other participants who did such a great job that night.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Herman Webb of Nain on receiving the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Award.

Herman began working in his uncle's store as a young boy and eventually took over the business in 1980. Hayne's General Store was established in 1956. Herman has been operating the business for over thirty years, and continues to do so to this very day, providing the community with a first-class service.

Herman comes from a large, close-knit family that spent their early days in Webb's Bay, located just north of Nain. The family later relocated to Nain.

Mr. Speaker, Herman's respect from the residents of Nain is not because of any particular accomplishment within the community. What he is recognized for are the countless acts of humanity where Herman has helped out many residents of Nain in need. He has asked for nothing in return. Herman's business continues to be the cornerstone of the community – a business that has offered respectable prices despite its isolation and the rising cost of retail.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Mr. Herman Webb of Nain on receiving the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Award.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, November 2011, Thomas Maloney and Ben Hayley from the Exploits Valley region launched an ambitious fundraising campaign: to run in the Toronto Waterfront forty-two kilometre Marathon and to raise $20,000 for the Children's Wish Foundation. These post-secondary students worked tirelessly selling their Run for a Wish bracelets, knocking on doors for sponsors, holding car washes, bake sales, sports tournaments, and more.

Mr. Speaker, Ben admitted he is very competitive by nature and he trained for months leading up to the race, but finishing the forty-two kilometre race was a struggle. Although they were met with much doubt, Ben made it to the finish line and the pair exceeded their fundraising goal by $7,000.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Ben Hayley and Thomas Maloney on successfully making wishes come true.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that students who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender have been on the receiving end of bullying and harassment in schools and communities throughout this country and around the world.

We have taken real action to address this issue, Mr. Speaker. As part of a three-year plan to build awareness around LGBT issues, the provincial government invested $90,000 in MyGSA (or My Gay-Straight Alliance) resource which is designed to provide support for administrators, teachers, and students who want to establish a gay-straight alliance in their school. Developed in partnership with Egale Canada, I am proud to say Newfoundland and Labrador is the only Province in the country to offer such a resource to all schools that offer Grades 7-12.

I am equally proud to report that on Friday past, Egale Canada made a presentation to an international conference in Switzerland, where participants spoke about best practices taking place around the world to create safer and more inclusive schools. Mr. Speaker, our work around the development and distribution of MyGSA resource was highlighted at that conference as an example of providing leadership, and creating partnerships, will which help address this issue.

Our work continues, Mr. Speaker. The Province has invested a further $100,000 in professional development to build awareness in the education system of issues around sexual orientation and gender identity. To date, sessions have been completed with all Kindergarten to Grade 12 principals, vice-principals and guidance counsellors, as well as school district staff and the Department of Education. I am among those who attended this training, Mr. Speaker. I hope that speaks to how strongly I feel about this issue as minister, as a former educator, and as an individual. Our next step will be to provide this professional development to all teachers in the Province, starting in the new school year.

Mr. Speaker, this investment of time and money speaks to our commitment to ensuring schools are safe, caring, and inclusive for everyone. I strongly encourage teachers to use the MyGSA resource to generate discussion in their classrooms and to support the creation of gay-straight alliances in our schools.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement. We all know school can be a tough environment for kids, and GLBTQ youth face tremendous pressure stemming from homophobia.

Mr. Speaker, it was shortly after I graduated high school that I heard about the murder of Matthew Shepard, a college student killed in the States because he was gay. We were roughly the same age. I can remember thinking how tragic and terrible it was that his life was cut so short.

Showing support for all students regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity is an important stance for our government to take. My Gay-Straight Alliance is a positive resource for encouraging all students to embrace tolerance. I understand, though, the resource is not being mandated in schools. Perhaps that is the next step.

I would be interested in knowing what percentage of our K-12 schools is making use of the resource. I am also glad to hear that teachers, the pillars of our children's education, will be availing of this professional development.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just like to say I commend this investment by government and let's continue this positive initiative.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is important to recognize the efforts of the Minister of Education, this government, and the staff who work for the Department of Education in our schools in promoting and advancing this initiative to create safer and more inclusive schools and to build awareness of issues around sexual orientation and gender identity.

I do want to point out that we need to work towards addressing the shortcomings highlighted in the recent review of the government's Safe and Caring Schools Policy which said that additional efforts are required to ensure that there is a sense of urgency and priority brought to a government's anti-bullying policies. Some obvious ways to accomplish this, I say to the minister, would be to provide adequate staffing and adequate training, as well as consistent and clear guidelines for policy implementation.

As my colleague, the Member for Burgeo – La Poile has pointed out, we do not know what the take up is on this particular initiative, but we hope that the government will do whatever they can to try and advance it and promote it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to commend the government for the investments and the effort that have been put in, in this regard. Bullying of any type is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. Government has made great strides in this regard to ensure that students feel inclusive. While that is not always the case, more needs to be done. Government has made great strides in this regard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to stand and inform this hon. House about the official start of the forest fire season in this Province.

The season began on the Island on May 1, begins in Labrador on May 15, and it will extend into late September. At this time of the year regulations come into effect in the best interest of public safety.

Mr. Speaker, all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are privileged to use our forests for hiking, for camping, and other activities, and of course the forest provides much wealth to the people of the Province as well. It is our responsibility to take care of this tremendous resource. It is the responsibility of all of us. The official start of forest fire season is an appropriate time to remind residents to be extra vigilant when they are in the woods.

During forest fire season, a permit to burn is required, at no cost, for lighting outdoor fires for the purposes of clearing land or burning brush within 300 metres of a forest. Permits and regulations can be obtained at regional or district forest management offices around the Province. The lighting of fires for cooking and camping does not require a permit, but certain regulations, of course, must be followed.

The Province has a toll-free number that can be used to report forest fires during the season. The number is 1-866-709-FIRE.

Last year, in 2012, warm temperatures and a lack of precipitation created ideal conditions for forest fires. Our fire suppression staff responded to 197 forest fires between May and September. It was a busier than usual season, especially in Labrador. In some instances, Mr. Speaker, new fires were reported daily.

Mr. Speaker, I know all members of this House will agree that our firefighters, our permanent staff, the Incident Management Team, Air Services pilots, and maintenance crews are to be highly commended for their tremendous efforts. We can help them by being extra careful when we are enjoying the forest areas this year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. There is no question that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, on every occasion they get, will enjoy the forests. As we often hear, on the weekends you spend it in the country or in the woods enjoying our forestry resource.

What is important too, I would say it is important for all us who use the resource for enjoyment and for recreation, that we accept the fact that if we pack it in, we should bring it out. We know that leaving garbage in the country can cause a fire at some future date.

The minister mentioned about picking up a permit at no cost, and that it should be easy to do. For those who live in some of the rural areas, getting to the forestry regional office is not always easy. We need to look for ways that we can make it easier to collect those permits.

It does not go unnoticed either that in this year's Budget 2013, we have seen the reduction of one complete water bomber crew. We will, as will people of the Province, be monitoring that to see the impact.

The minister mentioned 197 forest fires last year. It is always amazing when I look at how volunteers and communities come together. I was in Labrador last year when we saw the evacuation of North West River and Sheshatshiu. The community came together to respond to that fire.

I would encourage all of us in the Province to really put due diligence in everything we do when we go into the country. I want to finish up by thanking all the people in the communities, both volunteers and our staff, for the great job they do in protecting our resource.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Our forestry resources are an important provincial asset which must be protected. I certainly acknowledge the role that government must play in educating the public on fire safety and the great outdoors. We need to have clear regulations when it comes to having a safe season, accompanied with a public service campaign and messaging around that.

I do hope we have the resources, like the Leader of the Official Opposition stated, for the upcoming season and that we do have reduced fires. I want to say just a big thank you to all the firefighters, pilots, other professionals, and volunteers who put their lives on the line to protect our forests and our communities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Last evening, the Newfoundland Independent Filmmakers Co-operative, Telefilm Canada, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development Corporation celebrated the fifth anniversary of its PICTURE START program at Empire Theatres. The event showcased highlights of the program over the past five years, including interviews with the filmmaking teams that have participated.

The PICTURE START program focuses on skills enhancement of emerging filmmakers by pairing them with established filmmakers and film industry professionals. The hands-on approach is complemented by a series of workshops offered by local and national experts, and senior filmmakers mentor junior artist throughout the development, production, and post-production phases of the projects.

Mr. Speaker, each year the program's jury selects three scripts from an open competition and the winners are provided with the various resources they need to produce their first film. The program allows for access to expertise, equipment, and mentoring that is often a challenge for many up-and-coming filmmakers in the Province.

Undoubtedly, this program will continue to contribute to the growth of the Newfoundland and Labrador film industry by fostering future professionals who will potentially establish production companies and continue to create programming based here at home. In its five-year history, PICTURE START has completed fifteen films, and all thirty-three participants are currently employed in the film industry in the Province.

The success of PICTURE START is evident in the numerous careers that have their roots in the program's short history. Filmmakers such as Jordan Canning, Joel Hynes, and Sherry White to name a few, have had their careers launched through this innovative program. Their success, Mr. Speaker, has been realized both locally and abroad.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial government invests approximately $6 million in the film industry which generated more than $41 million in film and production activity in the Province during the last fiscal year. Our government is pleased to be a strong supporter of our cultural industries and Budget 2013: A Strong Plan, A Secure Future includes more than $17 million for the cultural and heritage sectors, bringing our total investment to $87 million since the launch of Creative Newfoundland and Labrador: The Blueprint for Development and Investment in Culture in 2006.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Once again, we see a group of volunteers in Newfoundland and Labrador who are willing to give their expertise to people who are up and coming, people who are in the film industry.

To those people who are giving up their time, energy, and passing on their knowledge, thank you very much on behalf of the Opposition. Because if the film industry thrives in Newfoundland and Labrador, we are going to create employment in this area and it is going to be beneficial to all of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I noticed back years ago there was $1 million invested in some equipment for Western Newfoundland. I am not sure what happened to that equipment because it was supposed to be an investment to increase the film industry for the Corner Brook, West Coast area. The minister may, some time, stand and speak on that $1 million in equipment that was bought.

In the statement that the minister made, which is very good, is that there were fifteen films and thirty-three participants, and all those films that were created, the thirty-three participants are still in the film industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is a credit to the program itself. That is a credit that this program, PICTURE START, does actually work.

Once again, I thank all the people who are mentoring the young filmmakers in this Province. To the young filmmakers, do not give up; keep it going because you will do well eventually in Newfoundland and Labrador because it is an industry that is up and coming. It is an industry that has nothing to do but grow in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I congratulate my fellow filmmakers at NIFCO. I had the honour of attending the reception last night. There was lots of excitement and pride in the room. It was actually bursting at the seams.

About eighteen years ago I had the honour of being President of NIFCO. It was at the time when we developed ourselves into a full-fledged industry, that is was no longer just somebody's tree house, yet still protecting the right for experimental and art films, that it is not all about industry and we have to protect that.

There was a time when people were telling our stories; now we can tell our own stories. That is so vital for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, for us to be able to tell our stories in our own way.

For the past thirty years the cost to be a member of NIFCO was $5. Today, Mr. Speaker, that cost is still $5. It means that everybody has access to filmmaking opportunities; it means that everybody has access to training. Nobody graduates out of NIFCO. We continue to support one another.

We are the envy – our film co-op is the envy of film co-ops worldwide. Film is such a collaborative medium. It involves all aspects of the arts and many local businesses. Mr. Speaker, any money invested is a good investment, and sociologist Richard Florida says the health of the arts in a community is a measure of the health of the community and society itself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Your time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister Responsible for Fire and Emergency Services yesterday met with the Minister of National Defence to discuss search and rescue in our Province. The minister said that he had outlined all the concerns of Newfoundland and Labrador, but failed to request the federal involvement in a search and rescue inquiry for our Province.

So I ask the minister: Why did you not raise this important issue with the federal minister during your meeting?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, the reason I did not outline the need, as he said, for an inquiry was because I considered the federal AG report the actual inquiry. The federal AG report has outlined issues within the federal SAR system, which we have actually communicated to the federal minister at various occasions over the last couple of years.

Now is the time for action, Mr. Speaker. As well, I outlined some ways they could address those issues immediately by partnering with private industry and other ways they could actually augment the services now that are provided by the military across Canada, especially out of Gander, which 103 operates out of.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the minister, if he is thinking the federal AG's report is indeed a public inquiry, is missing the mark on all of this. The federal AG himself quite clearly said he did not audit provincial responsibilities. He did not even audit the RCMP involvement into search and rescue in our Province.

The Premier and this government have repeatedly asked for our federal Liberal MPs to get involved in the call for improved search and rescue, which they have. Now we finally have the federal minister onside. We have the federal MPs onside. The federal minister has said that he would co-operate in an inquiry.

I ask the minister: Why is it everyone, except for this government and except for this Premier, agrees to call for a public inquiry into search and rescue in our Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Simply, Mr. Speaker, it is because now is the time for action. Eighty-five per cent as regards to search and rescue in Canada, not only in Newfoundland and Labrador, is provided by the federal system. The Auditor General has outlined certain issues within that system and now is the time for action.

We do not need more talk. We do not need meetings on top of meetings. We need action, and action now. We have expressed that to the federal minister. We will express that time and time again, each and every chance I get to get the action that is needed for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the minister should understand that taking action for the sake of taking action is not good enough. That is an example of what happened in Budget 2013. They went out, they took action, they did not talk to people who were involved, and the people who are feeling the impact of Budget 2013 right now.

Last year Newfoundlanders and Labradorians protested across the Province demanding action from this government. They were the ones who asked for this. They wanted to see this government take action on an inquiry into search and rescue. The minister says he raised all the concerns, but did not raise this one.

Why do you feel that an inquiry is not a concern for people in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, over the years, I spent sixteen years in the Reserves and the Canadian Rangers. I know the system well. I have a lot of faith, as a minister, in the system in Newfoundland and Labrador and our volunteers. Now is the time for action.

There are identified problems with the SAR system in Canada, identified by the Auditor General, the federal Auditor General. Now is the time for action. Now is the time for access. He has personnel issues. I have suggested ways to overcome that issue. So now is the time to move on the recommendations, which they have endorsed in the federal government, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Speaking of the time for action, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the Noseworthy report gave a scathing review of the Department of Advanced Education and Skills. It says the department is lacking co-ordination. It is lacking communication, evaluation, strategy, and direction. The report contains eighty-seven recommendations. In the Blue Book in 2003 – you want to talk about action – it says that they would act on recommendations within sixty days.

So, I ask the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills: When can we expect an official response on this report?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite would know from participation in Estimates and other debates in this House, we are taking significant action to realign the Department of Advanced Education and Skills with the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We are making those choices, we are making those decisions, and we are taking those directions in the interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

The future has never been brighter in this Province, Mr. Speaker. There are tremendous opportunities for people to get an education here, to work here, to build a home, and to raise a family. We are making sure that the services delivered through the Department of Advanced Education and Skills are aligned to match what is required and to support Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Well, I will talk about the action from that department. This is the kind of action that the Noseworthy report talks about. It actually cautioned about cutting EAS offices, which this government has done. It talked about making budget cuts, it talked about decreasing jobs. It also says that this would increase challenges within the department. He also went on to say that this department is already dysfunctional and facing enormous challenges.

I ask the minister: This report cost $150,000, yet the changes in your department conflict its own recommendations, so how can you reconcile the two?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite would know that reports are commissioned, written and developed on a weekly basis in government, just like in the private sector. Reports are used to inform decisions, Mr. Speaker.

Let's be very clear, there is nobody who ever said that the Noseworthy report, or any other report will be final and binding and that the recommendations therein would be implemented. We take all of those pieces of information, just as we take consultations with people right across the Province. That is what is driving the agenda of the Department of Advanced Education and Skills.

I remind the member again, it is this government that has created an economic climate that has never been better for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and it is this government that is aligning the Department of Advanced Education and Skills to ensure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians avail of every opportunity available to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: I thank the minister, because the economic climate – just listen to this economic climate. Seven years after launching a Poverty Reduction Strategy the Noseworthy report stated that AES is not doing a good job at transitioning Income Support clients into the labour market. This government is saying that we have this looming labour market out there but we are not transitioning Income Support clients into that market.

If your Poverty Reduction Strategy is so successful, why is it there are more people on Income Support today than there was in 2009?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I say to the member opposite, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot stand in the House and criticize because we are trying to change something and then when I give an answer talking about how we are changing, stand up and say: Well, you should not be changing it.

The fact of the matter is when you are talking about transitioning Income Support recipients into the workforce or any number of the many of activities that the Department of Advanced Education and Skills is engaged in that is exactly what we are doing. We recognize the opportunities that exist in this Province. I have outlined them over and over again in this House, as has the minister.

Income Support recipients are but one target group, and we will do what we can to provide the supports, the financial means and the family supports to help those people avail of the educational opportunities, and subsequent to that, the employment opportunities that exist in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned of a gruesome discovery of moose carcasses close to the Trans-Canada Highway near the community of Benton. We also learned they were deposited there by conservation officers.

I ask the minister: Is this common, and how many more of those moose graveyards are around the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I do not spend –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I do not spend a lot of time in the woods but I would imagine that wild animals are born in the woods, and I would suspect they die in the woods as well.

Mr. Speaker, conservation officers obviously have to deal with moose that are killed on the highway. These carcasses have traditionally been taken into remote areas of the Province far from the highway. Unfortunately, it did not happen in this particular case. The senior officials have directed officials of the department to ensure that this does not happen again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, an official with Natural Resources admitted that the dumping of animal carcasses in the woods does happen. Meanwhile, if a private citizen did the same thing they would be charged with illegal dumping.

I ask the minister: Why are you allowing conservation officers to dump carcasses in the woods while there is a major effort to curb illegal dumping in our Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that for many, many years the carcasses are in fact taken to remote sections of the woods. The carcasses, of course, are eaten by other wild animals and disappear in that way. That will continue.

There are some places, of course, Mr. Speaker, where landfills may be close by that can be utilized if permitted. There are other areas where the Department of Environment has even allowed pits for the burial of moose. I think traditionally, as I said, wild animals are born in the woods and will die in the woods.

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, these animals died on the road. It is a major concern for health with disease with the rotting carcasses. Minister, you should take it a bit more seriously, especially when you take it and you pile all the animals in one spot near a community where people are out walking.

I ask the minister, many municipalities are using cameras and other electronic devices to catch illegal dumpers: How can you expect the citizens of the Province to buy into the Waste Management Strategy when we have our own officials creating moose graveyards throughout this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right, this is a serious issue. The officials of the Department of Natural Resources and the conservation officers take their responsibilities and their duties very seriously. Unfortunately, this particular carcass was left close to the highway. The officials have been involved to be more careful and ensure that the disposal of carcasses takes place in the appropriate way and according to the rules and regulations of the department.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Just to let you know, Minister, there were three carcasses, not just one, so this was not an isolated incident. It is a very serious health issue, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Speaker, we have learned that the government bailed out the pellet plant in Roddickton by paying $50,000 to cover their insurance premiums. Apparently, the company could not afford to pay their own insurance.

I ask the Premier: After putting $11 million in taxpayers' money into this idle plant, can you confirm that the government is now covering their insurance bills?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the government is proud to stand with the people of the Great Northern Peninsula. We have made a major investment – which an hon. member just made – into a plant at Roddickton.

We are continuing to work with that company and to work with proposals that it has put forward to the government to hopefully ensure that, for the benefit of harvesters and citizens of the Great Northern Peninsula, there will an opportunity to sell wood and to be employed in the industry there. Hopefully, we can take advantage of markets throughout the world that might be available to provide some prosperity to that particular plant and others throughout the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: I missed that, Mr. Minister – how many people are working there now, with the great investment that your government made, against all the officials who said no, the money should not go there for several reasons. I missed how many people are working there, Minister.

It has been confirmed by the Auditor General that government took on a significant risk by giving the company $11 million. The Premier pushed this project through the system without listening to concerns expressed by her officials, and now the plant is sitting idle while we pick up all the insurance bills.

I ask the Premier: How much of this money has been repaid to the people of the Province, and when can we expect full repayment of this loan?

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

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, we support industries throughout Newfoundland and Labrador; we do it all the time. We are supporting a mill in Corner Brook, and the hon. member does not have any problems with that. We also provided support to a wood pellet industry and a sawmill company up in Roddickton. They are having difficulties; there is no question about that. The plant is idle at the moment.

One of the things they have done, they have formed some partnerships with other stakeholders and in the call for expressions of interest for fibre in Central Newfoundland and in Labrador, there are a number of proposals that can see an enhancement and expansion to the wood pellet industry in Central Newfoundland and in Labrador, and hopefully up the Northern Peninsula as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Speaker, the Labrador School Board is making a position of education psychologist redundant in Labrador and replacing it with an education assessor to accommodate the bumping procedure within the board.

I ask the minister: Why is the school board allowed to eliminate this very important position through transfer, putting the learning ability of children at risk?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe there was some concern raised, as the hon. member has mentioned, about a position being removed. Mr. Speaker, quite simply, it is a collective bargaining issue. We just have to allow those things to work its way through the process.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Speaker, the Labrador School Board has advertised for an educational psychologist for seven years before it finally had a candidate in the position last fall. With the elimination of the role, children in Labrador may be required to travel to St. John's to the Janeway Hospital to be diagnosed.

I ask the minister: Why would the children of Labrador have to leave home for proper care due to amalgamation of the school boards and the elimination of services?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have cautioned some members across the way before about making statements that are creating anxiety in parents. This is another case.

Mr. Speaker, the students of this Province, Labrador and on the Island, receive first-rate service from this government. Our investment in special education services is second to none in this country. Again, as I have said, the position is there, it remains there, and there is a collective bargaining issue. We will let that process take its course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Speaker, this is the only qualified education psychologist in Labrador, a member of Nunatsiavut with cultural ties to the region. This person is also a clinical psychologist, adding to their level of expertise and ability to provide the necessary services.

I ask the minister: Is this what you meant when you said in response to my question last week – and Hansard will confirm this – "…the programs that are in place and the resources that are in place will be protected under this new arrangement"?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, under a collective bargaining issue, a particular individual does not have the determined right to that position. The position is there. It will be filled. I cannot determine who the position will be filled by.

Again, our investment and this Budget, Mr. Speaker, we decided we were going to maintain those front-line services, and those services to special education students will be maintained.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

In response to my clear questions yesterday on expropriated Abitibi properties, the Minister of Natural Resources gave us an impromptu history lesson but he did not answer the question. There are serious concerns about how much the people of the Province are out of pocket and how long before they will be out of the red.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Will he appoint an independent third party auditor to assess the deal and report to the House on the merits of this government's hasty botched expropriation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, there is no need of such a person because they already exist. The (inaudible) have their own auditor, or we have the Auditor General who can do that.

Mr. Speaker, the hydroelectricity assets from Central Newfoundland are going to provide tremendous value to the people of the Province. It already has and will continue to do so. The benefit to the ratepayers of the Province from just the cost of oil that has been displaced because this energy asset has now been available, we have electricity replacing oil. It has already provided a benefit to ratepayers in this Province that exceeds the value of what we paid for those assets.

Mr. Speaker, my officials have met with Nalcor to make a determination of the value over a twenty-five year period; in other words, what has happened since expropriation in 2009, for a twenty-five year period. There are obviously a number of factors that you have to take into that estimate, the offsetting of fuel costs to Holyrood, market prices –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

I am interested in what the minister is saying. What I would like to see in this House, and maybe he will table it, are all the documentations, the evidence, and the proof that he is talking about.

Will he table that information?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In calculating the value to the Province over the next twenty-five years, as I said, we have to look at things like discount rates, the cost of fuel, interest rates, market price of electricity and so on. Based on these factors, I have been advised that they are projected to provide a total benefit to the Province, to Nalcor, and to the ratepayers in this Province of hundreds of millions of dollars over the next twenty-five years.

This is a hydroelectric asset that has been acquired. We have to pay only for half of the value of the asset. This will provide benefits. It will be owned ultimately by Nalcor. It will be owned by the people of the Province. It will provide them with cheaper electricity than they are paying now based on the cost of oil to Holyrood. This is a good deal for the people. It is a good deal. We have the people's assets back where they belong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, this government keeps throwing numbers around. Yesterday, the minister did not provide an answer to my question about the claims made by a government backbencher last weekend that government has made $50 million in the past four years from the expropriated Abitibi hydro assets. Now the minister is speaking about hundreds of millions as we move into the future.

Will he please give us the correct information? Give us the documents to prove what he is saying.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, obviously, the Leader of the Third Party does not understand the difference between the past, since 2009, to today. The benefit that we have received over and above the cost has been, to the end of February, $55 million; to March 21, $65 million. On a go-forward basis over time, over twenty-five years, somewhere between $369 million, probably around $400 million, but who knows, based on the forecast for interest rate discounts and the price of oil.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

It is the minister who does not understand. I am asking a simple question, show us the proof.

Mr. Speaker, we learned in Estimates Committee for Justice that government has no immediate plans for the Whitbourne youth secure, custody centre. The minister noted government has to find an alternate way to deal with youth offenders who need the service.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Justice: Can he elaborate on what he is considering as alternate ways to help young offenders in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what there is to elaborate on. In her preamble she said I had no plans, so I cannot very well elaborate on something I do not have.

What I can say to you, though, is that when we considered Whitbourne and we considered the staffing at Whitbourne, we considered the fact that the number of inmates on average has gone down from about sixty to – I believe at the time of Estimates – around seven inmates per year. We were pushing well over eighty-plus employees out there, Mr. Speaker. As we did a reconciliation of the resources that were required to provide the services to the clients out there, we recognized an opportunity to save some money and still provide the kinds of services that were required, and that is what we have done.

We will take a further look at that as we move forward, Mr. Speaker, and if there is an opportunity to move away from that service delivery model in that facility, then we will explore that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I ask the minister then to tell us, they are considering alternate plans: How long is it going to take before we know the plans so that we know that these young offenders are being taken care of with justice and equality?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear for the member here, and for all those who are listening or paying attention to this debate. The young offenders in Whitbourne are being taken great care of. They are receiving quality services from social workers and psychologists. They are receiving outdoor recreational activities, farming activities, all of the same kinds of activities, services and supports that they would have been receiving over the last seven or eight years. Let me reassure the member opposite that will continue, Mr. Speaker.

If we decide to transition away from that model of service delivery and perhaps offloading an asset that is a tremendous financial burden to the Province at this point in time for the number of youth who are there, if we decide to go down that road, then we will certainly make that available to the public for discussion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is Nurse Appreciation Week and we want to thank the amazing nurses serving the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The minister directed the RHAs to cut at least 125 management positions, the majority of which will be nurse managers in the front lines.

Mr. Speaker, what is the plan? Has the minister done an impact assessment or requested one on how these cuts will affect patient care and RN workloads? Will the minister table that assessment?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, we will start with our normal correction. I did not direct the RHAs to do any such thing. What has happened is that we have started down the road of operational reviews. Eastern Health started their operational review last year and in the process of doing that they identified efficiencies that could be found through managerial positions within their RHA.

The other three health authorities, Mr. Speaker, are in the process now of doing their operational reviews. We anticipate they, too, will find the same efficiencies within the management structure. This is not a matter of direction; this is a matter of due course being followed through the operational reviews.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Those management positions are going.

Mr. Speaker, professional development is a key issue for attracting and retaining nurses. It helps nurses be current in their areas of expertise and benefits patient care. This past year, the minister issued a moratorium to all RHAs to discontinue all funding of registration, travel, and leave replacement for professional development for nurses. Our nurses want to be current in their areas of expertise.

I ask this minister: What exactly is the policy on ongoing professional development?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Once again, Mr. Speaker, I issued no directive. The RHAs, as they looked to finding their own efficiencies throughout the system, identified various areas within their work and within scopes of practice within which they thought they could find efficiencies.

Mr. Speaker, one of those areas was in the area of travel; another was in the area of professional development. Any essential professional development still happens. There has been no curtailment of that whatsoever.

In terms of optional professional development, Mr. Speaker, the RHAs have directed that they take a closer look at that. In some cases, some of that professional development is still going ahead, but it may be that one person may be going, as opposed to two or three people, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, as the Child and Youth Advocate pointed out earlier this year, deficiencies in documentation and communication standards in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services put children at risk of neglect and abuse.

When will government address these deficiencies and fully implement the standard service delivery team model for child protection, adoption, and youth corrections that was promised almost two years ago now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that question was asked and answered this morning in Estimates. We have seen the recommendations of two or three of those reports, and we have seen the recommendations as well that have come through the Susan Abell report. Recommendations have been accepted by the department, are being acted upon by the department, and are being implemented.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most important recommendations that the department has followed up on has to do with the allocation of social workers within the department. They aimed for a ratio of one in twenty, and currently they are at one in twenty, Mr. Speaker. It is certainly a huge –

AN HON. MEMBER: One in twenty-one.

MS SULLIVAN: One in twenty-one, thank you. It is a huge improvement over where things have been. They also looked in terms of supervisors and social workers, and they are now at one in six, in terms of a supervisor having responsibility (inaudible) –

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, there are currently a number of vacancies in the front line, including fourteen social workers. The promised new team delivery model for CYFS is supposed to include one social work assistant for every six social workers to allow for improved communications, documentation, and plans of care.

When will government provide staffing resources needed to ensure that the department service delivery team model is fully implemented?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the question from the member opposite, Mr. Speaker, I will point out that there is, in fact, a ratio that is being worked on. We answered that question this morning in the sense of saying that we are constantly looking at recruitment and retention within this department. We recognize that the team model is the best model, and it is a model that we are working toward.

Mr. Speaker, in most all cases, that is a model that is totally, totally complemented. There are some areas, however, where we do not yet have assistance for social workers, but that has not changed the fact that we are out recruiting for those particular positions.

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

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, the Social Services Committee has considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have passed, without amendment, the Estimates of: the Department of Municipal Affairs; the Department of Education; the Department of Health and Community Services, and French-Language Services; the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation; the Department of Justice; and, the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, and Women's Policy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, Motion 7, pursuant to Standing Order 11 that this House not adjourn 5:30 p.m. today, Tuesday, May 7, 2013.

Further, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, Motion 8, pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Tuesday, May 7, 2013.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Tuesday, nor adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Tuesday.

All those in favour of the motion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Motion carried.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

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

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

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador currently has the highest unemployment rate in Canada; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador anticipate a labour shortage of 70,000 people by 2020; and

WHEREAS eliminating the career practitioner knowledge base is contrary to attaching people to the labour market; and

WHEREAS EAS agencies are grassroots hubs in communities providing services like skills development, resume development, interview skills, and facilitating attachment to the labour market and community; and

WHEREAS loading the workload of 226 employees onto 139 Advanced Education and Skills employees would be an overwhelming expectation, increasing staff turnover, and thus decreasing rapport with clients;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to reverse the decision to cut funding to EAS agencies in the Province.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the things that was brought up in the Noseworthy report which was a very comprehensive, thorough report done by John Noseworthy at the cost of $150,000. I will tell you, he certainly earned the money, going by the deficiencies that he pointed out in this department. It took him almost 300 pages to show what a state this department actually is in. Again, this is what happens when you cobble together a bunch of different programs into a department without actually thinking about what you are doing first.

The EAS agencies is one of those things that has been tossed out into the wind; 226 people in this Province who were doing a good service, providing a good service, contributing to our economy and making sure that the labour shortage that is there is going to be addressed.

It is funny because Mr. Noseworthy actually cautioned that cutting EAS offices, budgets, and jobs would increase challenges to the department which is already dysfunctional. It seems like we actually went against the Noseworthy report.

I am looking forward to doing the Estimates tomorrow for Advanced Education. This is one of the questions we will likely ask, amongst many; exactly why did we make this decision which goes against the report that be bought and paid for earlier in the year that apparently we were not using when we made these decisions.

Again, there are lots of questions coming up; unfortunately, EAS employees, 226 of them were tossed out without any serious consideration or thought given to what was being done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

WHEREAS Route 438 (Croque-St. Julien's, Grandois Road), a former woods road, is nearly thirty kilometres of gravel road; and

WHEREAS the students, workers, and residents must travel this road for all education, health, business and other services; and

WHEREAS the Department of Transportation and Works has no immediate plans to do major upgrading on Route 438 despite the current road conditions being disgraceful; and

WHEREAS it is the government's obligation to provide basic infrastructure to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to allocate funds in the 2013 provincial roads program to upgrade Route 438.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, the petition is signed by residents of Croque, Roddickton, Englee, Corner Brook, and Conche. Mr. Speaker, this road is a former resource road that I travelled on Saturday and in it, the condition is absolutely disgraceful. There are tree stumps and logs growing up through the road or being visible, that students have to travel over, and all residents. There is no commercial activity on this road, in these communities; there are no government services there. It would essential to at least bring in some crushed stone and to do the work that is needed so that the people can have a gravel road in this region that is up to standard in today's society in Newfoundland and Labrador.

These people are not asking that the road be paved for the thirty kilometres. There are a small number of residents there. They do expect that the Department of Transportation and Works would provide an adequate level of crushed stone and make sure the tree stumps and things like that are removed from this highway, and not just covered over.

There needs to be work done. This matter needs to be addressed because this is 2013 and we should not have to be living like this. So I submit this petition on behalf of constituents and others in the Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS there is an identified need for all levels of care in all regions of Labrador; and

WHEREAS the Paddon Home is suitable for all levels of care

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to conduct a needs assessment to identify the needs of all levels of long-term care in Labrador and to reopen the Paddon Home for care of long-term residents in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this particular submission is signed by people in Hopedale, Rigolet, Makkovik, and Happy Valley-Goose Bay. The reason they are coming forward is because they know of the situation at the Melville Hospital in Goose Bay.

I was actually at the hospital on Sunday afternoon visiting some of my constituents and certainly some friends and relatives. As I walked through the hospital, Mr. Speaker, I saw individuals in the hallways, some on beds, some in wheelchairs, and many who have actually taken up hospital rooms that were created for acute care patients.


I will say it, I said earlier in petitions I submitted and I will say it again, as the population of Labrador increases, specifically Happy Valley-Goose Bay with the construction of Muskrat Falls Project and the expected population to rise to an extra 3,500 people, so will the demand on the resources in Upper Lake Melville. One resource is going to be the hospital, Mr. Speaker. Certainly there will be times when people may not be accommodated due to the over crowdedness at the hospital.

I look forward to this government acting on the reopening of the Paddon Home for long-term care in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

Thank you.

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

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

WHEREAS students of the Adult Basic Education program at the College of the North Atlantic do not wish to attend privatized educational facilities; and

WHEREAS College of the North Atlantic has the most accredited Adult Basic Education program in Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS students are concerned as to the availability of private institutions and whether or not they can accommodate additional students;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to reverse this damaging decision to students and reinstate Adult Basic Education programming at College of the North Atlantic.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, on this petition today we have more petitioners from Labrador, from North West River, Sheshatshiu, and Goose Bay. Yesterday, I presented a different petition. There are now two petitions regarding Adult Basic Education that are coming in periodically to my office: one is this one which is to reinstate the program; the other one is for government to produce or release the enrolments, funding and graduation figures that have been talked about. There is much confusion in the information that has been released to the public.

This letter that was written to the Premier from instructors of Adult Basic Education at College of the North Atlantic talks about the serious financial and social costs of eliminating the program. They also talk about the fact that the source for the figures that have been released publicly has not been revealed; hence, their accuracy and relevancy to the argument are questionable in the opinion of those instructors.

Also, yesterday I pointed out some of the things that have happened since, the unintended consequences of this decision. For example, students possibly not being able to get a place in residence because they are not College of the North Atlantic students, and thereby do not have the first opportunity to get a residence room as a result of that.

We continue to receive this petition. I and the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, the Premier, and members of the Official Opposition continue to get e-mails almost on a daily basis about this from individuals across the Province. So I would urge members opposite to rethink this decision and ask government to change this, because it is a wrong-headed and foolhardy direction for us to go in.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, a petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS home care allows the elderly and people with disabilities to remain within the comfort and security of their own homes, home care also allows people to be discharged from hospital earlier; and

WHEREAS many families find it very difficult to recruit and retain home care workers for their loved ones; and

WHEREAS the PC Blue Book 2011 as well as the 2012 Speech from the Throne committed that government would develop a new model of home care and give people the option of receiving that care from family members; and

WHEREAS government has given no time commitment for when government plans to implement paying family caregivers;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to implement a new home care model to cover family caregivers.

And in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, what is being sought here is not something that was not promised. It is not something that will cost government more. The promise was made, Mr. Speaker, to cover the cost of family members who are qualified home care providers for people who are already eligible to receive home care.

Mr. Speaker, the same recipients, the same patients, the same elderly people would receive care from qualified strangers. What is the difference if they receive care from qualified family members, people they know, people who are close to them? Mr. Speaker, this does not cause an extra draw down of more funds from the Treasury. It simply permits the government (a) to keep a promise, and (b) to permit people to live in maybe a little more dignity than they would if they were dealing with strangers for this particular service that is provided to them.

Mr. Speaker, the issue really is: Did the government promise large and deliver small? Most people would prefer somebody, including government, and in particular political parties, who promise small and deliver large. In this case the government made a large promise, there is a small commitment.

I know government has already made some very small steps toward it, but while people are waiting time is passing and there is no reason that this could not be implemented. The appropriations already sought in this year's Budget will certainly be passed. So, Mr. Speaker, this is a simple request. Do it now, because you promised it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment and Conservation, that we move to Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that we now move to Orders of the Day.

All those in favour of the motion, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I call Order 3, second reading of a bill, An Act to Amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland and Labrador Act. (Bill 1)

MR. SPEAKER: When the debate finished yesterday, I think the Member for Mount Pearl South was the last person to speak to the motion.

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that I have no doubt will receive uniform support from all sides of the House. Eventually, there may well be amendments sought because what we are looking at here is for safety for offshore workers. Safety for offshore workers is very important.

This looks at people who are involved in the petroleum industry which employs a large number of people in our Province and which is the cash cow that has permitted government to be able to do the things that it has done in the last half-dozen or more years. When we look at offshore safety, Mr. Speaker, people in this Province have taken really huge risks with life and limb over the last 400 or 500 years since we were discovered by Europeans. Undoubtedly, even people before Europeans took significant risks in earning a livelihood.

We are the Province that experienced the great sealing disasters, where we lost hundreds of people on the ice. We are the people who go out to sea in small boats, in bad weather, huge waves, to extract and to prosecute a living from the ocean.

Mr. Speaker, many of the elements of what makes us who we are is the fact that a lot of our industry is competitive. The fishery is a competitive industry – if one fisherman catches one fish, another fisherman does not catch that fish. We see it today in all sorts of search and rescue issues. For example, if it is a competitive turbot quota, if one fisherman puts to sea and catches that quota or part of that quota, and somebody else does not put to sea because the wind is too high, the weather is not so good, then that person loses out.

Historically, we have always known what it is like to risk life and limb in order to make a living. That has taken on a new light in dealing with the offshore, because when the Ocean Ranger went down we knew what that was like with the deaths of eighty-four people. Somebody from the Ocean Ranger was known to practically everybody in this Province, and if not, one of the people who died on the Ocean Ranger, one of their family members.

There were discussions and talks about pushing safety, and pushing and pushing to extract profit. It is one thing when the individual willingly goes on the water and takes a risk and takes a chance in order to earn a livelihood and maybe do a little bit better than the next person in the cove, or in the harbour, or in the bay, but it is quite another thing when you have somebody sitting in an office giving orders to somebody else saying: You go risk your life, you risk your limb, you be away from your loved ones because we want to make profits. Mr. Speaker, it is ever more important that we have appropriate regulation and strong regulation that really protects our workers who are working in the offshore.

Yesterday, the Minister of Natural Resources was speaking and spoke at length about how we came into being with the offshore resources. I would like to add to that part of the commentary because he spoke of the legal challenge that ended up with the offshore oil resource belonging to the people of Canada. Well, Mr. Speaker, it belongs to the people of Canada through the federal government but we also are the people of Canada.

We are the people of Newfoundland and Labrador but that does not make us any less Canadian. In fact, in many ways it may make us more Canadian because we chose to join Canada and Canada for any other living Canadians certainly evolved. There was nobody around from 1905, which was the last province to come in before us. We chose Canada, we chose to join. We are content with the offshore ruling with natural resources, with oil and gas, in that offshore decision.

Mr. Speaker, there is another offshore decision which does not go so far offshore, and that too is a Supreme Court of Canada decision. I hope that our government, no matter which party it is led by, will take another look at who has the entitlement to the resources out to the three-mile limit. Out to the three-mile limit means out to the headlands, to all the points, then out three nautical miles and all the way across. All of these inland waters, by another Supreme Court of Canada decision, clearly belong to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador as much as if they were on dry land.

Mr. Speaker, that is why in one way it troubles me somewhat when we talk about drilling in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and when we talk about the horizontal drilling, and ultimately the fracking that likely will take place. Why the C-NLOPB has any application in that discussion is beyond me.

It is my view, Mr. Speaker, that clearly those are provincial resources caught within the territorial sea of three miles that we brought to Canada as a dominion when we joined. When we joined we were a fully autonomous dominion, the same as Canada was a dominion, the same as Australia was a dominion, and the same as New Zealand was a dominion. We came not as a colony and not as a possession of somebody else, but as our own dominion. We brought those resources with us.

Mr. Speaker, that Supreme Court of Canada decision says that out to the three-mile limit it is clearly provincial. That means we need to make sure that –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: – we appropriately manage that part of the near-shore and the onshore resources.

Mr. Speaker, this bill that is proposed is something that in my view, although it is necessary, is pretty feeble. It is a feeble piece of legislation compared with what is available in the world today. If we look at another regime for offshore regulation, in some instances we have looked at Norway, but most importantly we look to Australia. If we look to Australia, we will see that the Australian offshore is much, much larger than ours.

The Wells report in article twenty-nine or paragraph twenty-nine, which my colleagues have dealt with, called for a different regulator, a newer national regulator. This is not contemplated in this legislation. Mr. Speaker, to show you how far behind we are with this legislation, in 2005, four years before the Cougar crash, Australia had that legislation. Australia already had that legislation.

Mr. Speaker, if the Australians already had that type of legislation and Australia is very similar to Canada, even though they call it the Commonwealth of Australia it was still a dominion; and even though they call their federation states instead of provinces, there is no doubt that it is pretty much exactly the same as Canada is in composition. By comparison to where we are and Australia is, if we look at simply in sheer size, the Australian offshore covers approximately thirty platforms, fifteen FPSOs and FSOs, ten MODUs, ten vessels, and ninety pipeline facilities. Compared to what we have, the Australians are doing a much bigger job.

The legislation they passed in 2005, which was four years before the Cougar crash, the legislation that we are shying away from today, the legislation which should in my view entrench the Wells recommendation – and the Wells recommendation was made within a year and a bit after the Cougar crash. If we were to get up to where Australia was in 2005, which is eight years ago, we would have something similar to their offshore petroleum safety authority which was established "to regulate the health and safety of workers on offshore facilities in Commonwealth waters, and in waters where State powers had been conferred.

Mr. Speaker, what we are looking at today is introducing legislation that will have the similar aspects of the Australian legislation that was introduced eight years ago, but we will not have a national regulator. Where are the Australians today in this instance? In the beginning of 2012, they upgraded that legislation. That legislation they upgraded at the beginning of 2012. They have an individual who at that date was Jane Cutler, the chief executive officer of NOPSEMA. NOPSEMA is the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority.

The Australians today, starting from a year ago, not only do they regulate offshore health and safety, they also regulate the environment. The Australians, eight years ago, came further than we plan to go today because we do not want to have a national regulator. Since then, they have upgraded and improved their legislation over the past eight years to have national health and safety, and also to have national environmental regulation.

Mr. Speaker, what would it mean if we had national regulation? If we had national regulation today, that cargo vessel that is not far from Change Islands with 3,400 barrels of oil in it, with a crack in the hull that is leaking out into the ocean, and jeopardizing our wildlife and our fishing industry, that could easily be caught with the type of legislation, if it were a joint endeavour between our provincial government and the federal government.

We hear that oh, this took fourteen years to put together this package because they had to have the agreement of the Nova Scotians and the feds. We do not need the agreement of the Nova Scotians to deal with our offshore with the feds, when Nova Scotians have little to no application over there. They can have their own deal with the feds; we can have our deal with the feds.

Mr. Speaker, how can it possibly take fourteen years to put together a piece of legislation that will bring us not quite as up to date as the Australians were eight years ago? The Australian legislation is there to compare; the Australian legislation is there to contrast.

Mr. Speaker, it is not for want of representation by particular interest groups. Various interest groups have very big concerns about the health and safety in the offshore. In the Wells inquiry representations and submissions were made by the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour said and recommended – and they seemed to be somewhat pleased with this legislation, maybe without realizing how much further it should go. Their recommendation number four said that the language in the proposed legislation be as strong as possible including the use of words such as administer, enforcement, inspect, and investigate; to do otherwise than to use words such as compliance and examine (inaudible) self-regulation.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour made this recommendation three years ago and this is coming in the wake of the deaths of seventeen people in the Cougar Flight 491 crash and that was years after the Ocean Ranger, so we certainly should have had enough motivation.

The recommendation number six, which is also a critical recommendation of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour, is that we recommend it to ensure the right to know and participate by giving the support they need to be real rights in the offshore workplace, that full-time paid health and safety representatives are in place and on duty at every work rotation.

Mr. Speaker, the representation in the organized labour of the people who work in the offshore were making these recommendations three years ago. Justice Wells made the recommendation in the Wells report that there should be a national regulator, and he went to great lengths to say that within his terms of reference because, clearly, you cannot go outside of your mandate. He called the C-NLOPB to make a request or to ask both levels of government to go together on a national regulator. Having a national regulator improves the chances of more compliance and better compliance.

The types of things that he said, "It is recommended that a new, independent, and stand-alone Safety Regulator be established to regulate safety in the C-NL offshore. Such a Safety Regulator would have to be established, mandated, and funded by both Governments by way of legislative amendment, regulation, or memorandum of understanding, or other means." He is practically pleading in his report saying you need to do this. I do not really care what you call it or how you put it together, but do it because it needs to be done.

He also said, "It is further recommended that if, for any reason, it may not be feasible at this time to do as recommended in 29(a) above, both Governments consider the enactment of regulations, or a memorandum of understanding, or such other mechanism as may be suitable, to do as follows". Mr. Speaker, regulations are sub-statute. Regulations can be agreed upon by both levels of government, at a ministerial level, at a Cabinet level, and it can simply be done.

The regulations he had in mind were to "create a separate and autonomous Safety Division of C-NLOPB, with a separate budget, separate leadership, and an organizational structure designed to deal only with safety matters. A suggested design for such a Division is to be found in the Observations chapter of this Report."

He also said, "establish, to support the full-time leadership and staff of the Safety Division, an Advisory Board composed of mature and experienced persons fully representative of the community and who are unconnected with the oil industry." Mr. Speaker, what a startling recommendation to say not only should you have an independent national regulator, you should have somebody who has no vested interest in the financial outcome, but somebody from the community who has the best interests of the safety in the offshore.

He said, "The Advisory Board would not be expected to contribute expertise in aviation or other specialized fields. Its role would be to give mature" – and he keeps on saying mature – "and balanced advice and support to the leadership of the Safety Division, its officers and staff."

He said to "ensure that the Safety Division would have the mandate and ability to engage, either on staff or as consultants, expert advisors to assist it in its regulatory tasks. (iv) ensure that the powers, duties, and responsibilities of the Chief Safety Officer be transferred to and incorporated in the new Safety Division."

He said under his "…Terms of Reference, I cannot recommend directly to Governments" – that was not his job – "and so this Recommendation 29 is being made to C-NLOPB, which has as part of its role the delegated responsibility to advise both federal and provincial Governments on offshore safety governance."

His "…recommendation is therefore that C-NLOPB itself recommend to both Governments the changes to the regulatory regime which…" he had recommended.

Justice Wells, who was commissioned to do the inquiry following Cougar, said this needs to be done. Years later the government is coming along, and not only are they not doing this, their legislation is so weak, is so puerile, is so childlike that we have not quite caught up to the Australians from 2005. By way of analogy, by of comparison, Mr. Speaker, if the Australians were on a ten-speed bike in a road race, we would be coming along on a tricycle with this legislation trying to catch up with them.

I think the people of this Province deserve better than this from this government. Clearly, they should be able to beef up this legislation a little bit, give us a national regulator, really put the health and safety of people working in the offshore foremost, and then get moving immediately on an environmental package that would go with it so we can at least catch up to where the Australians were a year ago.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to rise in second reading of Bill 1 today to participate in what is an important debate. I am pleased that the Member for St. Barbe acknowledged the importance of this piece of legislation. It is a complex piece of legislation.

I take exception to the member's comments that this is a feeble piece of legislation. On one hand, I am pleased to hear him say that it is likely that all members of this hon. House will support it, but I am disappointed to hear him suggest that it is feeble, to use his word. We are talking about a piece of legislation that is rather comprehensive. We are talking about bringing together multiple jurisdictions, and ultimately, we are talking about creating a safer environment for our workers in the offshore.

I want to begin just with a few reflections on the comments from the Member for St. Barbe, who talked extensively about the Wells inquiry, and specifically Recommendation 29. Let me be very clear, Mr. Speaker. On this side of the House, we support every single recommendation that came out of the Wells inquiry, including Recommendation 29.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Recommendation 29 calls for an independent offshore regulator. We have been calling on the federal government for just that because we believe it is the right thing to do and we support Commissioner Wells' recommendations. At every opportunity that the Premier has had, that ministers in this government have had, we have been calling on the federal government to implement Recommendation 29.

We are pleased that twenty-eight of the twenty-nine recommendations have been implemented, but we do believe the call for an independent offshore regulator is absolutely the right one, and it is one that we will continue to advocate for. In fact – I said it to a couple of my colleagues late last week – there is probably no family in this Province that has not been touched by one of the tragedies that has occurred in the offshore, be it the Ocean Ranger disaster, or the Cougar Flight 491 tragedy. These are major disasters that have impacted just about every family in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have such a connection to the sea here. As a government, that is why all members of this House consider issues related to search and rescue so important, issues related to safety in the offshore so important. That is why I am so pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this debate today.

For the member opposite to suggest that somehow we would not support Recommendation 29, nothing could be further from the truth. We will continue to advocate for that. In the meantime, we do believe this is a very comprehensive piece of legislation that has been a long time coming.

It is national – I believe throughout North America, actually. It is Occupational Health and Safety Week. I am pleased the Minister of Service NL has been doing numerous things to commemorate that occasion this week.

In my own department, the department I work in these days, Innovation, Business and Rural Development, I am receiving messages on a daily basis from employees who are actively engaged in the work of occupational health and safety within our department. I know that is going on throughout government and throughout North America this week. So it is a really appropriate time to be addressing what is a very important piece of legislation.

There is great benefit to developing our natural resources offshore. There are jobs created. There is huge economic benefit. It is generating huge wealth for people in this Province, but we are very cognizant of the fact that we need to do so in a responsible way. We need to do so in a very calculated way. We need to do so in a very safe way. The safety of those women and men who are working in that environment has to be paramount at all times.

When we talk about developing comprehensive offshore occupational health and safety regulations and putting a regime in place that continues to address the needs of workers in the offshore, there are a lot of things to consider. Important things like safety inspections; accident incident investigations; occupational health and safety committees; ensuring that the right kind of safety training and an appropriate amount of safety training is available for workers in the offshore.

We need to make sure that in all work environments, onshore or offshore, everywhere, that there are appropriate emergency preparedness plans in place; that there is an appropriate level of new employee orientation to address health and safety; that employers have a proper safety auditing system in place; and that employers have preventative maintenance programs in place. All of these things are essential.

What we are trying to do here is ensure that these occupational health and safety regulations, that an appropriate occupational health and safety regime exists within the Atlantic Accord, which is why these amendments are necessary at this time.

What we are doing through this act is amending the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland and Labrador Act. There are actually amendments required to the Atlantic Accord to do what we are talking about in this bill.

There is a safety regime in the offshore now, of course. There are rather extensive regulations related to safety in place in the offshore currently. There are safety provisions in the Accord Acts that provide autonomy of the chief safety officer from the C-NLOPB to exercise certain powers respecting offshore operations.

There is an MOU to give the C-NLOPB safety officers authority to administer key provisions of the provincial Occupational Health and Safety Act. Those principles, which are well known to many members of this House, include the right to refuse, the right to know, and the right to participate.

We also currently have draft occupational health and safety regulations and contractual terms and conditions of work authorizations in place. What we need to do is come up with a single, comprehensive legislative framework to eliminate this approach that we currently have with multiple jurisdictions, multiple regulations, and multiple pieces of legislation involved.

This legislative framework that is proposed here incorporates key elements of standard OHS policies and principles, but it also reflects joint governance between the federal and provincial governments in the offshore. We need to embed this occupational health and safety regime right into the Atlantic Accord, which is what we are attempting to do through Bill 1.

This process started a number of years ago. It is rather complex and it has taken considerable effort from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Government of Nova Scotia, the Government of Canada, working with the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, and working with the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board.

We have multiple jurisdictions that are involved because we identified a flaw in the Atlantic Accord essentially that did not allow us to bring in the occupational health and safety regime that makes more sense than the current regulatory environment we find ourselves in.

These regulations that we are talking about will not only apply on oil rigs. They will not only apply on vessels. They will also apply as workers are travelling to and from work on these vessels or on these rigs. That is important to note as well. We are simply creating a regulatory framework and comprehensive occupational health and safety regime within the Atlantic Accord to protect those who are working in the offshore environment.

My colleague almost had an incident himself, spilling his water, but he seems to be okay. He is recovering well, and he is onshore at the moment, Mr. Speaker – we think.

Mr. Speaker, as a government we are very committed to offshore safety and we support the creation of a comprehensive, legislative OHS regime for the Province's offshore. We are pleased that the extensive collaboration has gone well, and I understand that legislation is also being tabled by the Governments of Canada and Nova Scotia. We have to do everything we can to protect the individuals who are working offshore.

I know that the amendments we are proposing here are tailored to the offshore working environment and they include things like a worker's right to refusal, a worker's right to know, and a worker's right to reprisal protection for raising health and safety concerns. It also includes joint allocation of responsibility among operators, employers, workers, and suppliers on all matters related to health and safety.

The new occupational health and safety regime that is proposed by the amendments that we are debating here today, they apply to workers in transit to and from offshore platforms, as I have said. Actually, the federal Transport Minister will now be required to sign off on regulations for the application of the occupational health and safety regime to workers in transit and the operator will continue to be responsible for passengers as well.

I really think we are going to end up with a situation where we have streamlined regulations and simplified occupational health and safety framework for the offshore.

In the few minutes I have left, I would like to also touch on what specifically these amendments will do. They will place authority and fundamental principles of OHS within the Accord itself, as I have said. They will also clarify the roles of the various parties involved, which I think is really important as well. They will clarify the roles and responsibilities of regulators, employers, employees, governments; and, in fact, the provincial Labour Ministers and the federal Minister of Natural Resources, in consultation with the Ministers of Labour and Transport Canada, will develop regulations for offshore occupational health and safety while our offshore petroleum boards will administer the new legislation. These amendments will also grant those offshore petroleum boards the authority to disclose information to the public related to occupational health and safety.

From a transparency point of view and from an access to information point of view, we certainly support the move to ensure the boards have the authority to disclose information to the public when it comes to safety and the health of our workers in the offshore. I think it is really positive that these amendments will ensure that the new regime also applies to workers who are in transit to and from our platforms, and would require the federal Minister of Transport to recommend regulations related to OHS for those workers.

Another thing these amendments achieve, Mr. Speaker, is provide clear and specific enforcement powers for Occupational Health and Safety officers, including the powers of investigation, the powers of inspection, warrant provisions, and order measures in case of dangerous situations. I think these are absolutely positive steps forward.

As the Member for St. Barbe said, it would not surprise me at all if everybody in this House supports this important piece of legislation. It makes sense. It has been a long time coming. It shows what is possible when various levels of government and various authorities work together. It also demonstrates our commitment to ensuring that all those workers who work in a very harsh environment in our offshore have the safest environment possible to conduct that important work.

That is why I am very pleased to have this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to rise and speak briefly in support of Bill 1.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think with this piece of this legislation we are at a bit of a turning point. It has been a long time coming. One of the things I had to make note of, of course, when the government first came out with the piece of legislation and introduced it was a federal release on the matter. Let me just read one paragraph here:

"‘Today's announcement is a result of our extensive collaboration with the provinces to protect Canadians working in the offshore oil and gas industry – a sector vital to jobs and our economy,' said Minister Oliver. ‘The proposed amendments introduce measures that will further enhance Canada's offshore industries' ability to operate safely and to the highest environmental standards.'"

That was on May 2 of this year that they put out this announcement, of course. Again it reiterates the fact, as the Natural Resources Minister said the other day; it was a long road to get here. I keep asking myself why it took so long, fourteen years from start to finish on this particular piece of legislation. What the problem was, I do not know. What the work was that went in behind it, I do not know. Still it was fourteen years, and fourteen years too long.

We can go back to our history, of course, of accidents in our offshore, and other members have already talked about it. I guess in some regard these are ingrained in our history and ingrained in our culture as a result. Everybody remembers, of course, the most recent accident of Cougar 491.

People would remember the helicopter accident, as well, in Placentia Bay that happened several years ago. I think it was back in the 1980s. Six or seven men and women died in that particular accident when it left in Placentia Bay. Everybody remembers the Ocean Ranger. As other members have already said, we get up and we state the case for occupational health and safety, remembering those people we lost, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, people from the mainland who came and pioneered the resource.

I remember in particular one gentleman, we used to hang around with in high school, Mr. Craig Tilley, who was lost on the Ocean Ranger. He had quite an impact on our lives back in high school. He was part of the culture of the early years of drilling in the Province. It was, to me, representative of what can happen when things get out of control and things get out of hand.

You do not have sometimes, I guess, enough education. Sometimes we are younger and maybe we ignore some warnings that are out there, unlike some people who were out there on the rigs that left it because they recognized the dangers of working offshore. It is for this reason we all get together, and we have to talk about an important piece of legislation like that. It is in their memory that we do this, and it is incumbent upon us to make sure this legislation is going to work.

From what I see in this particular piece of legislation, there are a lot of things there that are going to work and we support the government move in that regard. The only thing that was missing in this piece of legislation, that I think we all agree on, is the simple fact of having occupational health and safety separate under Recommendation 29 in the Wells inquiry, to have that separate safety authority there.

Failing that, however, we should always be pressing for that. Of course, others have expressed the reasons why. I think it was Justice Wells himself who said at that particular time that we may never be able to get there, to have that board in place, but this would be the next best thing to it.

Speaking to this piece of legislation, too, it is important to note. I think some people would probably have some insecurity as regards to this legislation. In particular, my thinking would be in knowing that I have talked to a few people who have been put in this situation. This industry can be intimidating for somebody who is new into the scene. I think newer employees would probably face more pressures than people who have been in the industry for several years.

I just want to make some comments as to some of the mechanisms that are built into this piece of legislation as regards to the powers of enforcement. I think it is important to note what this piece of legislation is actually doing to protect workers at the same time, who would be making the call whenever there is a problem on the offshore or with the helicopter ride, or whatever particular part of the industry they are working in. It could be one of the supply vessels or whatever.

When it comes to that, there are protections in there as regards to false statements of information that can be made. There are also sections in there that deal with obstruction. There are also sections in there that deal with, for example, warrants and the taking of samples for anything that might go wrong, or the acquisition of evidence.

As well as that, the particular sections that would be most interesting I think to the workers out there would be this particular section under 201.82. I think it is very important again to reiterate this section to those people out there who are going to be making the majority of the calls when it comes to occupational health and safety. These are their rights for the workers and these are their protections.

Under 201.80, "A person shall not prevent an employee from providing to a health and safety officer or to the board, or to a person or committee having duties or functions under this Part, information that they may require to carry out their duties or functions."

We go from that particular section to 201.82, "An individual to whom information obtained under this Part is communicated in confidence shall not disclose the identity of the individual who provided it except for the purpose of this Part, and an individual who obtains that information in confidence is not competent or compellable to disclose the identity of the individual who provided it…"

I think that is a very important section here that needed to be talked about. If we are talking about protecting people from reprisal and where the agency, the chief information officer if you will, has his information to investigate, it makes it harder for the company or the service in question in order to come down on that worker. I like that part of it, that there is a degree of protection there for that particular worker who makes that initial report. At least that is my interpretation of it, anyway.

I just want to reiterate some of the things that are in there as regards to this particular amendment to the Atlantic Accord Implementation Act. We support these measures that are brought in here. The people we consulted with are very receptive to this. With the exception of not having that separate agency, this is pretty good. This is valued support, of course, supporting the workers who are out there.

It is incumbent on us to have made changes to this act. Again, while it was a long time coming, we commend the government for coming forward with these changes. In the next couple of years we are talking about flying out a little bit farther. We are also talking about drilling a little bit deeper. We all know what can happen with accidents on the offshore when we drill a little bit deeper. We have the example, of course, of the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico that was drilling in about 2,800 metres of water. The rig went up and we lost some people down there.

We know accidents can happen very easily, of course, with the various resources out there. When you are dealing in areas where you have never drilled before, we are going into undiscovered country here, if you will, undiscovered ways of exploration, and in some ways untried when we are talking about the Orphan Basin. We are talking about going very deep. It is now, more than ever, more important to have the protective measures in there in case something is seen to possibly go wrong out there.

The eyes and ears of the people who are working out there are going to be the ones who are probably going to be doing the reporting on this. It is incumbent on them to do so for the protection of their fellow working man or working woman who is out there working off our shores. As regards to the culture of making a call, again, I touched on that. Of course, I like the protectionist mechanisms that are there.

How important is this as regards to the importance to the Newfoundland and Labrador economy? I think it is pretty clear that government had to do this. As we go farther along, the numbers are there certainly. If it was based on that alone, the numbers of people who are working in our offshore needed this. It is an industry that has great importance to the Province's bottom line.

The Hibernia field, for example, generates about 1,618 people who are working out there on that project, and we have other projects. Of course, the numbers should not be strange to government. There are 1,491 people working on the White Rose project. We can go on through exploration, the Mizzen field. We are a growing industry and we do need the protections there.

As regards to one thing, as well, that I wanted to have a little thought about, if you will, or a couple of thoughts about, is the fact of night-time flying because I think that was touched on in the Wells report and by the employees who are out there. There is some fear, some concern, over night-time helicopter flights.

Again, I think that the oil companies that are out there exploring offshore can go ahead and fly a little bit more, if you will, particularly during winter months when the daylight hours are shorter, merely with the additional of an extra helicopter or so. Now that might sound like it is a big expense to an oil company, but it should not be in the context, say, for example, if you are talking to ExxonMobil, who in the last quarter made $6.2 billion I think it was, over the last three months.

Money, as regards to a person's safety and as regards to getting the work done, I do not think is an object here. What I think is happening here, I can understand their reasoning for securing their bottom line for the shareholders, absolutely, but the safety of employees should be first and foremost on people's minds whenever we are talking about these helicopter night flights.

Of course, it was Wells again, in his report, who talked about the fact that out of all the accidents that happen out there, you have a 39 per cent – how shall it put it? The survival rate, I should say, is about 39 per cent against a 70 per cent survival rate when it comes to daytime flights.

We know that the waters out there are very cold. The next obstacle that we have when it comes to rescuing anybody, if anything happens, for example, on an offshore helicopter flight, happens to be night. It is a barrier. It can be overcome with a little bit more investment on the part of the oil companies out there and the accusation of helicopter services, we can get them to do this at the same time.

There is no doubt that there is a case there already to be made for the addition of helicopter flights. We know that during the summer the helicopter flights can occur more, but again during the winter, with the addition of an extra couple of helicopters, they can get the same work done; they certainly can. As far as I am concerned, when you are talking $6.2 billion that they made in the last quarter, it would be at very little expense. I will leave that there, but again there are ways around that.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that I have read over this legislation. I have talked to people on this. It seems to be very good to all who are concerned out there. It is a good move on the part of government and on the part of the federal government. Again, the wait was fourteen years, but it has been a long time coming. We support the government with this particular motion.

At the same time, we will continue. As well as the provincial government will continue, we also will continue over here on this side of the House to make sure that we keep pressing for that safety authority out there, that separate occupational health and safety authority out there to look after the needs of the workers offshore.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Humber West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRANTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed a privilege to stand today and take a few moments to speak to Bill 1. I believe it is also an appropriate time this week at the beginning of North American Occupational Health and Safety Week 2013, Mr. Speaker, to be debating this bill here in the House. I had the opportunity yesterday, as others did in the House, to be out front for the flag raising with the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador. It was a great flag raising yesterday afternoon.

Over the last while, Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity a number of times to stand in this House and debate issues with people across the floor that are of necessity and importance to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to stress today that Bill 1 is absolutely critically important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, especially those who make their living from the offshore. As the Minister of Natural Resources said yesterday, the health and safety of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, especially those working in the offshore, is absolutely paramount.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker, for hundreds of years have been etching a livelihood from the sea. They have been doing it, Mr. Speaker, in a climate that is the harshest in the world: high winds, sleet, fog, ice, and rogue waves just to name a few. Our people, the people who work offshore, need to be protected. That is what Bill 1 is introducing here in the House of Assembly today.

The act is to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland and Labrador Act. This act, Mr. Speaker, is substantive, both in content and size, all 117 pages in length. It is a culmination of much work and effort over the past fourteen years. It is important to talk about what this act is. It is also important to talk about what this act is not, by placing it in content, in context, in perspective, and in time and circumstance in response to a question from the Member for St. John's East.

Mr. Speaker, does this government want a regiment that is strong and protects the safety of workers, a regiment that protects all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and all workers in our offshore? This is coming from someone who has family and friends who for years have been making their livelihoods from the sea. All members of this House on all sides I do believe, from all political colours, have been touched by the enormity and strength of the ocean and it has been referenced here in the House over the last couple of days. It is paramount, I believe, that we all support this from all sides of the House and that we have a unanimous vote in the positive on this bill today.

Mr. Speaker, this act is extremely extensive. They are the result of extensive collaborations between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Government of Canada, the Government of Nova Scotia, the C-NLOPB, as well as the C-NSOPB out of Nova Scotia. In addition, consultations with various stakeholders during the development of these amendments occurred. They were conducted in 2002, 2003, and again in 2010 as was illustrated yesterday by the Minister of Natural Resources. A discussion paper out of those talks was generated and developed. Written comments were solicited from all stakeholders.

People will ask what it is these amendments do, Mr. Speaker. Well, these amendments today will provide a clear and enforceable regime and provide appropriate regulatory making powers in offshore petroleum occupational health and safety.

The process to get to where we are today took many, many years. They began long before Commissioner Wells' study and the report he presented, Mr. Speaker. I want to go on record here today, as did my colleague from Mount Pearl North and others did earlier, that we support the recommendation of the Wells inquiry, all twenty-nine of those recommendations. As was talked about here in the House a number of times, twenty-eight of the twenty-nine have already been implemented here in the Province, and we support the inclusion of all of them.

This government continues to advocate, as was mentioned in the House by the Premier last week and the Minister of Natural Resources yesterday, for a stand-alone, independent safety regulator with the Government of Canada. Even in this report, he highlights and says he was aware of the work at that time taking place between the Government of Newfoundland, the Government of Canada, Nova Scotia, the C-NLOPB, and the C-NSOPB; and that this work that we are taking place that led to Bill 1 here in the House of Assembly this week, Mr. Speaker, was taking place and was recognized by Commissioner Wells.

It is important for all of us to remember, and all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to remember, Mr. Speaker, this legislation today, and I think it is recognized by all parties here in the House, does not and will not compromise a new safety regulatory entity. This bill is comprised of standard occupational health and safety principles and practices that would complement future legislative changes.

The amendments, Mr. Speaker, that are included in Bill 1 will provide a clear and enforceable regime and provide appropriate regulatory making powers in offshore petroleum operations. This will be achieved by putting authority for occupational health and safety into legislation governing the offshore petroleum boards. That is what Bill 1 does. This bill, Mr. Speaker, provides clear and clean legislation. I think that is important; it is clear and it is clean legislation from a number of sources on a comprehensive, legislative regime for occupational health and safety standards for workers in our offshore.

The new legislative regime discussed here in this House today will provide government with the necessary mechanism, Mr. Speaker, to act on occupational health and safety related matters. These mechanisms, for example, include the initiation of audits, inquiries, and the creation of a provincial advisory council to speak to occupational health and safety issues.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a moment out of the 117 or 118 pages to refer to section 201.114 on page 107 which talks about the advisory council. This is important and I think it is a very friendly piece in the Act, Mr. Speaker, with regard to this section for the safety of workers in our offshore. I just want to take a minute or two to go down through that section, 201.114 on page 107.

It talks about the establishment of this advisory council, Mr. Speaker, "(a) 4 representatives of employees and 4 representatives of industry; and (b) 2 representatives of the Government of Canada and 2 representatives of the government of the province".

"(2) In addition to the representatives appointed under subsection (1), the chief safety officer or his or her representative shall be a non-voting of the advisory council. (3) Two employee representatives and 2 industry representatives shall be appointed jointly by the provincial minister and the provincial minister defined in paragraph 2(t) and the other 4 shall be appointed jointly by the federal counterparts of those ministers."

What is important, Mr. Speaker, or at least what I see as important in this particular section, "(4) Before making an appointment referred to in subsection (3), the provincial minister and the provincial minister as defined in paragraph 2(t), or his or her federal counterparts shall consult with non-management employees, or the unions representing them, on the appointment of an employee representative and with industry associations on the appointment of an industry representative."

It goes on to say, "(5) The provincial government representatives shall be appointed jointly by the provincial minister and the provincial minister as defined in paragraph 2(t)…". Mr. Speaker, this advisory board is a good step forward and, as I said earlier, is worker friendly.

The C-NLOPB has the responsibility to ensure that all offshore activities and decisions, Mr. Speaker, under its regulatory mandate are carried out in a manner paramount to the health and safety of offshore workers. Every member in this House and everyone in this Province believe in that earnestly.

Mr. Speaker, important to all of us to remember is that the C-NLOPB are required to apply the provisions of the Atlantic Accord and the Atlantic Accord Implementation Acts to all activities – and I stress, all activities, Mr. Speaker – and all operators in the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore area, and to oversee operator compliance of these statutory provisions. That is a good thing, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this act allows for a special safety officer; it is an important piece. The chief safety officer, known as the CSO in the act, may disclose information with respect to occupational health and safety, may disclose information to government officials, both here in Newfoundland in Canada, and also internationally, agencies, a foreign government, if the interest of health and safety is compromised, Mr. Speaker. It cannot be kept secret, and that is an important statement for all workers in our offshore.

Officials of the federal government, Mr. Speaker, and its agencies, may also disclose information from this officer for health and safety reasons. No person, Mr. Speaker, under this act shall be prevented from providing information to the CSO or a health and safety officer, in carrying out their duties for the safety of the people in our offshore.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the CSO may direct the sharing of certain information related to worker health and safety. This act today, Mr. Speaker, is tailored specifically for the safety of workers in their offshore – and that is what is important about this; it is tailored specifically for the safety of our workers in the offshore. They are extensive, and have taken, as I said earlier, many years to get here. When we read the act, we will see standard features of all Occupational Health and Safety Acts, Mr. Speaker, both onshore and offshore, and best practice, both onshore and offshore too, Mr. Speaker.

These include, as was mentioned yesterday, I do believe, by the Minister of Natural Resources, and it makes no difference if they were onshore or offshore: a worker's right to refuse to perform unsafe work; a worker's right to know the risk associated with that work; a worker's right to participate in the health and safety committees; a worker's right to reprisal protection for raising health and safety concerns. Mr. Speaker, for those following along, that is on page 74 of Bill 1.

Mr. Speaker, this act covers and applies the new occupational health and safety regime to all workers in transit – as my colleague from Mount Pearl North mentioned earlier – to and from offshore platforms; required under law that the federal Minister of Transport will now be required to sign off on regulations for the application of the occupational health and safety regime to workers in transit to and from the offshore.

Under joint management, Mr. Speaker, Bill 1 recognizes the management of Newfoundland and Canada in its offshore. Provincially, Mr. Speaker, the offshore board will report to the Minister Responsible for Occupational Health and Safety, that being the hon. Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador, in respect to these new legislative requirements. The provincial Minister of Natural Resources retains the responsibility for all other matters under the Accord.

Federally, Mr. Speaker, the federal Minister of Natural Resources retains responsibility for the entire Accord act with advice, policy, and direction from the federal Minister of Labour regarding occupational health and safety components. It is important to remember that Transport Canada still remains the regulator of passenger craft, either air or marine, transporting workers to and from our offshore.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a minute or two to talk about the workplace. Under this act, the workplace in relation to a work or activity for which an authorization has been issued means any marine installation or structure where an employee is employed; any work boat operating from a marine installation or a structure that is used by an employee to perform routine maintenance or repair work in our offshore; any dive site from which a diving operation is conducted; and four, any underwater area where a diving operation is conducted by an employee.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a moment to talk about some accountability issues. The offshore board, the C-NLOPB for Newfoundland are responsible for administering the legislation, including the occupational health and safety on behalf of both the federal and the provincial governments. The provincial Minister Responsible for Occupational Health and Safety, in this case as I said earlier Service Newfoundland and Labrador, and the federal Minister of Natural Resources will be jointly responsible for a designation of the occupational health and safety officers.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note and important for all involved in the offshore is that this legislation allows the provincial Minister Responsible for Occupational Health and Safety or the federal Minister of Natural Resources to call for an audit or inquiry into activities of the C-NLOPB in relation to occupational health and safety. I just want to take the last moments that I have left just to refer to section 201.115, and that is on page 109 in the bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRANTER: Section 201.115, "The federal minister or the provincial minister, or both, may appoint an individual as auditor to measure and report on the effectiveness of the board in carrying out its duties and functions under this Part."

Under subsection (4), "The auditor may examine an individual on oath on a matter pertaining to the effectiveness of the board in carrying out its duties and functions under this Part and, for the purpose of an examination, may exercise all the powers of a commissioner under the Public Inquiries Act, 2006."

It goes on to talk about written consent. "Information, including reports, and explanations disclosed to the auditor under subsection (3) shall not be further disclosed by the auditor without the consent in writing of the person to whom it relates."

Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a moment to reference duties of the workplace parties. The operators, for example, have overall responsibility for ensuring health and safety of persons engaged in carrying out work in the offshore. The operators, the employers, supervisors, suppliers and providers of service, the owners, interest owners, and corporate officials each have individual and shared responsibilities with regard to health and safety of persons in our offshore, and are responsible for co-operating with each other and co-ordinating their activities regarding health and safety in the workplace in the offshore.

As in any work site, Mr. Speaker, on land or sea, employees have a duty to take responsible measures to protect their own health and safety at the workplace, and that of other persons, and have a list of specific duties. I just want to conclude by that, on page 52, section 201.23 and 201.24.

"An employee at a workplace shall (a) cooperate with the operator and with all employers and other employees to protect the health and safety of individuals at the workplace…(c) take all reasonable measures to ensure that other employees use or wear, in the manner intended, all personal protective equipment referred to in paragraph (b); (d) consult and cooperate with committees established for the workplace; (e) cooperate with the board and with persons carrying out duties or functions under this Part; (f) follow all instructions of his or her employer given for the purpose of ensuring occupational health and safety".

Those are just two or three, Mr. Speaker. There are others when we talk about the responsibility or the shared responsibility that we have in our offshore.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to conclude by saying there has been considerable debate over the last day or so on this particular matter here in the House, on Bill 1. I have listened to people on all sides of the House. I do hope and know, and expect that we will get unanimous decision with regard to this bill and in passing, and that we are all on the same wavelength here in this House for the protection and safety of all workers in our offshore.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure I would characterize us as being on the same wavelength, but similar wavelengths for sure. I think it is rather significant, as the Leader of the New Democratic Party pointed out early on in the debate – the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi, yes, the Leader of the New Democratic Party. She pointed out early on in the debate that it is fairly significant that three different governments, the federal government, the Government of Nova Scotia, and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador have come together to produce this bill.

It is certainly not perfect, but it does address many of the concerns that we have. Of course, as members have said, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have gone to work on the sea for hundreds of years, and if you count our Aboriginal heritage in this Province, probably for several thousand years. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and the people who lived here before Europeans, worked on the oceans for quite a number of years.

I am from a sea-faring area originally, in Newfoundland and Labrador, down on the Burin Peninsula, though the fishery down there is a shadow of its former self. Both my grandfathers were trap skiff skippers and spent a substantial portion of their working life on the ocean, as did their fathers before them.

Certainly all of us here in the House of Assembly have had some connection to tragedy at sea, no doubt, in our lives. Myself, outside of tragedy in the fishing industry, I have personal connections to the Ocean Ranger disaster and also to Cougar Flight 491. So this is significant to me personally, as it is significant to me as a representative here in the House of Assembly.

There is no doubt that the offshore oil and gas industry has provided many benefits to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and our offshore resources here in Newfoundland and Labrador have provided many benefits to the people of Canada who do not live in this Province. There is little doubt about that. There is certainly a great deal of promise that there will be a lot more benefit and prosperity to come to Newfoundland and Labrador, and to Canada, by virtue of our offshore resources in the future.

We always have to make sure the workplace in the offshore is as safe as it possibly can be. It must be the highest consideration, not a secondary consideration, the highest consideration in any decisions that are made in that industry. We know we can never completely eliminate risk all together, but we know we can be constantly vigilant in an effort to mitigate those ever-present dangers out on our ocean.

The men and women who work out there have to know, they have to have some assurance that their work environment, that everything is being done, insofar as is possible, to ensure their utmost safety because the North Atlantic is a dangerous place. We have learned that throughout our history. Those who work out in the offshore, who go to work out there, face risk and dangers in their workplace that some of us, who do not work out there, can only imagine.

There is another important consideration there that we have to always remember. There are just several thousand offshore oil and gas workers in this Province out of a population of about 500,000. Their work, their industry results in billions in revenue for this government, for companies that are not headquartered, by and large even in Canada, and for individuals who reside not only here in the Province but in other parts of Canada and around the world, billions of dollars in revenue for those people; all driven by just a few thousand workers in our offshore industry.

We would say then with so much wealth generated by so relatively few workers, cost should never be a factor in determining how we mitigate those risks that these workers face. They deserve the best safety practices we can have, those that are in use around the world. Whatever the best safety practices are, we should have them here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

When I presented to the Hebron commission there were a number of issues I raised around the offshore. One of the things that I think warrants mentioning is the offshore work rotation schedule. We hear from workers time and again that it is time to change the offshore work rotation schedule from the three weeks on and three weeks off rotation, to two weeks on and four weeks off, which happens to be the industry standard for Norway. One that workers here – of course, we have workers here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Often when you are out and about in the city, when you are out shopping or entertaining oneself, you will often run into people from Aberdeen or other parts of Scotland, or Ireland or other parts of Europe, Norway, individuals who are over here working in our industry. They often point to safety practices and the work rotation schedule in the industry that they are accustomed working into.

There is a larger industry trend towards a work week that has a longer rest period for offshore workers. Of course, it is a very stressful environment out there, and there are all sorts of reasons to endorse this. There is research out there which shows that much of the stress, many of the mistakes and the personal difficulties experienced by offshore workers often occurs in the third week of rotation. There are difficulties, stresses, or mistakes that take place at the latter end of that rotation schedule.

Of course, we have to recognize that there are special challenges offshore workers face that the rest of us do not. They work in remote locations. That is a remote location, whether they are off Labrador or they are off the Grand Banks. It is a hostile environment. People are separated from their family and friends for quite long periods of time.

I think that recognizing this, European jurisdictions, like Norway, with a longer history of prosecution of oil and gas and offshore activity, a longer experience or history than we have, they are moving toward that sort of rotation that has a longer rest time. We cannot emphasize enough the need to foster a healthy work culture in the offshore. That is an important area for us to always consider.

Over the years our party, and certainly there was a period of time where it was just – from 2006 until the last general election, it was just our leader, the Member for the District of Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi who was representing our party in the Legislature. She certainly received over time e-mails from individuals, sometimes anonymous e-mails from workers in the offshore related to a host of different issues.

It was sometimes the case that workers were not comfortable, afraid to use formal channels in their workplace to highlight or vent these concerns. They believed they could face reprisals for bringing these issues to light. That should never be the case in any workplace, but that certainly should not be the case in a work environment that is dangerous, hostile, and isolating like our offshore oil and gas environment is.

Whatever the issues that these workers are raising and any situation where they are reluctant to bring health and safety, or other issues to light is a problematic one. It is an unsafe way to have to raise particular issues. It is good to see that the proposed amendments in Bill 1 go some distance to addressing those particular concerns, and helping us to alleviate barriers to building a culture of workplace safety in our offshore oil and gas industry.

With respect to the S-92A helicopter in particular, it is obvious that the events of March 12, 2009 were tragic. We can argue they were events that perhaps were avoidable. They woke us up to very real problems when it comes to transportation out to offshore oil platforms, rigs and vessels, and issues that we have been, I hope, more attentive to since.

The Sikorsky S-92A helicopter had been certified to fly, even though it did not meet the requirements to be able to run for thirty minutes after losing oil pressure in its main gearbox. It did not have that thirty-minute run dry time. Some helicopters were, and others are today, truly thirty-minute run dry capacity helicopters. The Sikorsky S-92A was not and it still is not a helicopter that has the capability to have that thirty-minute run dry capacity.

I think that is something that has to be alleviated sooner than later. It has to be fixed. The continued use of that helicopter in our offshore is problematic. While it is true that a helicopter with a thirty-minute run dry time would not alleviate all of the risk, it would certainly greatly reduce risk and it would make that helicopter travel much safer.

Of course, we are also wondering what is going to happen with night flights with helicopters as well, another issue that is certainly on the minds of women and men who work in the offshore industry and their families who are concerned about their well-being and their safety as they are transported to and from work. As I said before, the way we get to work is vastly different than the way they get to work every day.

We have been calling for years for the creation of an independent offshore safety authority with jurisdiction over both worker safety and environmental protection. I think those are two very important issues. After the Cougar crash in 2009, the Wells inquiry into offshore helicopter safety produced a detailed report, a very comprehensive report, and it had twenty-nine recommendations intended to improve the safety of workers travelling by helicopter to and from offshore facilities.

One of the key recommendations, and I believe Mr. Wells himself called it his most important recommendation, was the creation of an independent offshore safety authority with a mandate, with the tools, and with the ability to enforce safety regulations without any actual interference or any perceived interference. In short, Mr. Wells recommended an independent authority with teeth, and one that is very similar to Norway's Petroleum Safety Authority.

As I said before, the Norwegians and other Europeans have quite a bit more experience just by virtue of the length of time that they have been extracting gas and oil off their shores. They have a lot more experience than we do, arguably. They have found that this is the best approach.

As I have said before, it is difficult to serve two masters. When we have companies like Chevron – and Chevron made several billion dollars in the last quarter. Look at what all of those oil companies are earning every quarter, it is often more than our entire annual Budget for this Province. It is difficult to serve two masters. It is important not to set up a conflict situation where one could be putting worker safety somewhere behind the making of profit. That is a very good argument for the creation of an independent offshore safety authority.

What we have instead is the addition of offshore health and safety personnel to the C-NLOPB and the Department of Service Newfoundland and Labrador, combined with amendments to the Atlantic Accord Act that does set up a long overdue safety regime in the offshore industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: It is not enough. It does not go far enough. I think until we get there, until we have agreement with the federal government that we should have and that we will have an independent offshore safety authority, then this piece of work will not be completely done.

I am happy to stand in support of the bill. It does get us a further distance toward where we need to go, but it is not the full distance that we will have to go before all is said and done.

That is all I have to say. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the Minister of Natural Resources speaks now, he will close debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure now to end the debate on second reading, which is where we debate the principle of the bill before we go to Committee where we deal with specific pieces of legislation.

I want to thank all members on both sides of the House for taking part. This is a very, very important bill because it is about the health and safety of our workers who work in the offshore. As we have all said, and everybody has agreed, the health and safety of those workers has to be paramount to any economic development that we do.

Mr. Speaker, you can see why this bill has taken so long. It is an important piece of legislation. It started about fourteen years ago and because it involved the federal government, it involved our government, it involved the Nova Scotia government, it involved our Offshore Petroleum Board and the Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board I think you can see how difficult it is with all of these different players to do anything quickly. I think it is, therefore, important that we not allow this good piece of legislation to be held up because there are other things that hon. members would like to see added to the Atlantic Accord for the future.

We talk about the Atlantic Accord and how important it is and how we are trying to put into that piece of legislation, the legislation – at least the Atlantic Accord Implementation Acts which brought the Atlantic Accord into effect here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and a similar act was brought it into effect in Canada, in the Parliament of Canada. This is how we regulate and manage the offshore. It is done jointly. It is not done by the federal government alone, as in the United States or in other countries. It is done by a sharing of management between the federal government and the provincial government. That is the system we have come up with here. We have accomplished that through an organization called the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. It is through the board that we get this join management, this joint regulation.

You do not have it diffused between the governments; you have the one board that does it. Three of the members of the board are appointed by the Province, three are appointed by the Government of Canada, and then there is a joint appointment of a Chair.

They regulate very important things. They regulate health and safety, or at least occupational safety – or operational safety, I should say. They regulate the environmental protection in the offshore, they regulate the conservation of the resource, and they regulate how fast the resource can come out of the wells and the manner of production. Whereas, the Department of Natural Resources here in the Province, we are concerned with the promotion of the industry. We are concerned with things like land tenure, we are concerned with things like royalties for the people of the Province, and we are concerned with taxes. That is what is driving us. The regulator is separate for the offshore, the regulator of the C-NLOPB.

I think we had more discussion on the aspect of the recommendation of former Mr. Justice Robert Wells as commissioner of the helicopter inquiry and he clearly recommended an independent regulator when it came to safety.

If I can just quote just briefly from his report, he said safety is an essential component of the regulatory process. He believes that a safety regulator should be separate and should be independent from all other components of offshore regulation and should stand alone, with safety being the only regulatory task. He believes in a safety regulator that should be powerful and should be independent, should be knowledgeable and equipped with expert advice. That is why he made his Recommendation 29, in which our government supports.

I can certainly understand, with the federal government, why we are disappointed that they have not come on board, as yet, for an independent safety regulator; but obviously, from their perspective, they have an offshore regulator off the coast of Newfoundland. They have another one off the coast of Nova Scotia. They have one in the North. They are going to have one off of BC. I understand New Brunswick is looking at the offshore now in terms of the gas they have there; there is going to be another one there. So from the point of view of the federal government, the number of regulators proliferates and that could be a concern to them.

I think it is also interesting, the comments Chief Justice Hickman made when he chaired the Hickman inquiry into the Ocean Ranger. The comments that were made by the Harrison report committee that were concerned – they wanted a single regulator. They had a real concern that not only may there be overlap, not only may there be duplication, but their concern mainly was that if you have too many regulators, if you are dividing up the regulation, the concern was that maybe something would be missed. They were concerned about gaps in the system. They talked about multiple authorities raising the possibility, if not the inevitability of overlaps and duplications. They were not concerned mainly about the cost, but they were concerned about the specter of confusion that could arise, which in turn, would have a detrimental effect on undermining industries efforts to ensure safety. Obviously, that is a concern.

I know I listened with interest to the comments of the Leader of the NDP when she talked about the different regulators around the world. I would point out the difference that a lot of those, in certain countries, are not federal nations like us or unitary governments and have one regulator. It is a federal regulator, whereas we have this system where the oversight of the regulation is split between us and the Government of Canada.

I think this legislation is so important that we should not hold it up because we want to have additional amendments made. Additional amendments will come forward in the future, I am sure. We are having discussions with the Government of Canada now. All good legislation will evolve. Nothing stays locked in stone, as it were. There will always be new ideas and fresh ideas. There will be changing circumstances and there will be need for reform from time to time. That will happen.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat and look forward to committee. I would urge the passage of second reading of this legislation.

Thank you.

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 Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act. (Bill 1)

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

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

MR. KING: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.

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

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I call from the Order Paper, Order 4, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 2. (Bill 4)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 4.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice, that Bill 4 be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 2". (Bill 4)

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise in this House today to discuss amendments to the Revenue Administration Act and to repeal the Labrador Border Zone Rebate Regulations, 2006 to eliminate the Labrador Border Zone Rebate on tobacco products. Mr. Speaker, this bill introduces amendments to the Revenue Administration Act necessary to eliminate this tax rebate, effective July 1, 2013, and also repeals the Labrador Border Zone Rebate Regulations, 2006.

The Revenue Administration Act was the result of the 2009 consolidation of all the tax statutes to eliminate duplication of legislation and to ensure consistency in the administration of provincially imposed tax, other than income tax. The former Tobacco Tax Act was one of seven revenue-related acts consolidated under the Revenue Administration Act.

The associated regulations were also consolidated into the revenue administration regulations, with the exception of the Labrador Border Zone Rebate Regulations. These regulations are ministerial regulations, as opposed to Lieutenant Governor in Council, and it was deemed to keep the Labrador Border Zone Regulations separate. The original purpose of the Labrador Border Zone Rebate, which was introduced in 1984, was to equalize effective tobacco taxation with Quebec and thus reduce the impact of cross-border shopping on Labrador retailers.

Mr. Speaker, the quota year administratively runs from July 1 to June 30. Effective March 27, 2013, the provincial government announced it would not be paying any more rebates with respect to the 2012-2013 rebate year, as the quota for the rebate had been reached. So this bill will eliminate the Labrador Border Zone Rebate effect July 1, 2013.

Mr. Speaker, the elimination of this rebate not only promotes healthy living, but also results in cost-savings of $3.4 million. There are a number of reasons, not only financial, for reducing this bill. One is that it only applies to retailers in Labrador West, Labrador City and Wabush, and Southern Labrador from the Quebec border on the South Coast of Labrador to Red Bay. It does not even apply to all of Labrador and there is no rebate in the Island portion of the Province.

The rebate itself was 10.75 cents per cigarette, and 23.36 cents per gram of fine cut tobacco. The purpose was to make the prices competitive with the prices in Quebec. By equalizing tobacco and sales taxes, the prices on cigarettes and tobacco would be comparable in both jurisdictions, thus achieving the goal of reducing the impact of cross-border shopping on local retailers.

It was first introduced in Labrador in 1984 at the request of retailers in the area, and it was legislatively tied to tobacco taxation rates in Quebec in 1997. My understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that it applies to twenty-two retailers in Labrador West, and eleven retailers in Southern Labrador.

As part of the budgetary process, as we have discussed on a number of occasions, departments reviewed all existing programs and services to see if they were effective, efficient, and met with the core mandate of the department. Also, we would look at whether or not they were necessary in today's environment.

The Labrador Border Zone Rebate Program was part of that review. What we found, Mr. Speaker, was that since 1998, the amount of cigarettes has more than doubled in the Labrador West region, resulting in a continued increase in rebate costs. The program was costing taxpayers of the Province approximately $3.4 million annually. There is no other rebate provided in any other part of the Province for tobacco sales. No other province offers a similar rebate, even though faced with cross-border shopping potential and a differing taxation rate.

Nova Scotia faces a similar situation with tobacco shops located in Aulac, New Brunswick. This community is approximately two to five minutes from Amherst on the Trans-Canada Highway. Nova Scotia has not instituted any special provisions or a border zone rate to protect shops in Amherst.

Nova Scotia appears to be of the opinion that the cigarettes purchased would be for personal consumption. There is no information, that we are aware of, indicating that there were larger volumes being purchased for resale. This incentive has also been lowered, Mr. Speaker, with New Brunswick increasing their tobacco tax rate in March 2011. This increase reduced the per pack differential from $2.44 for a twenty-five pack, to $1.13.

New Brunswick itself faces similar cross-border competition from the United States as they share a border with Maine. Tobacco products in the US cost significantly less at a national average price of approximately $6 a pack. New Brunswick does not offer a border zone rebate in areas close to the American border to mitigate cross-border shopping; however, there are international customs processes to address cross-border travel and to enforce importation limits.

Saskatchewan eliminated the tobacco competition assistance program for border retailers in April, 2007. On November 10, 2012, the Quebec government announced a tobacco tax increase of two cents per cigarette, and two cents per gram of fine cut tobacco. Due to this increase, the provincial tax differential is now about $2.50 a carton and ten cents per fifty gram pack of fine cut tobacco.

There will be an amendment brought in over the next day or two, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the increase in the cost of tobacco at approximately 1.5 cents per cigarette. When I speak to that amendment I will get into a comparison of the cost of cigarettes in our Province and in other provinces.

What I am trying to demonstrate here is that we have a program that was brought in 1984; it was legislated in 1997, and for whatever reason still exists today. We no longer see the need of it, neither from a competitive prospect or from a financial. In fact, it saves the Province money.

Also, the key aspect of this is the promotion of health and well being. It is always, Mr. Speaker, difficult to increase taxes on the one hand on tobacco and alcohol when we know that those substances cause difficulty for people, there are health concerns, but we also recognize that people have to be able to choose whether or not to avail of these substances which are legal.

The fact that alcohol and tobacco are legal means that people have that choice to make in terms of using them, but there is a health component. As a deterrent, especially to young people, the increased cost can certainly be a deterrent. As I will go through in the next day or two we certainly did not increase our taxes. I think it was Manitoba who increased their taxes four cents a cigarette. I am not sure, but I think it was Manitoba. I will get into that tomorrow.

The removing of the rebate is also consistent with the health efforts such as the banning of the promotion of tobacco products, eliminating smoking from bars and restaurants, banning smoking for areas around government buildings, and the elimination of power walls.

The Labrador border rebate, its own rebate, is subject also to a quota on the number of tobacco products and there is a set amount or a number of products on which the rebate is to be paid. At the end of March this year that amount had been reached, Mr. Speaker. Knowing that we were bringing this in we said, well, that is it now. As of March 31, there will be no further rebates paid. So there will be expenditure for the remainder of 2013 but also obviously for Budget 2013.

The tobacco increase in Quebec should offset the desire or need to go across the border to bring back products. It is not anticipated that there will be significant impacts on the loss of sales in Quebec as a result of their increase. The way we look at this, Mr. Speaker, is that we cannot see a justifiable reason in this day and age for the continuation of what is essentially preferential treatment to one particular area of the Province.

In terms of where the revenues go, Mr. Speaker, it is much like the amount of money that we make from the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Commission, the monies that we get from Atlantic Lotto; they are not earmarked for any particular purpose. They go into the Consolidated Revenue Fund and revenues are made from that account.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Littlejohn): Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: We cannot earmark funds that come from one area particularly for that area because it restricts flexibility in the ability to bring in our Budget and it could result in certain programs being under funded.

It is quite interesting. The rebate itself had involved 110,000 cartons of cigarettes in Labrador West and 16,000 cartons of cigarettes in Southern Labrador. That was the amount of tobacco, which sounds to me like a lot of tobacco, Mr. Speaker.

In conclusion on this, this is an amendment. Bill 4 is An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act No. 2. It will repeal section 98(2) to (5), which need to be repealed, then subsection 112(2) is repealed, and then the Labrador Border Zone Rebate Regulations are repealed.

To summarize, from a health perspective we see this as a good piece of legislation. From a financial perspective, the taxpayer of the Province will save $3.4 million. Three, it could be argued preferential treatment was given to one area of the Province in terms of Labrador West and Southern Labrador as opposed to even Labrador as a whole; and four, that no other Province has this type of program.

This is an example, Mr. Speaker, of when we go through our programs and we find a program that is no longer consistent with the goals or priorities of the government. What we chose to do in this particular case is to repeal the act.

Those would be my comments in relation to Bill 4, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, it is certainly a privilege for me to stand and debate Bill 4, An Act to Amend Revenue Administration Act. When you look at the note to explain the amendment to this bill, it says, "This Bill would amend the Revenue Administration Act by repealing the Labrador Border Zone Tax Rebate on tobacco products."

Mr. Speaker, when you look at the history of this decision, actually what we see is a tax rebate in the Labrador zone, which includes from Labrador West, which would be Labrador City and the Wabush area, and then when you look at what they would consider to be the Straits area of Labrador, the zone really going up to Red Bay.

The reason this was done in the beginning, as the minister said back in the 1980s, then there was a rebate that was put in place because most of the small business, and of course it being virtually all small businesses in that area, felt it was difficult for them. The playing field was a word that was often used by a number of media releases that were done by actually all Members of this House of Assembly.

When I say all members, I mean members at the time – we had NDP members like Jack Harris, who made comments on this. We had Members for Lab West, and Members for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, and all parties going back into the 1980s who supported this particular amendment, which would mean that the Labrador zone would see a rebate, or a preferential treatment, as the minister said, when it came to taxation on tobacco.

In this case it was put in place for a specific reason, and that was to level the playing field for businesses, as I said, in this particular area. It was not about the health initiatives or a smoking cessation program, as the minister stated; it was not about that. If we were indeed committed to a smoking cessation program, well, we would be looking at something much larger than this. It would not just be about taxes; it would be about the specific programs designed to address smoking cessation. I would say it is an important initiative, one that our party would encourage to see a Province-wide, not just a Labrador zone smoking cessation program, but that is not what this amendment is about.

This amendment is about savings in the tune of $3.4 million, I would say, Mr. Speaker. Really, you would have to ask yourself the question about is this really going to be a savings, because the savings here would depend on purchases of tobacco in those businesses that are in the Labrador zone. There is a fear for those businesses that they would see the people who are purchasing tobacco products would leave – for instance, if you are in Labrador City or Wabush, they would make the trek down to Quebec, to the Fermont area, to pick up the tobacco at a reduced cost.

The same would be in the Straits area of Labrador where people would actually go into Blanc Sablon or other areas of Quebec to make the purchases there. We know that when people who are actually smoking and they go to make that purchase, that they do not make that purchase, I say, Mr. Speaker, in isolation. Indeed what happens is that you would pick up other things. Not that we condone or we support smoking, we do not. That is not the case. That is not the point that we are trying to make here today. What happens is if you look at the habits of a smoker, let's say if they go to make that purchase into another province, in this particular case Quebec, what happens is there are other significant purchases that are made.

I can remember back in the early 2000s – and the Member for Gander would remember this – there was a voluntary withdrawal of tobacco sales from pharmacies in this Province. At the time I had the privilege to actually chair that committee that took the pharmacists, as a profession, to voluntarily remove tobacco from pharmacies. The Member for Gander would say he recognizes that was done on professional basis; it was something that the profession supported.

What happened in that case, and the Member for Gander will remember this, it was a five-year phased out period of tobacco removal from pharmacies. Even though at that point if you looked at – and I can remember this, when you looked at the purchasing receipts that were available in those pharmacies, I know in our particular case, one in every three purchases had a tobacco sale on it. There was no question that over that five-year phased out period, even at the end of five years it was a difficult decision to make.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: There was an extreme loss of business to pharmacies that voluntarily removed that. They did that and it was the right thing to do for that profession, Mr. Speaker.

In the case of the Labrador zone and when you look at tobacco purchases, that is a different case. It is not as if we are going to reduce the number of smokers. Currently in this Province right now we have about 23 per cent, about one-in-five people in this Province are still smoking. It is no question a significant health hazard and leads to many other chronic diseases.

If you take a smoker, you add to it obesity, you add to that particular person hypertension or a lot of other risk factors, cholesterol for instance, you place that person in a very difficult situation when you look at their chronic health. If you really believe that amending this and taking away this rebate for the businesses in Labrador is going to impact any of that, well I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is a foolhardy approach to take.

This is not about smoking cessation. This indeed will have the reverse effect. It will take businesses out of Labrador. I am surprised to see members from Labrador not standing up to speak against this. This is not something that will be good for businesses in their area that they represent, I would say.

For instance, if you live in Lab West, if you live in Labrador City or Wabush, it is less than thirty kilometres to Fermont. If you live in Wabush, it is about thirty-five kilometres, I would say, Mr. Speaker. In Southern Labrador it is really nowhere.

Now, to suggest that is similar to what we see in New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, or any of the Prairie Provinces, or even in Ontario, it is a much different situation. The borders between Labrador and Quebec are really seamless, you can drive right through. If you were to leave New Brunswick and go into Maine, for instance, well it would be a much more cumbersome approach. People would not do that for the sake of saving money on a tobacco sale.

In the case of Labrador, you can look at the history of this piece of legislation and you can go back to, I would say, Mr. Speaker, 1984 when it was first implemented by the government of the day, then being a PC government. It was supported then by all parties. It was supported because it was felt at the time that businesses would be in a difficult situation. It would be a negative situation for those businesses if they could not compete for this sale on a level playing field.

It was then changed in 1997. That actually linked the sale or linked the tax, for instance, in the Labrador border zone to that in Quebec. It was not just a rebate. It was linked to the taxes in Quebec compared to the taxes in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the way it continued for many, many years and it was supported by all members in this House for all those years.

We believe this will have an impact on businesses in Labrador, in particular businesses in The Straits area and in Labrador West. I have many responses here by members and some in this House, when they spoke from all parties in support of this bill going right back, as I said, to 1997 and indeed, to 1984. As a matter of fact, we still have members sitting in this House today, and we have media releases that were available suggesting this was a good idea.

As an example, as late as March 29, 2010, the Minister of Finance of the day issued a tax information bulletin that said the following. "Tobacco tax rates in the border zones have been linked to the tax rates in Quebec since 1997. The reduced rates effectively match the Labrador border zone rates to those in Quebec. This is designed to decrease cross-border shopping, and to make businesses in the Labrador border zones more competitive with their Quebec neighbours."

This is the very statement that was made. As a matter of fact, it was almost copied and pasted for many, many years.

MR. JOYCE: Who said it?

MR. BALL: That was said by the Minister of Finance of the day back on March 29, 2010. Of course, that is the current Minister of Natural Resources, I say, Mr. Speaker.

We can see that this is really a significant change right now. This is really a significant change for this government and their approach to reducing the taxes in the Labrador zone and putting businesses in that area on a level playing field with their competitors, really. These are competitors. This is not an area where people would normally go to shop just to pick up a tobacco product. This amendment here will actually encourage people to go to Quebec, the neighbouring province, to make that sale, I would say, Mr. Speaker.

Now, to try to sell this as a health initiative, and as a smoking cessation initiative, Mr. Speaker, as I said, is indeed a stretch. We have one in five people in this Province right now are smoking. If you are truly committed to, which I would be, a province-wide smoking cessation program, well maybe we should consider something similar to what is being done in provinces like New Brunswick, for instance. Where they have taken a portion of their tobacco taxes and put it directly into smoking cessation programs. That would be a smoking cessation strategy, not taking a specific area where you put businesses in the Labrador zone – I say you are giving Quebec businesses an advantage based on this sale.

I want to reiterate and repeat that this is not about promoting smoking at all. This is about making businesses in the Labrador border areas competitive with their competitors in Quebec, Mr. Speaker.

I guess I will finish up my comments by saying we should not be seeing this as a smoking cessation program at all. This government has a very poor track record, Mr. Speaker, in reducing smoking in this Province. If they are serious at all about a smoking cessation program, well put a real smoking cessation program in place. They have that opportunity. It will benefit people who are suffering from respiratory diseases. It will benefit people who suffer from many chronic illnesses. In particular, people with diabetes, for instance, it is a major health problem if they continue to smoke and deal with those kinds of diseases.

This is not a smoking cessation program. This is about a recovery of money, $3.4 million, I would say, Mr. Speaker, is what they believe they could recover by making this amendment. In actual fact, if the purchase is not made in the Province, how can you recover the money anyway? If people go across the border to Quebec and make that purchase, how are you going to bring in this revenue, as is suggested here by the minister?

Mr. Speaker, this is an amendment that we will not be supporting. We will be supporting the businesses in Labrador West, the businesses in Labrador City, the businesses in Wabush, and the businesses in the Labrador border zone area on the Coast of Labrador. We hope the members opposite will take a second look at this. This piece of legislation is not worth the money that it suggests would be there. Indeed, this is an amendment that they not make, Mr. Speaker, because it is one of the many lists of bad budget decisions that were made in Budget 2013.

Mr. Speaker, this will do nothing to decrease smoking in this Province. It will do nothing to decrease smoking in the Labrador border zone area. Indeed, what it will do is hurt and have a significant negative impact on the businesses in Labrador.

I would ask all members opposite if they would rethink this, revisit this amendment, and indeed, support the Member for Labrador West, support his businesses and defeat this particular amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to be able to stand and speak to this bill today. I do not mind saying this was a difficult bill for me when I first saw it come in, because there were choices that had to be made. Before I speak to the bill I would like to give a little bit of history. As a former businessman in Labrador West, I certainly remember advocating to bring in this rebate. I remember back in the early 1980s when we were fighting as a business community the rationales of why we needed it there.

Although I never heard it mentioned yet, one of the big things that really started the analyzing of why we needed this rebate in Labrador West was the beer strike back in the early 1980s. During the beer strike Labrador West I know was one of the areas that very quickly ran out of beer, as I am sure there were others in the area and in the Province. The difference with Labrador West was that the availability of the alcoholic beverage was available, as you heard the Leader of the Opposition say, only twenty-seven kilometres away. It was quite possible to go and get the beer. Then when the beer was not available there, they found other means through Ontario. There was quite a bit of cross-border shopping.

That was when it was realized that there was a huge difference in the cost of tobacco. Then people started saying, I am going to start buying my tobacco up there, but they were already making a trip to Quebec. Back in the early 1980s when we were going through that, as it still is today, it is a common thing to get in your vehicle and drive across the border; it is just going for a drive.

People have heard me mention it here in this House many times when I talk about the Trans-Labrador Highway that back in the 1980s, as a matter of fact up until 1986, you could only drive as far as Fermont, Quebec. That was as far as you could go, twenty-seven kilometres up and twenty-seven kilometres back. Quite often, people would go up.

One of the other issues that we have with tobacco – and I see the numbers that were there. I did a little bit of research and I looked at some of the numbers. I know the quota for Labrador West is 110,000 cartons. Mr. Speaker, if you look at the numbers that are there today – as a matter of fact, I am going to just give a comparison.

Since 2007-2008 a quota was 110,000 cartons of cigarettes. In 2007-2008 there were only 100,000 cartons sold in Labrador West. I think what we need to bear in mind here is that we are promoting – if there is one thing this government does promote, and I promote it, is health and wellness. We do promote health and wellness. The sale of tobacco is not a healthy sale.

In 2008-2009, still with a quote of 110,000, we had 108,000 cartons of cigarettes sold in Labrador West. In 2009-2010, we had 109,000. In 2010-2011, we had 121,900 cartons of cigarettes sold in Labrador West. The most shocking thing for me, when I was looking at this bill, was that 2011-2012 we jumped to 145,982 cartons of cigarettes sold in Labrador West.

I consider my community, the District of Labrador West, to be a fairly healthy community. I do not think there are 145,982 cartons of cigarettes being smoked in Labrador West. If they are not being smoked there, it means they are being bought and shipped elsewhere in the Province.

If the sale is not happening in Labrador West, those people who are getting their cigarettes from Labrador West are still going to smoke. They are not going to buy them in Quebec. They are not going to leave – I will use a Central Newfoundland outport location – and drive to Quebec to buy your cigarettes. You are going to see a difference there.

That is one of things that, I, as the MHA for the District of Labrador West, had to take in to account. How big an effect is this going to have on the businesses in Labrador West? I spoke with the business people in Labrador West. I spoke with the distributor for the cigarettes in Labrador West, and I do not mind saying that the distributor was extremely upset. That distributor felt that there was going to be job losses. I have been monitoring that very closely, Mr. Speaker.

We did not hear it before, but this was actually, because the quota was already met for the year, the rebate on the cigarettes had stopped in March and there have been no job layoffs there, Mr. Speaker.

I spoke with the small businesses that this would affect mostly, which are the corner stores. That was my major concern. What effect is this going to have on the corner stores? I will tell you that a smart business person, when they opened the corner store, they did not open the corner store thinking they were going to sell cigarettes; that the life and security of my business is going to depend on cigarettes.

Strategically, and I think this is in most communities, if you look at where the corner stores are, especially in rural areas, they are strategically put in the busy corners of a community. People do go in and they buy their cigarettes, they buy their pop, their chips and their bars, but they are not going there just to buy cigarettes.

I think one of the best examples I can use is our coffee shops and your drive-throughs. You see them on very strategic corners which are the busiest areas in your communities. So I went through my community. I went through my district. I said, now, where are the corner stores and how are they going to be affected mostly?

My community is no different than any other community. All of my corner stores are on corners, and they are on busy corners. They are on corners that are high-traffic corners. That is why they are called corner stores. That is not rocket science.

So I have also been monitoring how the sales are. I have been watching the sales. You do not have a major difference because of the cigarettes. I can guarantee you there has not been an influx going to Fermont, Quebec to buy all the other things.

What I have seen, though, is that the residents of Fermont are frequenting my district. The residents in Fermont, Quebec are coming down across the border. They are shopping in the stores, they are shopping in the gas stations, and they are shopping in the corner stores. There is a balance there. We have to take that into effect.

I think the most important factor for me supporting this bill –

MR. JOYCE: Because you were told to.

MR. MCGRATH: – is the health and wellness. That is the most important.

Now, the Member for Bay of Islands over there is yelling across the House. He says: I was told to. Well, I will let the Member for Bay of Islands know, Mr. Speaker, I have a mind of my own and I use it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: I think that this bill, although it is going to affect my district, I do not think this is a bad bill. This bill is about the health and wellness. As a government, we are out promoting health and wellness.

MR. JOYCE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands, on a point of order.

MR. JOYCE: I ask the hon. member, if you are out promoting wellness, why are you closing down the Stephenville training centre, if that is what you are doing?

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, this government is all about promoting health. There are other ways that we have tried to promote the lack of use of tobacco. For example, you heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about the voluntary program where pharmacies took tobacco off their shelves. You go into a public store now and you do not see the displays of cigarettes any more. They are covered, and that is to deter people from the addiction of tobacco.

You do not go out now and on the big billboards when you are driving drown the main highways; you do not see the big billboards advertising tobacco any more. That is one thing this government is doing. It is a couple of examples that we are doing to try and deter the sale of tobacco.

On one hand we are out, and provincially we are trying to deter the sale of tobacco. On the other hand we are saying: well, we are going to give a tax rebate because we are afraid we are going to lose some business to another province. I do not think the business we are losing is that significant that somebody is going to go out of business. I do not think the amount of business we are losing is significant enough that someone is going to lose a job over it. I have not seen it in Labrador West. I cannot argue that this is happening, and I have been monitoring it very closely.

I have been monitoring it very closely, and I have yet to see where that big difference is. I am going to be very interested in seeing – and I will be checking with the Department of Finance – what the numbers are for the sale of tobacco in the next quarter. It is going to be very interesting to see what the sale of tobacco will be in Labrador West for the next quarter.

That is going to be a very interesting point, because I am not sure there is going to be – I spoke with one store owner, and that store owner told me she has seen no decrease whatsoever in her sale of tobacco. She is still in business, so she is doing something right. That is one of the things, Mr. Speaker, that I will be keeping a close eye on.

I think the other thing that we need to keep in mind here is our youth. We are all about promoting wellness. We are about promoting health and we are about – I see the member over there giving me thumbs up on the fitness centre there. I would rather see the money saved going into things like a fitness centre for the youth than I would in a tax rebate for cigarettes.

The Minister of Finance has said this is about money. This decision was made about saving money. We are not arguing that. We are the first to say, and the Minister of Finance stood up and said this was a decision that was made to save money, but if you have to make a choice – and I challenge the member across the House on this. This will be my closing remark, so he will certainly have a chance to rebuttal it.

I challenge the Member for Bay of Islands to argue, if you have to make a choice between a tax rebate for tobacco or putting money into physical education, or into health, or into a fitness centre, what would you decide? Would you give the tax rebate on the cigarettes or would you give the money on the –

MR. JOYCE: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: On a point of order.

He is asking: What would I put it in? Obviously, you are taking money from the people of Lab West and you are not putting it into the West Coast Training Centre. You are doing neither one, I say to the Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to conclude on that one, but I will have the member know across the way that this government does put money and does invest money into fitness centres.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My comments on this proposed legislation, Mr. Speaker, are going to be fairly short because I do not see any reason for it or any basis for it. I will try to make my points quite clear.

I want to speak to Bill 4, Mr. Speaker, An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act No. 2. I listened to the Minister of Finance in his opening remarks and earlier comments he made of his intention to propose this legislation. It is uncomfortable, and it is sad to know that the amount of cigarettes purchased has more than doubled in Labrador West alone since 1998. That is unfortunate and something we would all like to see reduced.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation was proposed in the mid-1980s and enacted in 1997, I think it was. At that time all three parties endorsed this legislation to introduce a tax rebate because it was impacting businesses in Labrador.

I will point out that the Minister of Finance said this legislation applies only to Labrador. It does not apply to Newfoundland. I submit to the Minister of Finance, there is nowhere on the Island portion of this Province that has direct contact with Quebec in terms of borders. It is only on the Island portion of the Province.

If it has to be good for Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, I will say it will be good for Labrador. I think Labrador is bordering Quebec the full length. The communities affected are in the Member for Labrador West's district, and in Southern Labrador. The comments brought forward by past governments, since this legislation was introduced and implemented, talked about saving communities in Southern Labrador and LabWest.

I would like to talk about some of the tax bulletins that came out since this legislation was implemented, Mr. Speaker. In 2003, which is when the government opposite came into power; March, 2005, March, 2006, and just three years ago in 2010. The very reasoning in all four tax bulletins that came out since this legislation was implemented has been the same. The explanations have been the same. We want businesses in the Labrador Border Zones to remain competitive with the neighbouring areas in Quebec. Equalizing the tobacco tax rates in Labrador –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is very difficult to hear the hon. member. There are many sidebar conversations going on, so I would ask hon. members either to take your conversations outside the Chamber or, please, just lower your voices.

Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the reason behind every tax bill that has come out, the last four since 2003 as it relates to tobacco rebate, talks about protecting consumers in Labrador, protecting small businesses, trying to deter cross-border shopping, and protecting businesses and jobs.

Now, Mr. Speaker, tobacco sales have increased, as both ministers across the way have talked about. That is unfortunate, but it also sends a message that people are buying tobacco products and they will get their tobacco products. By removing the Labrador tax rebate on tobacco, Mr. Speaker, consumers will look for a cheaper price. That is common knowledge and it is a fact. People will buy at the cheapest rates, Mr. Speaker.

Before I talk about what they will do, given the resources that they have, Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the people who are going to lose business. There are twenty-two businesses in Labrador West, Mr. Speaker, eleven on the South Coast of Labrador. From Labrador West, I think it is a half hour dive, maybe less, and you are in Quebec. On the South Coast of Labrador from places like L'Anse-au-Loup, seven minutes and you are in Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, I would love to see the Province of Quebec incorporate taxes on cigarettes, but they have not and we have to live with that. We talk about this government wanting to get away from the clutches of Quebec and here we hand them tax dollars on a platter. I fail to see the reasoning behind it, Mr. Speaker.

When people want to buy cheaper and they have access to cheaper, Mr. Speaker, they will buy cheaper. What is to stop consumers from going to Fermont, Quebec or to Blanc Sablon to buy cigarettes? While they are there, almost every commodity that we shop for is cheaper in Quebec. Gasoline is cheaper. Seven minutes is not a long drive to fill up your tank. It takes that long to go to Costco from the House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, thirty minutes is not far to drive.

Clothing, Mr. Speaker, in Quebec is cheaper. What you are doing is you are giving the opportunity for Quebec to collect sales taxes and take them away from our own Province. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the Member for Labrador West would stand up and support this. There is no reason.

I heard the Minister of Finance coming out and talking about smoking cessation and the saving of $3.4 million. In proposing this legislation, Mr. Speaker, he said, it is our hope that cigarettes sales will also decrease. Mr. Speaker, you cannot propose legislation on hope.

What we have here are the facts and the facts that have been in place since 1997. That is why I am not in support of this bill. I am going to stand up and side with the business owners in Labrador. I would urge the members for Labrador to do the same.

This is a bill that has been brought up since 1984, Mr. Speaker, and every time it has been brought up, until now, all of a sudden something changed. We have seen the mistakes the government has made in the Budget. We are seeing another one now. It just carries on with the discrepancies in the Budget that came out this year.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about what issues we would have in removing the rebate. Once you look at the purchase of products in Quebec – and I heard the Minister of Service NL talk about curiosity in the quarter to find out what the impact is going to be with removal of the tax rebate. Well, I would urge him to also pay attention to the next quarter, to the sales in Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, he talked about the amount of cigarettes that are purchased in Labrador is far more than the area can possibly smoke. Maybe Quebecers are coming to Labrador to buy cigarettes. If the prices are similar, maybe that is the case. Maybe we are getting some tax dollars from Quebec. If you remove rebates, you will have more and more people going to Quebec.

They are also going to buy other commodities, Mr. Speaker, and that is the one thing that bothers me the most with this legislation. What it opens up is increased shopping in Quebec. It is plain and simple, Mr. Speaker. They will go there to save money on one commodity, and while they are there they will spend money on other commodities.

Again, I will say that it is unfortunate that the amount of tobacco produced has doubled, but it just sends a message to people. People are still smoking cigarettes. They are still accessing tobacco products, and that the opportunity for them to buy at decreased prices is going to motivate them to go across the border. I, for one, do not want to see that.

Also, Mr. Speaker, if they do that, and I suspect they will, where does that leave the thirty-three small businesses in Labrador West? Will you see job reduction? Will you see layoffs? Will you see a reduction in the number of hours? Will you see businesses going out of business, Mr. Speaker?

The eleven businesses that are located in Southern Labrador right next to Blanc Sablon, will you see layoffs there? Our economy is, at times, strained, regardless of how this government thinks we are doing. We do have our issues in terms of trying to operate a business, we do have our issues in trying to hold an income, we do have our issues in trying to get our employee wages, and all of this is going to be at risk. It is going to be at risk, Mr. Speaker, because of a thirty-minute drive to Fermont, Quebec, thirty-four minute drive from Wabush to Fermont, Quebec; because of a seven-minute drive from L'Anse au Clair to Blanc Sablon, and a thirteen-minute drive from Forteau to Blanc Sablon.

Mr. Speaker, all these communities stand the risk of having their business impacted because this government wants to implement an expensive form of smoking cessation that is not going to be – I am trying to find the right words here. It is not going to be relevant because people are going to look for a cheaper price. What it will do is it will impact small businesses by taking trade away from them and bringing it to Quebec.

If this government is serious about escaping the clutches of Quebec when they talk about the Muskrat Falls Project, I cannot see why they are handing it to Quebec on a silver platter, saying take our tax dollars. Mr. Speaker, you can bet that the losses will be more than $3.4 million that this government is hoping to save. Again, it is going to be at the expense of the people in our Province, the people who live next to Blanc Sablon and other areas in Quebec. The saving of $3.4 million is going to be at the expense of Labradorians living in Lab City and Lab West, Mr. Speaker.

When this government makes an attempt to save money, Mr. Speaker, it should not be on the backs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you.

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure for me to say a few words about this bill. I will not reiterate any of the points that were just made. I think they are valid ones about the economic impact, the negative economic impact on this area. I know my colleague, the Member for The Straits – White Bay North, who is just across the way from the Strait of Belle Isle, from Southern Labrador, will have something to say about this as well.

Government said there is no rebate provided for any other part of the Province for tobacco sales. It also says that no other province offers a rebate similar to this one. It says it will save government approximately $3.4 million annually.

It argues that to continue to provide this tax rebate, it will serve as an incentive effectively for increased tobacco sales. Which goes against government's suggested or stated commitment to the promotion of health and well-being despite, as the Member for Bay of Islands has pointed out, the fact that they are closing one training and wellness facility in the Province as a result of this Budget.

Government argues that since 1998 the amount of cigarettes purchased in Labrador West has more than doubled. It says with the end of the program, it is hoped that cigarette sales will also decrease.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: Of course, that is not necessarily going to be the case. There is no reason why people will not still be able to drive across the border to Fermont, or will not be able to leave Red Bay, or drive down to Blanc Sablon should they choose.

Government says cigarette sales will decrease, but that is not necessarily a good way to get at the whole issue of smoking cessation. Really, while cigarettes and tobacco sales in Labrador will probably decline as a result of this change – because it will drive up the cost and thereby reduce the demand somewhat – it is quite unlikely that it will have a truly effective impact on consumption. People will get their cigarettes elsewhere, as I have said.

At the same time that government is making this argument, it has ignored or rejected many calls from key organizations, both nationally and in Newfoundland and Labrador, to make smoking cessation therapies and nicotine replacement therapies financially accessible.

MR. SPEAKER: I remind the hon. member that we are speaking to the bill. It is not a general Finance bill.

MR. KIRBY: Yes, but this is part of the argument, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to point out quickly, that in the fall of 2012 there were a number of groups that came to government and asked for those therapies to be covered for low-income people. At Budget time this year, the Lung Associations, in fact, asked government for $500,000 for smoking cessation products to be made available through the Prescription Drug Program. That would be about 0.4 per cent of the $146 million in tobacco tax revenue that currently comes in, and that is with this particular rebate in Labrador. I think that is important to point out as well.

Government's practice is inconsistent with nearly every other province in Canada in making the argument that it does, that somehow this is a sensible way to fight tobacco usage or to reduce tobacco usage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is just about impossible to hear the speaker. The speaker has important words to say, and I believe hon. members should give the speaker the courtesy to speak on this important bill.

The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said earlier, part of government's rationale for this change is, it is one of these times – oftentimes we hear in the House of Assembly, when it suits government's purposes we will make comparisons to other provinces, and when it does not suit government's purpose to do that, then we should just do it our own way here because we know better than everybody else.

It is sort of odd sometimes to follow the argument and know which argument that government is going to use. Newfoundland and Labrador, and New Brunswick, each of our provinces have no coverage for these particular smoking cessation and nicotine replacement therapies that I referenced. There is partial coverage in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.

It is part of the public drug plan in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. There is universal coverage in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec. One of the reasons why the universal coverage works well is that oftentimes even those private insurance health plans that some of us are fortunate enough to have do not cover that. So that is important to point out.

It is also important to point out, that 20 per cent of the Newfoundland and Labrador population, that is about 87,000 people, smoke while only about 14 per cent of the people in British Columbia do where they have universal coverage for smoking cessation therapies and nicotine replacement.

The Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Member for the District of Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi, in fact asked on April 25, last month, why government was not investing in those smoking cessation programs and helping people quit. I think the Minister of Finance rose in his seat, or maybe it was another minister, but I think it was the Minister of Finance, and said they would rather put money into cancer drugs instead. As the Leader of the New Democratic Party has pointed out, we really should not have to have that choice.

Another thing I wanted to say quickly because I do not want to have to raise any of these points that have already been raised; Ron Barron, who is the Mayor of Wabush, was in contact with our office and wanted to make sure that for the record we mentioned that we had been in contact with Mr. Barron. He was not aware this legislation was coming up in the House of Assembly today. He thought it might already have, in fact, been put in place through the Budget process. He was not aware that we were going to be discussing this today.

Businesses in his municipality are going to be affected by it. He is very concerned about what the impact on local retailers will be. It is not just about cigarette retailers. He says people going across the border to Quebec, whether it is Fermont, Blanc Sablon, or on the coast, will buy cheaper cigarettes but they will also do their shopping over there.

I also wanted to point out that when I grew up I worked in my parents' general store in the community of Lord's Cove. My parents were entrepreneurs and I worked in my parents' store. Anybody who is involved in the retail industry will know that retailers do not make much at all on cigarettes or beer, but that draws people into your business.

There is a high markup on confectionary items like potato chips, pop, candies, chocolate bars, and those things. That is where people make the greatest amount of profit when they are in the convenience store business. It is the cigarettes and the beer, those items that really the government is making the most money on, that is drawing a lot of people in, but they will buy additional items when they –

AN HON. MEMBER: Did they sell beer?

MR. KIRBY: Yes, they did, I say to the Member for Gander district. My parents did sell beer in their store.

So that is really where people are going to lose out. Let us face it, I say to the Member for Labrador West, people are not going to go to Fermont and get their smokes and come back to convenience stores in Wabush or Lab City and buy their chocolate bars and soda pop. That is not going to happen. People are going to go and buy whatever items they are going to buy all at one time because that just makes the most practical sense.

Mr. Barron, the Mayor of Wabush, said if they see an axe or a wheelbarrow for sale over there, they are likely to buy it there too. If they are there and they see a deal, they are likely to buy it. Based on my own personal experience working in my parents' store when I was growing up, that is certainly the case.

Anybody who is in the retail business, convenience store business, will know that is the case. That is going to be one of the impacts here, and I think that is important to realize. So I do not know if the member for Lab West wants to try to organize a filibuster now to prevent this bill from passing, but we will join your cause, should you decide to do that, and I will take my seat with that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, given the hour and since we are sitting this evening, I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment and Conservation, that we adjourn until 7:00 o'clock.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved by the minister that the House now adjourn until 7:00 p.m.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

The House is adjourned until 7:00 p.m.

PDF Version


May 7, 2013                       HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                  Vol. XLVII No. 16A


The House resumed sitting at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development, that we adjourn debate at this time on Order 4, Bill 4, An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act No. 2.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that debate now adjourns on Bill 4.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 3, Bill 7, and I further move that the said bill be now read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 3, Bill 7, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 7, and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 3", carried. (Bill 7)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 3. (Bill 7)

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

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. KING: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, Bill 7 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call Order 2, Concurrence Motion report of the Government Services Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly a pleasure to get up and speak on the Budget Estimates for 2013. I had the privilege this year of Chairing the Government Services Committee. For the people who have not gone through it before, the Estimates committees are made up of different departments and made up of members of the House of Assembly. In our Estimates committees there was the Member for Humber Valley, the Opposition Leader; the Member for Kilbride –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Yes, of course.

The Member for Torngat Mountains; the Member for St. John's East; the Member for Mount Pearl South –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: It must be a government member, Mr. Speaker – and, the Member for Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Not all the time will that particular member or any particular member make it to the Estimates meeting, Mr. Speaker. They will probably have other commitments. In that case they will use a substitute. It is conceivable there could be a number of different members. Although the ones I named here this evening were the official members, you can use other members on the different meetings and the different Estimates.

It is always a good exercise, Mr. Speaker, to do the Budget Estimates and to be able to sit here in the House of Assembly with a small number of people, with the ministers and their departments, their staff, and our colleagues in the House. There are questions being asked of the minister and his department of what is going on with the operations of that particular department. This year we had the Department of Finance, the Department of Transportation and Works, and the Department of Service NL.

I would like to speak on all the departments, if I can and if time will allow me. It may not allow me to do that, Mr. Speaker. We, of course, passed the Estimates without amendment, which means now it will go to a vote in the Budget. There are so many good things in the Budget this year that it is nice to get it out there.

Especially, I know where I came from out in the rural areas, what is important to the majority of people, which is the seniors out there, is our commitment to seniors, the Premier's commitment and this government's commitment to seniors, Mr. Speaker. Of course, the Minister of Service NL, the Member for Lab West, confirmed last week actually our commitment to seniors and it was in the 2013 Budget. Some of the things that go unnoticed are the commitment and the investment we make in seniors, and what we can do to help out their daily lives.

One of the things the minister stated the other day was the discounts for seniors on different permits. For argument's sake, a big game licence went from $40 down to $26 and will stay there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL: My father is happy about that, very happy.

MR. FORSEY: Yes, of course. The Member for St. John's West as well as a lot of us in rural areas will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the seniors, including the Member for St. John's West, his father is pleased with the reduction in the big game licence.

Just to name a few. All the big game licences, like bear licences went from $30 down to $20.55; salmon angling licences went from $17 down to $11.05; guide licences went from $10 down to $6.50; Province-wide seasonal Provincial Park permits went from $20 down to $13; the weekly fee, $23 down to $14.95.

I am naming some of these, Mr. Speaker, because I can get up and say, well we had reductions in permits this year and we are going to keep them down. Permits, once you get over one, if it is two it is permits. It is not a permit, it is permits. It could only be two, but it is a lot more than two.

MR. MCGRATH: Registration is 35 per cent.

MR. FORSEY: The minister will always remind me that registration is 35 per cent. Driver licences, Class 5 and 6, from $100 down to $65; photo identification cards, $25 down to $16; annual registration of passenger vehicles from $140 down to $91; all-terrain vehicles from $50 down to $33; snowmobiles, $20 down to $13; transfer of registered ownership, $25 down to $16; a licence for a recreational trailer from $38 down to $25. There are more here, but those are ones that really are important to the seniors, the ones who are using it. It is very important.

Somebody just reminded me of something, Mr. Speaker. There are not a lot of Claytons in this House. Apparently, the Member for Terra Nova stood up the other day and did a statement on a gentleman who called himself Clayton, and he knows it. Well in here, I am Clayton and I know it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: I must say, the gentleman who the Member for Terra Nova did the statement on is certainly well-deserving and does a lot for the national park and the people out in the Terra Nova area, without a doubt, Mr. Speaker.

Before I get into some of the other departmental stuff, I would certainly like to thank our Committee as well. As Chair, the Committee are pretty supportive of the exercise and the Estimates; they did a great job of showing up on time and, as well, the ministers of each department. I thank all of these people for their support. It went fairly smooth. There were very few arguments at Estimates; it usually goes fairly smooth – sometimes, not like the House of Assembly in the regular sittings.

Anyway, let's get back to the Concurrence and to the Estimates. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier that it was the Department of Finance, the Department of Transportation and Works, and Service NL. Of course, Service NL takes in the Office of the Chief Information Officer and Public Service Commission as well. These came under the Service NL Estimates Committees.

One thing that I always like to talk about that came out in the Estimates is our investment in infrastructure. The Minister of Transportation and Works, like the other ministers, was there to answer the questions that were asked and why we did certain things and why we made the investments.

AN HON. MEMBER: He did a good job.

MR. FORSEY: Yes, he did a good job as well, absolutely.

Some of the things that came out – and I would like to let the people know that this was a very good Budget, there is a lot of investment going into infrastructure in this Province, and the District of Exploits is certainly one of the districts on the receiving end, Mr. Speaker.

When it comes to Transportation and Works, just to highlight a few before I get into maybe some of the district investments that sort of trickles down from the provincial Budget: $59 million for provincial road construction projects –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, $43.1 million to complete the last full season of paving on Phase I and commence widening and paving sections of Phase II and III of the Trans-Labrador Highway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, $26.5 million to support several major Trans-Canada Highway rehabilitation projects, including work near Stephenville and Gander; $20.6 million for the first year of construction of the Placentia Lift Bridge.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: There is $10.4 million to finish the Conception Bay South Bypass, continue construction on the Team Gushue Highway, and complete land acquisitions; $11.1 million for heavy equipment, highway depot, and salt storage sheds construction. I am going to keep going because I am going to come to one that I am interested in now in a minute, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure this one is important to some of my colleagues: $76 million for vessel replacement, refit work, and improvements to marine terminals and wharfs, Mr. Speaker.

The department is receiving another $77.6 million this year to support many of these road and bridge projects, including replacing the Little Barachois Bridge, the Spencer Bridge, Robinson's River Bridge, through agreements with the Government of Canada – but there is one particular one, and that is the Sir Robert Bond Bridge.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: That happens to be in Central Newfoundland, it happens to be in the District of Exploits, and it is a vital link for all the traffic and vehicle operators in the Province, not only in the Province but for Canada as well. It happens to be in the District of Exploits. It is going to be replaced, Mr. Speaker, starting this year at a cost of $23.8 million.

Only recently, the Minister of Transportation and Works sent out the tender for the roadwork on both sides of the river that will need to be done before the actual construction of the bridge. That job is somewhere between $10 million to $12 million.

So, in itself, it is an important investment, it needed to be done, and the other good side of the coin is that this is money that is going to be spent in the District of Exploits, Mr. Speaker. I am really pleased with that.

MR. F. COLLINS: We love bridges (inaudible).

MR. FORSEY: We love bridges.

Mr. Speaker, before I go any further, there are a lot of good investments by this government, and it is good fiscal management. The things we are doing are what this Premier wants to do and this government wants to do.

We want to maintain good infrastructure. We want to invest in the right areas. I have to say, I listened to the other side while I am sitting here and it is great to be in Opposition. It is really great to be in Opposition. Because you will see, especially if you are watching the House of Assembly channel, you will see members of the Opposition get up and complain that we are not spending enough money and then when we are doing the investments that we are doing and making key investments, they get up and say we are spending too much money.

Really, I do not know what their balance is because we cannot seem to please them. Now, I know they have a job to do. It is great to use excuses, but I think sometimes it is great if they used some corrective measures and came up with some good ideas as well – excuse me, Mr. Speaker, my throat is a bit dry and I seem to get that way when I am talking about good investments by this government across the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FORSEY: No, I have a long ways to go, I say to the Opposition. I will never run out of good things to talk about.

There was and still is major investment in education. The reason I say that is because it is near and dear to the District of Exploits. We have been very fortunate by this government and the investments of this government. We have a high school in Bishop's Falls that houses almost 300 students and we have one in Botwood that houses over 300. This year, in April month, the tenders were awarded to two construction companies to replace the roofs on both of these schools for a cost investment of over $600 million. This shows the sustainability that we need to provide a safe environment for our students and teachers. That is what we are all about: investing in the right areas.

In regard to running out of investments, I say to the Opposition if I can keep my voice, I will not run out of investments, far from it.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Bay of Islands seems to think I am boring him, and I probably am because when you are talking about good things that the government does, it sounds a bit boring to them over there because they did not get the opportunity to do it when they were in government. I am reluctant to go back to those years anyway because I would like to talk about today, what we are doing today and what we have done in the past few years, Mr. Speaker.

When I was elected, one of the big things out our way and in a lot of rural areas, I know we have had it on the Northern Peninsula, on the South Coast and in Central, and that was broadband and high-speed Internet. It is always an issue.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of IBRD made a presentation last week in this House that the Rural Broadband Initiative received funding of $7 million in 2011, $2 million in 2012, and Budget 2013 allocated another $6.3 million over two years. This will bring the broadband access to 89 per cent of the Island and 95 per cent of Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fantastic.

MR. FORSEY: Yes, I need to repeat that one because a lot of people seem to think we are not doing anything for broadband. This will increase the access to 89 per cent on the Island and 95 per cent in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: It just so happened that in his release he talked about the areas that would receive the broadband. In the District of Exploits, the only two communities that were left out in the beginning are now included. That was the communities of Phillips Head and Point of Bay. They are very pleased with our investment in broadband, Mr. Speaker.

There are quite a few things that I can talk about. I would like to talk some more, but to be honest with you – I do not know, I think it is fly. I cannot seem to get rid of the dry throat.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FORSEY: No, no, I have lots of notes. I have lots of notes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have a great facility in the community of Botwood. It is called the Dr. Hugh Twomey Centre. I call it the jewel in the crown. This past couple of years, this government invested. When I came on in 2005, the place was falling down. It was falling down. We have now invested over $3 million into that facility. We have done upgrades there. We have done the roof there. We have added equipment there. We have upgraded the X-ray department there.

I was talking to the administrator a couple of months ago. He was saying: You know, Clayton, we are very fortunate now, we have everything brought up to standard here. I was wondering when this was going to be done because they were waiting for it.

Well, under this government, Mr. Speaker, it was done. So, that I am pleased. I thank the Member for Bay of Islands for reminding me of that investment. Sometimes there are so many of them you just cannot keep track of them.

This Budget is about financial stability, and that is what this government is about and this Premier is about, Mr. Speaker. It was certainly a pleasure to Chair the Estimates of these departments again this year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member that his time has expired.

MR. FORSEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to be able to stand tonight and speak to Budget 2013. Of course, I have had a number of occasions now in the last few weeks since March 26, since Budget day, to actually do quite a bit of analysis on the Budget.

Most of the analysis we have had to do on the Budget, I will say, is coming from feedback from many people across the Province, whether it was about school board amalgamation that was not planned, or if it was about cuts to public service. That really was not talked about much by the Member for Exploits as he mentioned his Budget 2013.

One of the things I have brought up a few times in the House is about this pamphlet right here, Budget 2013 and the five things you need to know about the Budget. What this pamphlet does not address is a number of things that this particular Budget does not address, I say, Mr. Speaker.

The member opposite made quite a bit of mention about the Estimates. I would say the experience from this side of the House participating in Estimates is always a good one. I must say I always find the staff and the information that comes from the Estimates questions, either from the minister or the staff, always to be very forthcoming. I would encourage anybody, if they are watching, to pay particular concern about the Estimates when it is Web cast or when it is televised in this House. For us, it is where we get a lot of the information.

I had the opportunity to participate in the Finance Estimates as well as Natural Resources, which includes forestry, offshore oil and gas, and of course agriculture. Many of those industries actually affect in a different way. In particular, forestry and agriculture on the West Coast in my own district is affected in a big way by agriculture, and indeed forestry. There is no question there are significant concerns right now within the forestry industry about how it is impacted by the state of the affairs in the forestry industry right now.

I want to speak just for a few minutes on the position that we have taken in these very stressful times when it comes to, in particular the employees and the retirees at the Corner Brook mill. In this particular Budget 2013, there was a commitment that would allow for a $90 million loan, Mr. Speaker, to Corner Brook Pulp and Paper. That would be used to secure the pension plan for retirees and employees, as well as infrastructure into the mill, which is indeed the foundation of the forestry industry in the Province.

There is a lot of concern and a lot of questions that get asked of us. We know that this is not a popular decision, Mr. Speaker, for many people across the Province. They have asked us why as Leader of the Opposition would you support this loan to a company like Kruger, and on the other hand make arguments why we would question an investment into a place like Roddickton.

Well, for us the difference would be – when I answer that question – number one, you get the guarantee. You get the security back. There are certain securities that are available to Corner Brook Pulp and Paper that we do not see, for instance, in the Roddickton pellet plant.

In Corner Brook, with the mill in particular, it is the foundation of the forestry industry across the Province. When you look at in particular the integrated sawmill industry, they provide a lot of what would be considered to be by-products to the mill to be used for fibre and other sources of bioenergy. That is then used to create a sustainable mill, a paper mill in this case in Corner Brook. It is the complete package.

That is the reason why, with the securities and the guarantees in place, I could say that once we have a loan repayment, certain conditions on the investments into the employees and the retirees, that this particular loan by government would make sense. The security and the guarantees would be there. That is the difference for me.

On the other hand, we have asked many questions about some of the other investments because we can see where some of the security and guarantees have not been necessarily taken to secure such loans. This particular Budget 2013 is a budget which has a revenue line of around $7 billion I would say, with a total expense of just under $7.5 billion. It would leave us near the end of the year with a shortfall of around

$563 billion. That is the forecast. What we have seen from this year's Budget is a deficit this year, a deficit of about $650 million for next year, and then what government is forecasting is indeed a surplus for the third year.

Mr. Speaker, what I have seen here and what we have been told by many people who have been negatively impacted by this Budget is that there was not really a lot of discussion leading up to the Budget from the people who were affected. By that I mean, for instance, like school board amalgamation. We have asked a number of questions about school board amalgamation and the negative impact that would have on our Province.

We say: How do you reach this decision? How do you get to make a decision where you would go from five school boards, four English and one French, down to one English and one French? What would happen? That, to me, would be a very drastic and substantial decision to make; yet, you say, I am sure the government would not make this decision without consulting with the stakeholders, without consulting the people who were impacted.

It was not until we started hearing back from all the people, trustees, for instance, people who were involved in schools, and parents, that we quickly came to find out that this was a decision that was made within the Department of Education. Indeed, there were no consultations made with other people who were involved, for instance, stakeholders, trustees and other school boards across the Province.

In 2013, the decision was made to go from five school boards down to two. This will have an impact, there is no question. I have talked to many people, for instance, a lot of people who are involved in the day-to-day activities within schools, be it a high school principal or a teacher. No matter where it is people are concerned. People are concerned for a number of reasons. What I am being told is a lot of the administrative roles that are currently being done by the school board offices will be downloaded now to the schools and therefore it will take away from front line education within the schools themselves.

I would question this if I heard this just from one person, or two, or three, or four, but this has been a consistent argument that has been made from everybody we talk to. No matter which school we went into, no matter where we were, when we asked for feedback or when people came back to us with feedback on this the answer was always the same. The answer was that this will indeed affect front line services. That administrative roles and administrative capacity within the school itself would be impacted.

In Budget 2013, this is one of the decisions we seen that will have a negative impact on education. The amalgamation of school boards from five to two, four English and one French, will indeed have an impact on education in this Province. It will mean the implementation of programs – program developments will be impacted by this decision.

When you look at this and you look at, well, we made decisions on school board amalgamations in the past, how did we make those decisions? Well, it has been quite different, I say. For instance, back in 2004 when we went from – or back when we made the last decision to go from eleven school boards down to five, it was a much different approach.

What they did is they went across the Province. They had consultations. They had what I would consider to be meaningful consultations, input from various stakeholders, input from schools, from the trustees themselves. Therefore, they made the decision then to go from eleven to five.

Back in the late 1990s, when a similar decision was made to go to eleven school boards from an interdenominational school system, there was a commission that went around this Province and looked for feedback. That was how important this was seen. Even when we looked at teacher allocations across the Province, there were significant consultations done across the Province with teachers then, I would say, Mr. Speaker.

This approach in Budget 2013 was very different. It was a very different approach and people were confused and upset, Mr. Speaker, because they were not included. They felt they were actually excluded from the process and not asked for their input at all. This was a disappointment to them.

We did not only see it with school board amalgamations. Right now, what we are given is just a matter of weeks or a few months to go from where we are, from five school boards down to essentially one English school board. People are questioning, can we even do this given the impact it will have on the school system? I will say it is going to be quite the task to get from where we are today, where we have been at the end of this year, to where this government intends to take us in September of this year.

Mr. Speaker, the school board amalgamation, there are still a lot of questions from a lot of people when you look at this, and not only teachers and trustees and students themselves. Again, what we have been asking for in the House of Assembly through Question Period, because this is such a big issue we believe that government really should take some time with this. Take a year and do the proper consultations with this before you make this significant change and therefore could actually set back education.

There has been a lot of momentum. There have been some strategic investments over the years with the money we have had from our oil revenue, and they have made some significant investments into education. I would not want to lose the momentum just by setting back and pulling back the consolidation of school boards as proposed in this Budget, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, in 2004 it went from eleven school boards to five. The number in 1996-1997 was actually from twenty-seven denominational school boards down to eleven. That was all done with considerable discussion, I would say. I believe not enough has been done in this particular case with this decision that has been made to the amalgamation of school boards.

Mr. Speaker, the school board amalgamation is one of the –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: – impacts we have seen on education. We also know that the NLTA themselves have been very concerned about the school board amalgamation savings of around $12.8 million. We all know, given the history we have seen with health authorities as we consolidated health authorities back a few years ago, the savings that were anticipated did not always come. As a matter of fact, there are a lot of people who would suggest when you do a review of the Budget you would see it actually cost more money.

Amalgamation is not a proven way to save money every single time. There is still a question about if the amalgamation of school boards in Budget 2013 will indeed have the intended impact that it would have. As a matter of fact, there might be an unintended consequence, I say, Mr. Speaker, as we get a negative impact on education.

Mr. Speaker, $12.8 million is the anticipated savings, going from five offices down to two, and four English down to one. These are without consultation, I must say. With the objective and the decision already made, the transition team will be very limited, we believe, in its scope.

All of this would come when we have many studies out there. One of the studies that have been mentioned in this House many times now is A Pan-Canadian Study on School Board District Governance. They suggest that, indeed, what you need is solid, good, meaningful, and engaged school boards. With that you would have a better education system, Mr. Speaker. The school board amalgamation, as we said, is indeed seen to be as a negative impact for most people who have done the analysis on this particular Budget.

The NLTA, in some of the feedback and correspondence they have been putting out there and making public, are also concerned about school board amalgamation. They believe, as I said, just like the Pan-Canadian study did, that strong and effective school boards will mean that we will have a better education system. There is a letter that has been going around and it has gotten quite a bit of attention. They are concerned, too, when you look at the 160 positions that are intended to be cut within the NLTA and the impact this would have on our education system.

They are quick to point out that the provincial Budget has removed teachers, it has cut administrative time and the amalgamation of school boards, and there will be a loss. This is the letter coming directly from the President of the NLTA and it goes on to say that there will be a loss of specialist teachers in intermediate schools, a loss of numeracy and literacy support teachers, and a loss of learning resource teachers. In addition a large number of the teaching units – and this is important – which were provided under a needs-based portion of the teacher allocation model in previous years will no longer be available.

This is important because already we are hearing from a lot of teachers and a lot of parents, I would say, Mr. Speaker, about the impact of this allocation. Even on Friday of last week I had a young family who came into my office in the District of Humber Valley, came in and expressed concern of how important this particular allocation has been to the education of her son for many years now.

Now to think that this could be gone simply because of a Budget cut with really not a big significant amount of savings, and when you think about the impact that it could have on education, there is no question; we have to ask that question. We will continue to ask that question on behalf of families, parents, and teachers in this Budget as a result of Budget cuts in 2013.

Mr. Speaker, there are many other things that I want to talk about in this particular Budget. It seems to be one of the things that surprise many people in this particular Budget is how far-reaching and how broad these Budget cuts have been. It seems to be that no matter where you go everybody knows of somebody that has been impacted by this Budget.

We have received many calls over the last few weeks from individuals – some of them have been around and have held government positions for many years; people who have been in positions for thirty years are now without a job. You say: Well, how could that happen?

This particular story was one that came to me of an individual who had twenty-eight years working in the public sector, took a supervisory job, and then the position was considered to be redundant. Therefore, in this particular case, the person was out the door and now has to wait where he can get himself into a position where he could actually retire because of age.

Mr. Speaker, these cuts have been far-reaching, they have been broad, I would say, and every particular region and lots of communities within our Province have been impacted by those 1,100-plus cuts that we have seen through the public sector. That is on top of – and we should not lose sight of this – the 226 EAS employees who we saw cut back in early March. These were people who were really essentially waiting to see where they would be, waiting for an extension in their contracts who late on a Friday afternoon were notified that their positions were no longer available, that indeed those offices were cut.

Now when you look at the Advanced Education and Skills department, when you add the 226 employees who were really supporting and working in conjunction with the AES offices, these supports are no longer available. You do ask yourself the question: Where will this work be done?

If you look at the Noseworthy report – and we have brought some attention to this in the House of Assembly today – this indeed is a very scathing report of the activities within the Advanced Education and Skills department. If you read this report you do not really need – it is an extensive report; one that government paid Mr. Noseworthy $150,000 to complete. It is very extensive, I would say, Mr. Speaker, and we have been working our way through this.

All you have to do if you really want to get some good oversight, and I ask all members to do this, just go and read the executive summary. You will see just by the remarks of the former AG and the former Progressive Conservative candidate what he said about the Department of Advanced Education and Skills. It is a very scathing report.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did he say?

MR. BALL: Essentially it says it is a very dysfunctional department right now that really lacks communication. We have various sectors of this department working within silos, about seven silos he is saying there. Indeed what we are seeing is overlap –

MR. LANE: (Inaudible).

MR. BALL: Indeed I am quoting John, I say to the Member for Mount Pearl South. I am quoting John Noseworthy the former AG, the former candidate, and the author of this executive summary. I would challenge the member if he would just go and read this report, he would see that when you stand up and then you go in and you promote the layoffs and the closures of the EAS offices, you might want to take a second look at what is going on there.

Just to think that this is the very department that has made the decisions around the cuts to CNA, the College of the North Atlantic. This was the same department that decided that the ABE program should be cut because it was costing more and they felt that it could be delivered cheaper at a private school. When you look at his own comments around this you will see –

AN HON. MEMBER: What did he say?

MR. BALL: There was a lot that he said about ABE; there was a lot that he said about a lot of things there. As a matter of fact, he went to make eighty-seven recommendations and went on to even put forty-seven Next Steps into this report.

We ask the question today: Where are we with this? It is very important. If you are ever going to get this particular department back on track, or on track at all –

MR. A. PARSONS: Back on track? It was never on track.

MR. BALL: It was never on track, I would say, as my colleague there whispers in my ear. He would say it was never on track. As a matter of fact, if you read the report, you will quickly find out that indeed that is right. It was never on track. Indeed, this was a department that was put together and that so-called morphed over many years. What we have now, as the former AG quite rightly points out, is a very disjointed and dysfunctional department that is really not doing the job it was meant to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are brave saying that (inaudible).

MR. BALL: The member opposite says I am brave saying that. I do not mind saying this at all. I could actually read this no matter who was there because these are not my words. These are the words of the person who this government paid $150,000 to complete the report. These are not my words. These are your words. This is a report that was given to government. This is the words of the author here.

If you have to ask questions, I would say just e-mail Mr. Noseworthy, the former AG and the former candidate for your government, Mr. Speaker. Just e-mail him and see if he still feels the same way. Those eighty-seven recommendations that I am telling you there, these are his words. These are not my words. We are just analyzing and going through the executive summary here.

If you took the time to go through the 300-plus pages, you will see a lot more words and a lot more examples of things I can only touch on tonight, I would say, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to go through all the forty-seven Next Steps tonight, but there are a quite a few.

MR. LANE: (Inaudible).

MR. BALL: Now, I know the Member for Mount Pearl South is over there and he asking me to go through all the Next Steps. Well, maybe we should then. Maybe we will go through them.

Listen to this one. This is one. This is Next Step 3, "Develop a comprehensive implementation plan for all change related activities." Now, you tell me where this government leading up to Budget 2013 has done any planning at all, let alone just for the planning of the Department of Advanced Education and Skills. There is no planning at all, I would say. That is the reason we are in the situation now where we have seen school board amalgamations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: We are seeing the NLTA with 160 positions gone. We are seeing wildlife enforcement, wildlife management, and all those people who have been laid off because there has been no planning.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that even in our Estimates we asked a question about the Public Service Secretariat, and where we were, as an example. They are anticipated over the next three years to lose 25 per cent of their workforce. This year, what have we done? We have had about 1,100 or so employees who have been let go.

If you look at over the next three years you are going to lose 25 per cent of your workforce, what is going to happen? You have laid off, you have let go, some of your junior people right now, Mr. Speaker. Well, guess what? In the next year or two you are going to have to hire people because you are going to have a retirement. You are going to have 25 per cent of your current workforce retiring.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker has recognized the Leader of the Official Opposition. I ask members to listen in silence.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for your protection there.

These are forty-seven –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BALL: This is very serious, I say, Mr. Speaker. This is very serious what we are talking about here tonight, because the Department of Advanced Education and Skills is a department we have made significant investment in and it is important that we get it right.

When we have the former AG coming back with a scathing review – which took him, I believe, almost ten months to report back on. He spent considerable time on this. Time, I would suggest, that should have been done in advance of the department setup. That was in the opinion of most. When you look through that you will see we have a department here that even within the department itself, we have employees who really do not have information systems that can integrate with each other. That is where it is.

If you are into Income Support and you want to talk about getting people into the labour market, there is really no one who follows the individual or the client through to every step along the way. There are people actually getting lost within the system itself, and there is a lot of duplication that the former AG talks about, Mr. Speaker.

I would encourage members opposite, and all members of this House, to read this report because it is very extensive, as I say, Mr. Speaker. It gives us quite an overview and suggested a lot of changes would need to be made within this department.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are so many other things to talk about, but I do want to talk about the department of wildlife enforcement and management. I have mentioned this before in the House. Even over the weekend, we know now that this department itself, with the limited number of staff it has, and with the significant layoffs we have seen within wildlife, both in enforcement and management, that we know – and we know the reason why a lot of people come back to our Province to retire is simply because they enjoy the lifestyle of what this Province has to offer.

It is really part of the lifestyle of all of us as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I know I, for one, certainly enjoy whenever I can get the opportunity to get out and enjoy our wildlife and enjoy the scenery and the landscapes that this Province has so readily available to us. So it is important that we do whatever we can to protect that, and we protect that by putting proper management plans in place for things like wildlife or things like our environment.

When we see reductions in those areas – and I can imagine the Minister of Tourism, when this decision had to be made within his department, because these are things we want to highlight. We want to highlight the fact that this is a great Province. This is the pristine views and landscapes, as I say, that it would have. No matter where we go we hear people talking about what this Province has to offer. Now, if we do not put proper management in place to protect these resources, Mr. Speaker, well then we know what will happen. We can see that, and there is no question.

I know when we looked at the fish and wildlife enforcement division within Natural Resources, what I understand is that when the enforcement was put in place there were seventy-two positions there. Some of those positions were never filled. Right now there has been – even prior to the Budget there were a number of vacant positions. Now we are down to, after Budget 2013, about twenty-four people who are actually in place, and fifty-four prior to the Budget. So, these are significant cuts. I understand that some of the seasonal workers will come back in.

When you look at the value of this resource, when you look at what this means to people in this Province, I say, Mr. Speaker, this is indeed not enough. We have all heard the stories. People in this Province have heard politicians, either the Opposition members or people in the media talking about having one, for instance, enforcement officer north of Rocky Harbour.

Now, Mr. Speaker, for those of us who have been in that area, and I have been up there many, many times. As a matter of fact, it is where I go. Roddickton is an area that I love. We have always looked forward to going to the Roddickton area every fall, because that is the area that we go to.

AN HON. MEMBER: You love Roddickton.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, I do. I do love Roddickton, I say to the member opposite. It is indeed one of the beautiful parts of the Province, I say. When we go there, there is no question we have seen a significant difference in the amount of wildlife that we have seen over some fifteen years now.

So, enforcement and management is an important piece of that. Whether it is Roddickton or if it is in my own district of Humber Valley, or any of the member's opposite districts, this is important. When you see one wildlife enforcement officer when you go north of Rocky Harbour, it is not enough.

MR. JOYCE: How many?

MR. BALL: Just one, I say to my colleague, just one.

MR. JOYCE: Just one?

MR. BALL: That is it. That is what we have there available right now.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt; if we are going to put proper enforcement in these places we need to be able to put the proper people on the ground. As a matter of fact, many of the people who have been working with a number of departments, including this department, have told me that it is virtually impossible to put effective programs in place that would be safe without the proper number of officers available, and I have not really talked about the management piece of it yet.

These enforcement officers are not only just for wildlife, what we think of moose, caribou, black bear and all those sort of things. They also take part in inland waters, which would be our fish, salmon, trout, for instance, I would say, Mr. Speaker. They are even involved in ATV legislation right now and snowmobiling, and on and on it goes.

It is not just the fact that they are actually enforcement officers, they do many other things. As a matter of fact, having them on our resource roads, having them out there in the field themselves, just being visible means a lot to keeping our poachers and so on, people who would abuse this resource, keeping them at bay, Mr. Speaker. More than that, we have other industries that are negatively impacted if we do not manage and do not put the proper enforcement in place.

As an example, Mr. Speaker, the outfitting industry is one industry that can bring in significant revenue to our Province. Indeed, having the outfitting industry protected so we can properly manage our wildlife, manage that resource, Mr. Speaker, is important to all of us because this is something we need to promote. It is something that people from outside this Province look forward to coming to and participating in the outfitting industry in our Province.

Again, as I said a few minutes ago, it is a reason why people decide to retire here. We all have friends, I am sure, who have been living away and every summer they come home and this is one of the things they would enjoy. When you would speak to them and say, where do you plan on retiring? Where do you want to retire? Well, they want to come back home, Mr. Speaker, and one of the reasons they want to come back home is because of the lifestyle that we have to offer here. I would say many members opposite have friends of theirs, relatives who could say the same thing, Mr. Speaker.

It is about lifestyle. It is about protecting the outfitting industry. It is about protecting our tourism asset and it is about creating a lifestyle so that people can come back home and enjoy their summers, their winters and the fall of the year living in Newfoundland and Labrador, protecting that resource that we all hold dear to our hearts, Mr. Speaker.

One of the questions I have asked people who have been involved, where are we? What would you compare this to? A lot of people have said, well, looking back in their memory they would put us at staffing levels at about where we were in the 1980s, Mr. Speaker. Just imagine going back into the 1980s. I could not imagine what a budget would be in the 1980s.

Here we are with a $7 billion Budget, considered to be a have Province, I say, and promoted to be a have Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: – and going back to 1980s levels of staffing.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, there is even a question if we could actually deliver this program in an effective way. Working conditions, from people who I have talked to, are just not safe and even to the point where they just wonder if we can actually put enough people in the field to put in effective programs.

We have seen so many cuts, and I have a full list of them here, when it comes to EAS workers; when it comes to the RED Boards over the last year, this government's involvement in the RED Boards, the Regional Economic Development Boards, as we pull our funding in advance of the federal government pulling their funding, that announcement came last year, and our 25 per cent of the funding was pulled in advance of the federal funding; changes in our dental plan – and when you talking about planning, I say, Mr. Speaker, this is a prime example of what would have normally been a good initiative now we seen that we have had to pull that back this year.

We have seen changes, for instance, in health care, the laser treatment. This was not seen to be a cosmetic treatment. There are people who needed this treatment because of acute care, people with Lupus. There have been so many other cuts, from ABE to the College of the North Atlantic. Every single site with the College of the North Atlantic in this Province has been impacted by this Budget – every single site in this Province, the college system that we have all taken great pride in over the years.

Now we have seen cuts in every single department, and it has been much more than ABE. From the Electronics Engineering course in the College of the North Atlantic in Corner Brook, for instance, it was the only site that offered that course on the Island. What we have seen here were twenty students per year, sixty students enrolled in the program, and that was the capacity. There was no doubt enrolment was down but what needed to happen – because people were getting employed. As they graduated from the College of the North Atlantic, this Electronics Engineering program, they were finding work. They were finding work with NAV CANADA, they were finding work within Nalcor, and they were finding work in a number of places. As a matter of fact, their graduates were sought after. They were coming in and being recruited. Here we are with that program now closed down at the College of the North Atlantic in Corner Brook.

What should have happened? People often say: What would you have done? What needed to happen was to go in and speak to those people who were involved and say: How do we get this enrolment up? There is a way to do that. There has been very little marketing done on that program, even though all the graduates are being sought after, I say, Mr. Speaker.

There are so many others, when you look at the school board amalgamations, cuts – one, I must say, that we have received and we get significant feedback on now is the cuts to the West Coast Training Centre in Stephenville. Yes, that is a significant cut. It is actually closed up. Right now we are hearing – every day, really, we get e-mails from people who have been impacted.

I got to be honest with you; I did not realize the value of that particular training centre to the community, to Stephenville, until we started getting feedback from those people, and it has been significant when you look at the people who consider this to be an important piece of their community. People have even made decisions where they decided to live based on having this type infrastructure in place, I say, Mr. Speaker.

I have already touched on a lot of the things here: Family Violence Court, the Crown prosecutors, and on and on it goes. It seems to me it is almost endless here – circuit courts.

The fees, for instance, is one thing I have not really talked about so far tonight, Mr. Speaker. Throughout this whole Budget we have seen an increase in fees in ferries, increase in fees to licences, to entrance to historic sites, I say, Mr. Speaker, even to hospitals where we have seen semi-private rooms, I believe it is, a cost increase just to be there. There is the wildlife management, the wildlife enforcement, as I have mentioned, and on and on it goes – just the layoffs.

One thing that we really have not discussed a whole lot but –

MR. JOYCE: Introduce one tonight.

MR. BALL: Yes, there we go; there is one that is going to be introduced later on tonight when I talk about fees, Mr. Speaker. This is going to be Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 3. This bill will amend the Revenue Administration Act to impose a fee of $50 for clearance certificates.

So here we are going to be what I believe was $5 –

MR. JOYCE: Five dollars.

MR. BALL: Five dollars now, up to $50 for this fee. So even at the $50 level, this is where this Budget has gone, I say, trying to find those extra dollars.

There have been so many other areas that I would say here – the list goes on and on. I was going to mention here, what we have not discussed much of, is when you take people out of the system, when you take 1,100 people out, you lay them off, what happens, it is certainly what we get – and I have heard this from people already, from business owners, especially people who would be in car dealerships, for instance, or someone who would be into selling things like recreation, ATVs and snowmobiles and those sorts of things, they feel what happens is that people's confidence gets shaken.

When you take 1,100 people out of the system, then we are being told these people can actually transition into this so-called red-hot economy. Well, indeed, that is not the case. It is very difficult for teachers; it is very difficult for some of those people to transition into this so-called red-hot or white-hot economy.

I would suggest it is red-hot, simply because it was a red Liberal government that put this revenue in place for this government. They were the ones who negotiated those particular developments right now; that oil – that mining, for instance, at Voisey's Bay. This is where the source of revenue right now – in terms of revenue, I would agree, these are the best of times. When you get $7 billion coming into this economy largely from Liberal initiatives, Liberal developments prior to 2003, this is where most of this revenue has been generated.

The list, as I said, goes on and on. There are so many other things here that we could talk about. What I want to talk about, even though it is not strictly in this particular Budget, is the comprehensive economic trade agreement which is not something that is not widely known; it is certainly not widely discussed. It is an issue that we did bring up with a former federal minister just to get a sense on where this is going. I believe that this is something that we really need to take and get it on the radar of all provincial governments.

In Quebec, I understand right now, what they have done is they went around the province and had public meetings trying to get input on what the impact of CEDA, as it is widely known as, this comprehensive economic trade agreement, what the impact would be, I say, Mr. Speaker.

What we know, what we are hearing right now, is that it has a significant impact on not only health and fisheries, but there is a concern about the investment dispute settlement on how the negotiated benefits by foreign investors, how this would all happen. There seems to be, the only response would be, is that we would never sign an agreement; we would never enter into an agreement unless there were benefits. When you go looking for the benefits, when you ask the question: Where is this negotiation? There is not a lot of information forthcoming.

As an example, for instance in health care, one of the things that is being suggested that is at the negotiating table and being discussed is what would happen around patent medicines. Indeed, it is seen that the Europeans would like to see patent laws extended

What that would mean is that the lower cost generic drugs would not be as readily available to our health care system. I have seen numbers up as high as $90 million to the national health care cost and we would know that certainly our Province would have to share in some of those costs if, indeed, this is what it is meant to be.

What I would say to the minister responsible is that make sure that we are in the loop, let's not leave this to a national negotiating team, that we are there asking questions and let's make sure that we do get benefit for this Province, rather than just base our decisions on some assertions that are really not proven, I say, Mr. Speaker. These assertions that we are hearing out of the federal negotiating team are not really proven. Indeed if our patent laws are going to be extended, well then this could have a tremendous impact on health care costs in this Province, and the fishery as well.

To see the removal of tariffs, for instance, on shrimp exports in return to access to the resource, Mr. Speaker, we need to be very careful. Mr. Speaker, this is something as I said that is really not on the radar right now. There are a lot of questions. We understand that this negotiation is drawing to a close and it is an area where I believe we need to have more input.

Mr. Speaker, there are so many other things. I want to talk about the college again, the College of the North Atlantic that is, and what we have seen, the significant impacts. All of this, I would challenge, anybody who was putting this Budget together if there was any discussion from the people who were going to be impacted by these decisions within the college. I have talked about the Electronics Engineering; I have talked about ABE, and all the other programs.

It is not until you talk to and you see the number of e-mails – based on the information, the feedback that we have been given on this Budget, from e-mails that have come from individuals, it has been the ABE students who we have received the most e-mails from. They have given us the most feedback.

I can tell you now that I have yet to receive one e-mail, one response to this at all, who are satisfied with the changes that they have seen coming –

MR. JOYCE: The AES workers.

MR. BALL: That is true, Mr. Speaker.

This particular program has been a very significant program. It has provided significant benefits, I would say, to the students, not only to the students – I can tell you now of a story of a young mother who came to me and told me the story about the impact that it had on her life. She was from Central area. The story did not stop there. She went on to tell the story about how it impacted her two daughters and what that has meant to them now.

They went on, they have now improved their education, they went to school themselves and now we have three individuals there as a result of the decision that was made by the mother in this case, how she inspired her own two kids to further their education. Right now, we have three people in this one family who are now contributing to society, paying taxes. They have jobs now where they are making good money. They never had it better. All of this started because of going through an ABE program, Mr. Speaker, that was in a location that they could actually access quite easily. It was a good result; there is no doubt about that.

Mr. Speaker, as I am about to finish up and finish my remarks for tonight, I want to talk just for a few minutes about the 10-Year Sustainability Plan and when you look at this, when you look at it ten years into a mandate, that indeed we are just getting into a 10-Year Sustainability Plan.

They went in government in 2003. Now, all of a sudden, we come up with a 10-Year Sustainability Plan. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the lesson we have learned from all of this is that every single Budget should be about sustainability, every single Budget should be about viability, and every single Budget should be about affordability; but before we make those decisions, we need to know that we go and we get input from the people who are being affected. We need to know that, Mr. Speaker, and there is no doubt there are people who could have offered solutions to some of these decisions who were never impacted.

Mr. Speaker, the 10-Year Sustainability Plan, as a result of the core mandate review that we have just come from and now we are getting back to, I guess, a determination of where we were with our so-called core employees, this year will be a review of our pensions, a review of Memorial, our university, and a review of the college system and then back to surplus. Then, as we look back –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BALL: 2015, thank you.

MR. O'BRIEN: No more Liberal AGMs in my district.

MR. BALL: The MHA for Gander talks about no more Liberal AGMs. I can tell you, we will be happy to go Gander. We do not need an AGM to go to Gander. We look forward to going to Gander any time we want. As a matter of fact, I would say to the member, we are getting lots of invites to go to Gander, especially from the water bomber crew, especially from the –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: There are a lot of people. The school boards have been inviting us out there. There are lots of people out there who are very disappointed with the loss of that service in their community. As a matter of fact, some of them have even said: Where is the MHA? Where is the MHA, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would say that the school board amalgamations are not only affecting communities like Gander; it is affecting communities like Corner Brook. It is affecting lots of communities and lots of schools around this Province. It is impacting a lot of individuals, Mr. Speaker. It is not just the community of Gander; it is every community that has been impacted by this Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to conclude my remarks tonight on Budget 2013 and I know there are a few more minutes. I can continue to go; there are certainly lots more in this particular Budget, I say, that we can actually talk about. I can go on and on, of course, about the Advanced Education and Skills department because there is a lot within that department. Maybe, at a later date, I am sure I will get the opportunity to have a lot more to say about that report in the upcoming days.

Mr. Speaker, for now, I will conclude my remarks on Budget 2013 and I look forward to the debate and the discussion from members opposite.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the Member for Mount Pearl South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly a pleasure for me to stand up this evening and to speak to the Budget Estimates and, in particular, the Government Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it seems like every time I stand up in this House to speak I always have a number of points I want to speak to, but I always get distracted. I always get distracted by some of the stuff I am hearing from across the way. Now, normally, Mr. Speaker, I have to say, it is coming from the Third Party. I am not going to reiterate all of the points that I have made in the past about the Third Party. I am not going to reiterate the point, Mr. Speaker, that they are now known as the no development party. I am certainly not going to reiterate the point that they want to tear up all the oil contracts. I am not going to reiterate the point they are against fracking on the West Coast. I do not want to reiterate the point they voted against Muskrat Falls, and by default they voted against all the mining that was going to take place in Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and all those good union jobs.

I will not reiterate those points, Mr. Speaker, but I do want to address a point that the Leader of the Official Opposition just made. He was talking about the economy. He said the economy was white hot. He said: No, you know what? It is red hot because it was a Liberal government that made it so hot.

Do you know what? The only thing red that the Liberals left the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in 2003, were the books. That is what they left, the books. We were in the red. They had the Province on the verge of bankruptcy, I say, Mr. Speaker.

The Province was on the verge of bankruptcy. The infrastructure was falling to pieces. The roads were falling to pieces. The bridges were falling to pieces. The ferries were falling to pieces. The schools were full of mould. The health care facilities were crumbling to the ground. That is what they left. So we certainly do not need to sit here and take any lessons from the Liberal Party about how to run this Province, Mr. Speaker, I can guarantee you that.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. A. PARSONS: I will just ask the Member for Mount Pearl South what colour the books are this year, Mr. Speaker, if he could answer that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.

MR. LANE: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, with that said I am going to carry on. I am going to talk about a few things that I see in this Budget, some very positive things.

I think we have to recognize, Mr. Speaker, it is not always about all of the new spending, and there is certainly going to be new spending. There is new spending here in this Budget, but it is also about maintaining the spending. It is about maintaining the services we are providing. We know the state of this Province in 2003 –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LANE: We know what it was, Mr. Speaker, and we know the investments that we have made in Newfoundland and Labrador and we are proud of each and every one of them. In addition to the infrastructure that we put in as a government, we have also invested in so many services. We have enhanced so many services, and we continue to invest in those services and maintain those services, Mr. Speaker. We certainly have nothing to apologize for in that regard.

I hear people talking about waste. I hear people talking about wasting money, about squandering money. Well, I would say to anybody, Mr. Speaker, talk to the people on the South Coast and ask them if they think the money we invested in aquaculture, ask them if they think that was squandering money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANE: Ask the children, Mr. Speaker, who now have brand new schools to go to with the latest whiteboard technology. They have the best teacher ratios of any province in this whole country, Mr. Speaker. Ask them if they think that is a waste. Ask the students at Memorial University who have the lowest tuition fees in the country, ask the students at CNA who have the lowest tuition fees in the country. Ask the students about the student aid package, Mr. Speaker, the best student aid package in the entire country, ask them if they think that is a waste of money.

Ask the people, Mr. Speaker, who avail of health care services in this Province and the improvements we have seen in wait times for knee-hip replacement, the improvement we have seen in terms of the emergency rooms. Ask the people who are availing of dialysis in the units all around this Province. Ask them if they think that is a waste of money, Mr. Speaker.

Ask the people with the two new ferries. We talk about ferries, two new ferries this government put in place at $27.5 million a piece, the first time in twenty or twenty-five years that there was ever a new ferry. We now have two more new ferries in the hopper, Mr. Speaker, to be built. We have one ferry that is going to be for the people of Fogo Island. We have another one that is going to be a swing vessel. There is also work being done on some of the smaller ferries, for some of the other smaller areas of the Province. We are very proud of those investments. We do not back down from those investments, and I do not think none of those are a waste of money either.

I look at my district, Mr. Speaker, and I look at the money that has been spent in Mount Pearl and in the surrounding area. I look at only a few months ago the City of Mount Pearl received $6.1 million in multi-year capital funding –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LANE: - $6.1 million only a few short months ago in multi-year capital funding.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with the new arrangement that we have for municipalities, the City of Mount Pearl is now going to get another $3.5 million in capital spending. We just received that as well. Not to mention the fact that it was this government that implemented the new cost-sharing ratio of seventy-thirty. It used to be fifty-fifty on all infrastructure capital works and we improved it to a seventy-thirty ratio, 70 per cent provincial paid. That has put a lot of money into the City of Mount Pearl and to all the municipalities, Mr. Speaker.

I look at the multiplex that is being built up there by the Reid Centre, a brand new swimming pool facility, indoor walking track. We just built a second Glacier Arena. We now have two arenas up on that site – a tremendous investment.

I look at the investment that has occurred down at the Team Gushue Complex, Mr. Speaker, with the outdoor facilities, with the new softball field, the baseball field, two soccer fields, artificial turf, a lit field, a new soccer hut. I look at all the investment that has taken place there.

I look at the investment that has taken place in the region that Mount Pearl avails of, whether it be at the Robin Hood Bay facility, whether it be at the Waste Water Treatment facility down at the Southside, or whether it be the improvements and the expansion of the water system at Bay Bulls Big Pond, Mr. Speaker. This government contributed to all of those things.

Look at highways, Mr. Speaker. We look at the Team Gushue Highway. A very much needed project in our region that this government stepped up to the plate and is getting that work done. We look at the Torbay Bypass road, another one down in the district here of my colleague from Cape St. Francis, the great tremendous addition that is to the infrastructure, Mr. Speaker.

We have been investing. If you drive anywhere, Mr. Speaker, across this Province and you compare it now to what it was a number of years ago you would see a tremendous improvement. You can get on this highway and you can drive from one end of her to the other, Mr. Speaker. We have a fantastic highway system.

Now, Mr. Speaker, does that mean we have an endless supply of money? Does it mean we have that illusive money tree that I have referred to in the past that the NDP seem to think they have? I am starting to wonder about the Liberals, if they think they have one, too.

Mr. Speaker, there is only so much money to go around and everything cannot be done at the one time. That is why we continue to chip away at it. We continue to make improvements in our services. We continue to make improvements in our infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, I know the Leader of the Third Party is heckling me there now because she does not like to hear it, but that it fine. I do not care if she likes to hear it or not, because she is going to hear it.

The reality of it, Mr. Speaker, is that as a government we are making these improvements in our services, we are making these improvements to our infrastructure. We are doing it for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are doing it in a responsible manner. That is the way we operate. We are not prepared to set this Province back as the NDP would have us do by putting us in the hole, by tearing up contracts, oil contracts and not doing any development and sinking us to the bottom of the ocean.

MR. KENT: Tax and spend.

MR. LANE: Tax and spend philosophy of the NDP, tax and spend. God help us, if the NDP ever took over this Province, I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland would sink so far down, and we would sink so deep we would have to swim upward to see the Titanic. That is how far we would sink.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of some of the good things we are doing, another thing I want to emphasize is paying down debt. We have paid down approximately $4 billion, $4 billion with a B, on our debt, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANE: Somebody is asking me: How much did the Liberals pay on the debt? Well, they did not pay anything it. All they did was kept adding to it. They kept adding to it and adding to it and adding to it and nearly bankrupted us. That is what they did, Mr. Speaker. We paid down nearly $4 billion. We have also paid down in the last number of years, $4 billion – with a B – on pensions. That is $8 billion we have paid on debt; $4 billion on direct debt and approximately $4 billion on the unfunded liability for pensions. Thank God we did.

We still need to have a conversation about the pension plan. We absolutely do. We hear people say hands off. We have heard some of the leaders of some of the unions say hands off the pensions. Do you know what? The reality is that if we go hands off the pension, there will not be a pension. That would not be the responsible thing to do for our employees of our public service. We need to have that conversation, but in the meantime, we have stepped up to the plate and we have paid down significant money on the debt, Mr. Speaker. Do you know why? It is because that is the responsible thing to do, Mr. Speaker.

Some of the other areas that I can think of – tourism; let's talk about tourism for a second.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANE: My colleagues want me to talk about shrimp shells. We have talked about that and pellets and so on. Of course, we all know that was another one of the plans that the Third Party had. Instead of doing Muskrat Falls, they were going to burn shrimp shells. They were going to enter into a public-private partnership with Long John Silvers and they were going to burn shrimp shells at Holyrood.

Mr. Speaker, this government is about acting in a responsible and realistic manner. You have to be in touch with reality. We are living in Newfoundland, not Disneyland. We are moving forward with Muskrat Falls for all the right reasons.

As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, some of the other things that we are doing: tourism – we have such a beautiful Province; we have so much to offer to tourists. I think this government, over the last number of years, have made tremendous investments in tourism in terms of all of the promotion, all of the advertising and all of the things that we have done in terms of infrastructure around tourism and grant funding to different organizations so they can maintain some of the sites, so we can get work done on those sites. We have a beautiful product to offer people, and they are coming, Mr. Speaker. They are coming in droves. The reason why they are coming in droves is because of the great work we have done in our tourist industry, in partnership with the tourism association, and all of the investments we have made into marketing our Province.

That is another positive, and we are going to put $17 million into tourism again this year, Mr. Speaker. What a significant investment: $17 million. I think in 2003 what were we putting in, $17,000, I wonder – I am not sure if we were putting in anything. We are putting $17 million into tourism, Mr. Speaker – very positive.

We talk about the fishery. I am not going to talk long about the fishery because, quite frankly, the only fishery in my district is the few brown trout that is up in Power's Pond. I do not profess to be any expert –

MR. KENT: That is not in your district.

MR. LANE: The member next to me reminds me that is actually not in my district. My city, part of the city that I represent, we have some trout in Power's Pond. We also have some in Tyrrwitts Brook which I think crosses over into both of our districts. Anyway, we do not have a lot of fish in Mount Pearl, but we all have a connection to the fishery. We all have that connection to the fishery. We all relatives and so on from all over rural Newfoundland who have a connection to the fishery, and the fishery is very, very important to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Despite some of the negativity that you hear from certain members, particularly the Member for St. Barbe who seems to be always dumping on the fishery, dumping on aquaculture, dumping on the wild fishery on an ongoing basis, the fishery is bringing $1 billion to Newfoundland and Labrador. We have made significant investments in the fishery.

Can we keep businesses open that are not viable? No, we cannot. Can we assist businesses such as fish plants in terms of marketing, in terms of modernizing their plants and so on? Absolutely, we can. We have done it, and we will continue to do it because we believe in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and we believe in the fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANE: Mr. Speaker, in terms of our overall Budget – and I want to spend a couple of minutes again to emphasize the issue of taxes. I want to emphasize the issue of taxes. While it may be repetitive to those here in the House of Assembly, certainly to anybody who might be watching, new people watching and so on, and even if you watched before, it is important that we keep driving this message home because it is an important message as far as I am concerned.

It certainly impacts the majority of the people in my district. I would classify the majority of the people in my district as working individuals, working families, people who get up every day, and it has nothing to do –

MR. BENNETT: (Inaudible).

MR. LANE: I hear the Member for St. Barbe ranting there again; he is heckling about discrimination. Absolutely not, not a discriminatory bone in my body, I can assure you of that, Mr. Speaker.

We have social programs for people who need social programs. We support people who require services from government, who require social programs, who require all of the safety nets that are available. That being said, Mr. Speaker, whether it is things like health care, education, roads, municipal works, or whether it be the social programs, the social safety nets, they all have to be paid for somebody.

The people who are primarily paying for it are this group of people – again, I have referred to and people have referred to me as sort of the lost people in a sense, the forgotten taxpayer, if you will. The forgotten taxpayer is the person or the young family who have gone and got their education. Now they are getting married and settling down, and the first thing they have to do is probably, in a lot of cases, move into a basement apartment or something and they save up enough money for a down payment on a home. They are working, paying their taxes, and then they are saving up for a down payment.

Finally, they get their down payment and they buy their home. They need a car. They have a couple of children. They have to put the kids in school. They have to feed the kids. They have to clothe the kids. They have to have daycare, all of those things. In the meantime, in a lot of cases they are paying student loans and so on, and while all of this is going on they are paying taxes. They are paying taxes for everything.

They do not qualify for programs. As a general rule, because of the fact that they are working, they do not qualify for programs. They do not qualify for home heat subsidy. They do not qualify for any of the programs through Newfoundland and Labrador Housing like the REEP and the Home Repair Program. They do not get the child tax credit and so on. What they do is work and pay taxes so that we can provide this to those who cannot afford it and those who need these things.

There is nothing wrong with that, but somewhere along the way those people have to be recognized. Those people need a break as well. It has to be about them, too. They are the ones who are working and contributing to our economy and somewhere along the way, we have to recognize that. We have to recognize the working person.

A lot of them, I would say to the Third Party, are the unionized working person that they are supposed to support, that they claim that they support. These are the people who are paying lots of taxes. Somewhere a long the way we need to support them as well.

That is why in this particular Budget we said: Do you know what? We have put $500 million in tax reductions to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the working people of Newfoundland and Labrador. In this Budget, by God, we were going to maintain them. We were going to maintain it for those people because we recognize the struggles they have to pay the bills and make ends meet and raise a family. We realize the hard work they are putting into the economy, driving our economy, and we need to do something for them as well.

Unlike the NDP, whose philosophy is tax and spend tax and spend, Mr. Speaker, we are not going down that road. We are not going down that road because we stand for the common people. It is this party, it is this government that stand for the common people, Mr. Speaker, and we make no apologies for it either.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is always a pleasure to speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand just to have a few words on the Budget and a few issues that are important to myself and the people on the West Coast. I cannot let it go by, Mr. Speaker, without speaking for a few minutes on Bill 4 that was brought forth today, that I was supposed to have a chance to speak to at 7:00 o'clock.

I heard the Member for Lab West, the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador talk about the bill and talk about how it has not taken an effect on any businesses in Lab West, how he spoke to them, there is no effect. Someone should tell that minister, it does not come into effect until July 1 this year. You should realize that. If you do not know that read the bill.

He stands up – and, Mr. Speaker, I will just spend one more minute on that right quick.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: When we had the member here from L'Anse au Clair talking about Labrador, that same member said, stand up and be counted for Labrador, stand up and show – here is your opportunity if you have the intestinal fortitude to do it. Do not stand up here and ask this member to do something that you do not have the intestinal fortitude – and for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that is guts. That is what that is.

You are up there now carrying the party line all of a sudden. Oh, I speak for myself. Here is the member, the former Minister of Finance, just in 2010, talking about how we have to keep this in place. Now all of a sudden, it does not matter about the businesses. It is not going to affect the businesses. I checked with them, there has been no impact on them.

I will have a lot more to say on that later, I say to the minister. Just remember, if you are going to challenge as the Member for Labrador to stand up, do as you ask. Just do not expect to be able to sit down, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the Member for Bay of Islands to direct his comments to the Speaker.

MR. JOYCE: Not a problem, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will have a lot more to say on that later. That is just a few quotes that I noticed there right quick. If the Member for Lab West is a bit upset, I am sorry, but do not expect to be challenging members on this side and for me not to stand up and say: do what you ask them to do if you have the intestinal fortitude to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak about the hospital now, something a bit near and dear to me. I will tell you why I am going to speak about the hospital. We are going to have the Request for Proposals out soon. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, if I do not feel that I did my due diligence in explaining what is happening to the people of Western Newfoundland, and to the Member for Humber West and the Member for Humber East, I do not feel I would have done my duty as the Member for the Bay of Islands.

Mr. Speaker, people may stand up and say: Well, Eddie is just talking about this hospital again; here he goes again. I will keep going as long as I can, as long as there is an opportunity to make changes, Mr. Speaker. I need to push across this – I say to the Member for Humber West in all sincerity, I know you are concerned about the hospital. The Member for Humber East, there is no doubt; you are individuals from out there.

I can assure you, with the minister out there – here is what I will ask the Minister of Natural Resources, the Member for Humber East, and the Member for Humber West, who is his Parliamentary Assistant, read Hansard. What we had in the Estimates, read Hansard. I will ask you to read it because this is a very serious issue for me.

I really feel you are not getting the proper information to make the decision. I really feel that. I can assure both members, and I can assure the people in Western Newfoundland, there is a decrease in acute care beds, guaranteed. As sure as I am standing right here, I will guarantee you there is a decrease in acute care beds. I will guarantee you.

I will just go through step-by-step what I learned in the Estimates, and it is in Hansard. I ask both members: let's work together like we are doing on the mill in Corner Brook. Let's get changes. Once this Request for Proposal is out – and I remember the Member for Humber East saying that we made a mistake with long-term care beds, it cost us a lot of money. I remember his statement, that if we make a mistake with this hospital just imagine how much it is going to cost.

I say to the Member for Humber East trust me on this. If you do not trust me, read the Hansard from Estimates. It is in there, I can assure you. I will go through it here, and just ask.

What I did in Estimates the other day, and the member was there and the minister was there, I went through all the different divisions in the hospital, and it is in Hansard.

MS SULLIVAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services, on a point of order.

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, he is putting out false information again. He actually did not go through all of the divisions. He purposely left out two. He left out the ICU and he left out Peds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands, to continue.

MR. JOYCE: Just for the Minister of Health, I know you are a bit upset with this because you were exposed, I know. I ask the member, is ICU an acute care bed? Is ICU an acute care bed? Fifty-six medicine, which includes ICU. That is what is in there, and the Member for Humber East has it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation, as the Member for Bay of Islands continues.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know the Minister of Health is down there shooting off her face a lot, Mr. Speaker. I just ask her –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: I withdraw those remarks, but please let me speak. You will have lots of time. You will have lots of time to speak on this. You had lots of time in Estimates, you had to leave. You just listen now, if I have something to say you can –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS SULLIVAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services, on a point of order.

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at no time did I leave Estimates. I am just pointing that out to the House as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I can show anybody the e-mails where we had it until 7:00, she had to leave at 6:45 when I started asking questions.

Mr. Speaker, there were 199 beds, as we were told. When I asked, is palliative care, acute care? The answer from the officials was yes. Fifty-six for medicine, which is for strokes and diabetics, they said yes. Twenty-three mental health units, are they acute care beds? They said yes. Seventeen orthopaedic hip and knee, they said yes. Thirty-six general services –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: I say to the Member for Humber East, the same ones you got from the hospital are the same ones that are here, and you can ask them yourself. The seventeen alternate care – they are the ones for seniors waiting to go into long-terms care – seventeen; that is for long-term care. Maternity and new born, eleven, I say to the minister; fifteen women and children acute care beds; eight internal medicine acute care beds; and eight adult rehabilitation acute care beds. If you go and add them up, you will see how many acute care beds are there. Do it on your own. Call the hospital.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Member for Bay of Island once again to direct your comments to the Speaker. One of the reasons that we ask all members who are speaking to direct all comments to the Speaker is because it reduces controversy.

I would ask the Member for Bay of Islands to speak to the Speaker.

Thank you.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, this is such a serious issue, I ask for a bit of protection here; I ask for that.

Mr. Speaker, ask the Member for Humber East and the Member for Humber West to check it out; you can check Hansard: There will be a decrease in acute care beds at the new hospital in Corner Brook.

MS SULLIVAN: Wrong.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, it is just getting annoying that the Minister of Health still wants to keep chirping and chirping. I challenged her to a debate out in Corner Brook about the hospital; she just will not do it.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Humber West and Humber East should check Hansard. When I asked in the first Estimates we had in Health – they can check Hansard – do you know how they are going to make up for the lack of acute care beds? They are going to decrease the time of someone in hospital by 25 per cent.

To the Minister of Natural Resources, if he checks that in Hansard, that is how it is going to be done. This is not something that I am dreaming up. This is what is in Hansard. This is the official record. When I asked the officials how are they going to make up for these beds, we were told – the Member for Burgeo – La Poile was at the meeting also. If you do not believe me and if you do not believe him, it is in Hansard. That is how it is going to be done. It was in Estimates. It is very important, believe me.

I said it when the long-term care beds were done that we did not have enough because they cut down the long-term care facility. I am very serious about this. Anything that I say here, you can check in Hansard.

Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister of Health is still going, but you will have your chance. This is too serious of an issue to play politics with. This is too serious for the Minister of Health to be playing politics with because what I am saying here is in Hansard.

MS SULLIVAN: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Minister of Health and Community Services, on a point of order.

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to about enough of this right now. First of all, I am not playing politics with this. This is exactly what is happening on the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker. I am really looking forward to an opportunity to set this straight because it is really disheartening.

I encourage anyone who is out there to listen up so I can set the facts straight in a few minutes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: That is the third time I was interrupted on this very important issue. I have twenty minutes; I will be back again. So there is no thinking that I am going to be stopped on explaining this issue.

Mr. Speaker, when I asked the Minister of Health how many surgeries were cancelled in the last six months, I could not get an answer. I could not get an answer. If anybody does not believe I asked the questions, check Hansard. I asked that question in Hansard. Check Hansard, Mr. Speaker.

Again, this is in Hansard Estimates: What is the readmission rate for Western Memorial Hospital because people are being pushed out further, out in the general population, people are being pushed out in the general population without the services? I asked the minister and her officials: What are the readmission rates. Guess what? They did not even know that the study existed. Finally, someone came up and said yes, right, we can get it somewhere.

The readmission rates for Western Newfoundland are higher. When they push people out through the door and the service is not there to make sure that they have the services, if it a nurse to come see them or whatever it is, or if they never spent enough time in the acute care beds, they are readmitted. The percentage is higher.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Member for Humber East, check it out. What I am saying here is not something I just made up. It is the reports that are being made. Anything that I am saying here, it is in Hansard.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Member for Humber East will check it out, and I am glad that the minister will check it out because this is too big of an issue to let the request for proposals to come out and have a mistake made on it. It is just too big.

I asked the Minister of Transportation and Works for a copy of the reports of Hatch Mott MacDonald and the Stantec report. I asked him in Estimates. He told me, he looked at his deputy minister, he said: Yes, sure, it should be no problem whatsoever to get a copy of those reports. I am still waiting. I asked the Minister of Health in Estimates if I could get a copy of the report. Well, I have to check with the Department of Transportation and Works because it is co-departments. I said: He already said yes. Well, what happened?

When I asked again in Estimates the other night, what was I told? Again, Mr. Speaker, this is in Estimates. This is such a big issue for Western Newfoundland. I wanted to look at the copies of the first report by Hatch Mott MacDonald so you can see what was first put in there, and then when Stantec came in and did their review to see what changes, if any, and why the changes were made. That is what you want; you want to have an informed decision.

What the minister said – and this is in Hansard – well, I did not have time to speak to him. This was eight, ten days ago and they are sitting next door to each other, sitting seat by seat in the House of Assembly. This is such a major issue and we are hearing that the RFP is supposed to be out sometime in July.

If we do not get it right, we are going to be with a hospital out there in Corner Brook which is supposed to service all Western Newfoundland – people from Labrador come to Corner Brook also, Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Humber East realizes. Now people from Labrador will be coming down. We are encompassing more and we are going to have less acute care beds. We are going to have less acute care beds.

It is a bigger issue than any of us here. It is an issue that I started out with back when we were told – and I am not even going to give the history of it. I will not give you a history of it, but I am just so concerned that we are going to have less acute care beds, which I know we will have.

I do not care what anybody says, when you do that math, even the same numbers that the Premier – when the Premier made the press release, I challenge anybody to go to the press release that the Premier made. When The Western Star – not me, not Eddie Joyce – went down through the number of beds that are at the hospital, they are the same ones I just read out. The same ones I just put out, Mr. Speaker, the exact same ones that I just put out.

It is not me. These numbers that I have, Mr. Speaker, I called the hospital personally. When you correlate it with what The Western Star put in the press release, it is the same numbers. It is the same numbers.

I urge my colleague for Humber East and my colleague for Humber West that we work together to go check the facts on this here. Once we get these facts here, Mr. Speaker, then you can say that we can make an informed decision. I can assure you that the information – I know what the Minister of Natural Resources said – does not jive; it does not represent what is actually being told by the people at the hospital and the press release when the media went in, called themselves, checked the beds and what was said to be in Hansard at the Estimates.

This is very important. The Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker, is still back there – what is this? This is not about me. This is about getting this right. Most of the people on this side and I look over and there are people on the West Coast who are going to be using this hospital. There are people we know going to be using the hospital. There are family members who are going to be using the hospital.

Just because I am asking questions that does not make me a bad person. It is someone who is doing their job. Mr. Speaker, if you want to get into this round of politics I can go back to 2007, but I am not going to do that. My goal here tonight – and I will have about two or three opportunities this week and next week – is try to encourage my fellow colleagues, Mr. Speaker, for Humber East and Humber West to re-examine the information that you were given. That is all I am saying.

If the Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Speaker, and the Member for Humber West come back and say Eddie, boy, we went in, we dug into it more, and we really put into it. Eddie, here is what we have; let's sit down with the hospital bunch and figure out – because I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, in my closing minute, I can assure anybody here that we will have less acute care beds in the hospital. In Hansard, during the Estimates, Mr. Speaker, we were told that they are going to reduce the wait time when people come into the hospital by 25 per cent after surgery – by 25 per cent.

I challenge, Mr. Speaker, anybody in this House to get a copy of the Hansard first when we had health care Estimates and prove me wrong because it is absolutely 100 per cent true what I am saying here. Mr. Speaker, it is in the official record of the House of Assembly which we call Hansard, that the people in Newfoundland and Labrador who feel now that they do not spend enough time in hospital after their surgery, I can assure you that this government has a plan to move you out 25 per cent quicker than what you are right now.

I challenge anybody to prove me wrong after they read the Hansard that I had in health. If there is some other reason why we need less acute care beds, please tell me and we can work at it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

After listening to that for the last twenty minutes, I hope I never get sick and have to go to the hospital in Corner Brook when it is built, if that is what we have to depend on, if they ever get there.

MR. JOYCE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for Bay of Islands, on a point of order.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Member for Labrador West, I am glad of what you just said because that is why I am fighting to make sure we get the best hospital that we need, not what is going to be there now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I start talking about the Budget, I also want to clarify something else for the Member for Bay of Islands who stood up earlier on his feet and made comments about what I said when I spoke earlier concerning the Labrador Border Zone Tax Rebate.

If the Member for Bay of Islands had listened to what I said he would have realized and heard what I said that there is a quota on the Labrador Border Zone Tax Rebate and it was a quota of 110,000 cartons. If you check Hansard, Mr. Speaker, he will see that in there. He will also find out that on March 27, 2013, according to what I said this afternoon in Hansard, that they had already met their quota. Therefore, the tax rebate stopped on March 27, 2013 because the quota had already been met.

This particular member does talk to his constituents and passed that on to his constituents. I strongly recommend that the Member for Bay of Islands, the next time I stand on my feet and speak, listen to what I have to say and then you will understand it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: Now I will move on to the Budget because I happen to think that this Budget, the 2013 Budget, is a very good Budget. When I sat here when the Budget was being read, I know a lot of my colleagues looked around me. I remember a colleague from the other side of the House also; his eyebrows raised a couple of times because I was very proud to hear some of the things that are happening for Labrador. I would just like to reiterate a little bit about what was happening in Labrador, what has happened since 2004, and what is continuing to happen and we have a lot of it in this Budget of 2013.

Overall the government has spent, before this Budget, $3.5 billion within Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. MCGRATH: Mr. Speaker, $3.5 billion has been invested. With Budget 2013, it is over $4 billion invested in Labrador. Let's talk about some of the things – and I have heard the members opposite question the Northern Strategic Plan and the Northern Strategic Plan talked about this and talked about that.

Well, the Northern Strategic Plan is a living document. Because the Northern Strategic Plan was so successful, we no longer look at it as a plan. The plan outlived itself; it is now a guideline. I guarantee you that the guideline in the Northern Strategic Plan does not have your shrimp shells in it. We have no intentions of using those shrimp shells.

In 2007 that Northern Strategic Plan had $250 million and 135 commitments. To date, we have close to 800 commitments with $780 million invested through the Northern Strategic Plan. The Northern Strategic Plan now as I said, as the Minister for Labrador Affairs, I now look upon that plan as a guideline to continue to move forward.

I heard someone a while ago compare the Northern Strategic Plan to the Quebec Plan Nord and they have a twenty-five year plan. I would challenge anyone, in five years' time, to compare the Northern Strategic Plan and its success to the success of the Quebec Plan Nord. Let's see where that is at in five years. Let's compare apples with apples.

Let's talk about some of the stuff that is happening in Labrador. In natural resources, government 2007 in the Northern Strategic Plan, subsidy of electricity rates for coastal Labrador residents – I hope the Member for Torngat Mountains is listening to that one – it grew to $1.8 million in 2011-2012; $1.8 million up from $1.6 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: That is an investment again.

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. MCGRATH: Mr. Speaker, I do not remember in the last thirty seconds referring to the Member for Bay of Islands so I am not sure why he is heckling over there now, but I will continue to talk to you and hopefully you will hear my voice over his heckling.

In 2009, Mr. Speaker –

MR. JOYCE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for Bay of Islands, on a point of order.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I spoke here for twenty minutes and I was stopped by yourself three or four times saying you have to refer your notes to your speech. Can I ask the same courtesy of the Member for Lab West? Because he mentioned me, he mentioned the member here. I ask that I be treated the same as any other member in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: I guess he is going to try and keep par with the number of points of order that were called against him. So I assume there will be one more coming in the next fourteen minutes.

In 2009, Mr. Speaker, the provincial government provided $500,000 to conduct an alternative energy study for the energy efficiency community pilot project. Where? Coastal Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

I have just been ordered that I have to continue to look at you as well as speak at you, according to the Opposition. So I guess you are not allowed to look at them either.

There is $500,000, Mr. Speaker, in an energy efficiency community pilot project. They cannot handle the truth and they do not want you to be looking at them when the truth is coming out.

Hopefully, the Member for Torngat Mountains received both of that, $500,000 into that program which was in Coastal Labrador communities. Of course, on December 18, 2012, Mr. Speaker, I was very proud to be part of the announcement when we said we sanctioned the Muskrat Falls project.

Let's talk about tourism in Labrador, Mr. Speaker. What happened in tourism, $1.5 million since 2004 has been given to the Labrador Winter Games. The Labrador Winter Games, Mr. Speaker, is the same as the Olympics to Labradorians. It is an opportunity when you get thirty-two communities that come together, they put politics aside and they enjoy the cultures of all Labradorians. This government, since 2004, has invested $1.5 million into the Labrador Winter Games.

For anyone who has been in Happy Valley-Goose Bay in the last few years, I am sure you got to visit the Lawrence O'Brien Arts Centre. It is a state-of-the-art auditorium, absolutely beautiful auditorium. It seats 276 people, a $4 million investment by this government. On top of that, they also get an annual grant of $160,000, Mr. Speaker. Every year they get $160,000 operating grant for the Lawrence O'Brien Arts Centre. To me, that is money well invested into tourism.

In 2006, Mr. Speaker, government allocated $5.2 million for an expansion at the College of the North Atlantic in Happy Valley-Goose Bay; at the campus in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, $5.2 million.

In 2007, $5.2 million was allocated to work with the partners of Aboriginal governments and organizations for the K-12 initiatives. That is an investment of $5.2 million. Earlier today I was hearing questions and comments complaining about the education system. That is something I certainly do not mind complaining about, a $5.2 million investment into Aboriginal enhancements in the K-12 initiatives program.

The Province contributed $4 million towards a new school in Sheshatshiu; again investing in our education system into an Aboriginal school in Sheshatshiu. That opened in September, 2009.

In 2010, Mr. Speaker, the Labrador Aboriginal Training Partnership officially opened its head office in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. I am very proud to say that through a partnership with Nalcor, with the Nunatsiavut Government and with the federal government, our provincial government, all together we made an investment of $30 million into the LATP program.

That program, Mr. Speaker, is designed so that we can get the Aboriginals into the trades so that they can get in on the job sites and have meaningful, good paying union jobs. That is the LATP program, a $30 million investment there. Right now we are negotiating with the federal government, with the Nunatsiavut Government and with Nalcor to get another program started up, and hopefully another $30 million into that.

Budget 2010, $22 million – and I am very proud of this one – into a new College of the North Atlantic campus in Labrador West. That campus is open and has a full curriculum in Labrador West. The apprenticeship program is a perfect example of, you talk about a program working, the apprenticeship program in Labrador West no longer – with certain programs, now they can do their apprenticeship program right in Labrador West. They no longer have to come out to the Island to get their blocks done. That is something we are continuously working on improving.

A new K-12 school in L'Anse-au-Loup, again, on the Coast of Labrador, Mr. Speaker. That was only $15 million invested into that. Again, another $15 million that has been invested into the education system in L'Anse-au-Loup in Labrador, and that is a state-of-the-art school. I was in that school. I walked through the school, did a tour of the school.

It is amazing when you walk into a kindergarten classroom and they have whiteboards. I think every classroom should have whiteboards today. That is where this government is going, making sure those investments are made so that we can continue to invest in our future, in our children.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: The K-12 school in Port Hope Simpson, again, on the Coast of Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: Another one?

MR. MCGRATH: Another one, $10.3 million in a new K-12 school in Port Hope Simpson, again, state-of-the-art in that school; another school, a new francophone school in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, another $2.3 million investment in our education system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: When I sit here, Mr. Speaker, and I hear that we are not investing in our education system, that we are not investing in our future and we are making wrong decisions, I ask the NDP and I ask the Opposition: Which school would you not have built? Which one was a mistake?

Of all of those schools that I just named out there, all in Labrador, which one of them is a mistake? Which one would you not have built? Which one are you going to look up and tell we are not going to build your school because we do not think that is a good investment? I heard that from the NDP. I have heard it from the Opposition. Which one would you not build? Which one of those are you not going to build?

Seven million dollars to build short-term classrooms, again, education – where, Mr. Speaker? – Charlottetown, on the Coast of Labrador; another $7 million. Mr. Speaker, in 2014 there is going to be a new school open in Charlottetown, but we are not going to take out these temporary classrooms. What we are going to do is make an investment into the municipality, so then they are going to convert those temporary classrooms into their new town hall. That is strategic thinking.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MCGRATH: Mr. Speaker, I recommend that they stop heckling on the other side and listen, because if you listen to what is being said you will learn. Then you learn, and we all know they need to learn.

Let's get off education for a little while and move into health. Let's move into health, $116,400 to fund a pharmacist position in Labrador West in the Captain William Jackman Memorial Hospital; $116,400 to make sure there was a pharmacist on duty all the time. That was in Labrador West, I am very proud to say, at the Captain William Jackman Memorial Hospital in Labrador West.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MCGRATH: It is a pharmacist position, Sir, in the hospital that was not there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MCGRATH: Well, you should know being a pharmacist. Anyway, I digress as I listen to these guys.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask all hon. members to be respectful of each other. I ask the minister to continue to direct his comments towards the Chair.

The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I will continue to put my questions towards you because I know I am not allowed to look over that way. We will continue.

The Province contributed again in health, Mr. Speaker, $3.7 million into a new administration building in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. They realized they need more room in the health facility, so they take the administration out and they put it in a new building; $3.7 million in health. So you wonder why our Health Minister gets a little bit perturbed when she has to listen to the rhetoric from the other side.

On June 29, Mr. Speaker, in 2010, a new long-term care fifty-bed facility in Happy Valley-Goose Bay opened their doors with four wings. One of those wings has a thirteen-bed protective care unit. I have toured that long-term care unit, a state-of-the-art care unit, and might I add and compliment, a very professional staff running it. That was at a cost of $20 million.

In 2010, Mr. Speaker, government relocated – we will go on there, the construction of a new two-story twenty-eight bed acute and long-term care facility in Labrador West. I am very pleased to say that I was up and toured that facility a couple of weeks ago ahead of schedule. That facility is going to cost $90 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. MCGRATH: A $90 million health care facility in Labrador West. Moving forward in health, Mr. Speaker, there is $276,000 just to enhance dialysis service at the Labrador Health Centre in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: Mr. Speaker, I have to add, that $276,000 was to enhance a service that was already there in order to look to the future. We realized with the population, especially in coastal Labrador, we are going to have a major need for dialysis. We want to be ready for it, we want to be prepared for it, and that is why that investment was made there.

There is another $275,000 to put a road ambulance base from Cartwright, something that was desperately needed on coastal Labrador; $275,000 into that road ambulance base from Cartwright.

In early 2013, Mr. Speaker, a contract was awarded – and I was very proud to announce it – for the medical X-ray audit for the dust study that has been happening in Labrador West. That was almost a million dollars. That was $900,000, Mr. Speaker, and that is for the silica dust study.

Let's move on to transportation, because I do not think you heard through your going on over there and the rhetoric that I was listening to earlier from the Member for Bay of Islands, I am not sure he heard what was being said about transportation, Mr. Speaker. So I would like to reaffirm some of the money that was invested through transportation by this government.

In 2005, $750,000 towards a new highway maintenance depot, and that was down at Chateau Pond between Red Bay and Lodge Bay, again on the Coast of Labrador. In December, 2009, Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway connecting Central Labrador to the South Coast – a long time coming, Mr. Speaker, we were waiting for that. That was at a cost of $152.9 million into the Trans-Labrador Highway to connect Phase III.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: Two new highway maintenance depots were constructed along Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway. One at Crooks Lake for a cost of $2.4 million, one at the Cartwright Junction for a cost of $2.5 million, all together $4.9 million in the two transportation depots. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, we have been doing something right in investing.

Again, I ask the Opposition parties: Where would you not have invested? What would you have not built? Which depot would you not have built? Which part of the road would they not have opened, Mr. Speaker?

A study has been initiated at Nain to collect environmental data at a cost of $105,000. That study, Mr. Speaker, is for the future runway to go into Nain.

Mr. Speaker, I see I am running out of time. I could go on for another twenty minutes giving very valuable information to the Opposition, but they are going to have to wait until the next time.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Littlejohn): The hon. the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

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

I am very happy to have the opportunity tonight to speak in the discussion on the Budget, a discussion that brings to an end the Estimates of the Government Services, Mr. Speaker.

As the Member for Exploits, who chaired this committee, said, this was an in-depth process, as we all know – at least we here in the room know. Maybe people watching are not aware, but we sit with the budgets for different departments and go through those budgets line by line by line. We spend a lot of time on details. We spend a lot of time on, if you are going to use the analogy you do not see the forest for the trees, we spend a lot of time looking at the trees during Estimates.

I think what I want to do tonight is take a broader look at what it is that we are dealing with. We have gone through the Estimates. We know all the details. We do not need them repeated over and over and over again. We know the government spends money on schools, whoop-de-do. That is what they are supposed to do.

We know the government spends money on our infrastructure, on our roads, that is what they are supposed to do. We know the government spends money on health care facilities. That is what they are supposed to do, and we have gone through all the details of all of that. What I want to do tonight is take a bigger look at the picture, looking at the wide picture of what we have been presented with by this Budget, Mr. Speaker.

Budget 2013, the government calls it A Sound Plan, A Secure Future. I call it a disaster, Mr. Speaker. They brought this Budget in on March 26, and there has been nothing but chaos since that time. People in the Province are still in a daze. They are going around wondering what happened. They are going around wondering, what was this Budget about? They are shocked by this Budget, Mr. Speaker. They are in absolute shock because of Budget 2013.

This government has put forward a Budget that, Mr. Speaker, I am calling their omnibus bill. The Premier of this Province has really learned well from Stephen Harper, Mr. Speaker. They put in place a Budget that nobody could have expected. They could not have known the things that were going to be in that Budget because this government did not tell people what their real agenda was.

This government has been going around knowing what they want to do in this Province and not really telling people. They have hidden their agenda in this Budget, but people are starting to see what is there, Mr. Speaker. They are starting to see what is no longer hidden for them. They know there was no consultation. They know there has not been transparency around this Budget. They know there was no openness. They know this government went through the so-called pre-Budget consultations and held meetings but obviously, the ministers heard nothing of what was said in those pre-Budget consultations.

Mr. Speaker, people just cannot believe we have a government that put in place a Budget without planning, without assessing what the impact of their decisions was going to be, without looking ahead to find out the overall impact.

Mr. Speaker, a clear example was the fiasco of the Department of Justice and what happened with the Department of Justice. It was so bad, so absolutely bad that the minister had to go back to the drawing board with people from the department, from different aspects of the department –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: - and say we have to undo some of the decisions. We have to undo some of the decisions, they cannot be left. It was so bad they had to undo them.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, and people in the Province are saying it, they need to go back and look at a lot more than just what they did in the Department of Justice. They tried to do something there and they did not get away with it.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we look at something else that they did. We look at the Family Violence Intervention Court, a program that was really working well. When you speak to the people inside of that program, when you speak to women who have gone through that program, when you speak to men who have abused their wives and their children and have gone through that program, they will tell you how good it was.

This government, which says it cares about women, it cares about trying to undo violence against women, took away one of the best tools they had ever put in place in the ten years they have been a government. They have not assessed at all what the impact of that is going to be. They have not in any way put out an assessment, an analysis of that because, Mr. Speaker, they did it with none of their decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know which way to go next. I think I am going to say the devastation of the job losses. What I want to do is go look at our educational system. I said that this government did no consultation. They put things in place that has been part of their agenda and they asked for no input. They do not want any input because basically what their message to people is: Like it or lump it, this is what is happening.

Mr. Speaker, that they could bring in a total restructuring of our educational system without doing any consultation in this Province is unbelievable, that they are getting rid of the four English-speaking boards of education in this Province and having one board for this whole Province. The geography alone boggles the mind of trying to have one board for this Province. They did that without asking anybody what they thought of it. Nobody in this Province could have imagined that was coming in this Budget.

We think we are getting a Budget, and what are we getting? We are getting a restructuring of our systems. This is their agenda, Mr. Speaker.

Now we have trustees who resigned. They did not want to stay around on those boards during this transition period. They are so upset. You actually have a group in place, an action group of ex-trustees from the different boards who are speaking out, who cannot believe this is happening. You have ordinary people and parents all over the Province saying this cannot be happening. People are in shock. They cannot believe it is happening. This is the thing.

This government does not care. They do not care what people think. They really believe: like it or lump it, here it is, you cannot do a thing about it. Well, someday they are going to find out the people in this Province can do something about it. That is going to be the shock to them because, Mr. Speaker, you cannot treat people that way.

We have had two or three times in the history of our Province around our educational system where we made big changes, but at least the people were consulted in those changes. The last big one, I suppose, was when we changed from the denominational educational system to our current system. At least there was a process. Meetings were held. There was a referendum. You had an idea of what people in the Province wanted.

They do not care what people in the Province want. They do not care that everybody is upset about the fact we are now going to have one board. They do not care that people are saying the transition team is just toadies of their party. They do not care about any of that, Mr. Speaker.

All they care about is doing what they want to do, and not being open about it and not being honest about it. Using backdoor tactics, Mr. Speaker, to reduce specialists who are essential to the system and twisting the language inside out all the time. Oh, no, specialists are not being touched. They create their own definitions of what is happening and try to make people think the reality they know really is not the reality.

We have been sitting in this House, I know, where members of my caucus have stood, Mr. Speaker, and presented facts and figures. You have the ministers over there turning them inside out, twisting them, doing anything but acknowledging the facts and figures. They think people do not see it. They think people are stupid. They have to. They have to think people are stupid.

Mr. Speaker, the use of doublespeak that goes on with this government is just tormenting. It just really torments me. They will not acknowledge in true language what is going on.

We have learner centres closed all over the Province. Now, they are saying they are not closed but they do not have people in them to run them. They do not have anybody there to help children who are going to come into them. The specialists who used to run some of them are now no longer specialists in learning centres.

According to this government, Mr. Speaker, that is not true. According to this government I am not saying a fact, but I know I am. Just as the Member for St. John's North has been putting that fact out day after day after day and he is told it is not a fact, yet we know that what is being said is factual.

Mr. Speaker, let's come and look at probably the worst thing that happened, and that is the job losses. I want to look at the backgrounder that was in the Budget. The backgrounder that is called, I love the language, Workforce Adjustment – Core Public Service.

This backgrounder, Mr. Speaker, I suppose is meant to explain to people the logic of what they have done with regard to the job loss in this Province. The language they have used in it, Mr. Speaker, I suppose is to try to make it sound nice, is supposed to make it sound not harsh. For example, the steps they took prior to Budget 2013 included attrition management. In other words, we are going to tell you how many jobs are gone through attrition.

Then they talk about the Voluntary Retirement Program announced in early March. People having to make a choice, being forced to make a choice. Make it easy on yourself, take early retirement, get out and make it easier for us – whether they wanted to or not. I suspect by this time, Mr. Speaker, they probably wanted to get out because working under this government cannot be pleasant.

Then they talk about implementing a suspension of recruitment activities. In other words, we are not going to hire anybody. The language they have used is unbelievable, language that is trying to mask the harshness of what has happened.

They talk in this document, Mr. Speaker, about the fact that we have 8,900 employees in the core public service. The provincial government will be laying off approximately 485 employees, which includes people who received their layoff notice in March They talk about 243 permanent positions, 206 temporary positions, and thirty-six seasonal positions. Then, they come over to the second page, Mr. Speaker, and we see numbers there. This was all done in preparation for March 26. I am going to take one department as an example because this was one where I was given an answer by a minister in Estimates and that was the Department of Finance. Here, it says that there are going to be thirteen vacant positions eliminated and there were going to be twelve layoffs, twenty-five people from a department with 399. It did not look too bad at first, I suppose.

Then, Mr. Speaker, in Estimates the minister talked about positions that were not going to be filled. I asked him how many of those there were. There were thirty-eight of those. They are not listed here. I got that figure directly from the minister. Now, we know, Mr. Speaker, that between unfilled positions, vacant positions eliminated, and layoffs the number is closer to 1,200, not the 700-and-something they have in this document. That is what I mean by hiding reality, Mr. Speaker. Anybody would look at this and they think oh, that is not too bad: 485 layoffs, 246 positions; not too bad. Then you say 1,200 and it becomes a different story, Mr. Speaker.

Then when you talk about the system that has to be in play, the system of bumping where, first of all, people on contract or in temporary positions in particular, they were notified they were gone but if you had bumping rights you were told you had it and you had to make your submission of what your skills were, update your resume, let your people in charge know what was going on, what you might be able to be bumped into, Mr. Speaker. That process went on for a number of weeks.

Then, Mr. Speaker, the permanent people had to put in their resumes, had to update their resumes, had to put in what their qualifications were, what positions or what jobs they might be able to do. Their deadline for doing that was last week.

I had an e-mail today from somebody saying – he sent it yesterday, actually. He said: Not to be too graphic, but just to tell you that the way it is here today, now that the permanent workers know who is being laid off or not, all I can tell you it is nothing but tears. That was yesterday, Mr. Speaker. That e-mail was sent yesterday.

This government seems to be completely unaware of the devastation that has been wrought by this Budget. They seem to think we are supposed to forget what has happened to our learner centres. We are supposed to forget what has happened to our educational system, both in terms of jobs that are being eliminated, positions that are gone, and one English-speaking school board. We are supposed to pretend none of this is happening.

They are asking us to go around denying reality the way they deny reality, Mr. Speaker, and people are not going to do it. They are denying the reality of the impact of the Budget they have brought down. I hope they do not think that they are fooling people by the fact that this year is a deficit Budget, next year is a deficit Budget, and, lo and behold, election year is going to be a surplus Budget.

Well, Mr. Speaker, people are not going to forget because they will have brought such devastation on this Province that people will not be able to forget in two-and-a-half years' time what they have done.

Mr. Speaker, I pick up this sheet and I look at it: Five Things You Need to Know about Budget 2013. The first thing, "A 10-year Sustainability Plan; continued commitment to strong financial management." Mr. Speaker, that Sustainability Plan is not a plan, number one; it talks about the first year, we are going to have a deficit Budget, the second year, a deficit Budget, the third year we are going to have a surplus Budget, and from year four to ten, we are going to do some planning – that is the Sustainability Plan. In year four to ten they talk about economic diversification, and they talk about we cannot rely on just our natural resources, and then in the whole section on four to ten all they do is talk about the revenue from oil and gas. Okay, that is a Sustainability Plan.

Another part of the Responsible Management, "A return to surplus by 2015-16." As I said, it is just in time for the election year. All of a sudden, miraculously they are going to make it happen and we are going to have the surplus by 2015.

"Vital programs and services are protected." What? Oh yes, our kids are going to school; that is a vital service. People could have an acute bed in hospital; that is a vital service. Mr. Speaker, what do they think they are supposed to be doing as government? This is their job. Their job is to have an educational system. Their job is to have a health care system. Their job is to take care of the infrastructure. That is where governments spend their money. They tax people –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: – they tax corporations, they get the royalties from our resources, and then they spend and they spend where they are supposed to spend: on the needs of people. Except, Mr. Speaker, they are not doing that responsibly. That is the problem and that is why we have the deficit that we have because they have not planned. Maybe they have planned these deficits very carefully, Mr. Speaker, so that they can stage manage up to 2015 and have, all of a sudden, a miraculous surplus Budget in 2015.

Then they talk about investing in families. I love this word invest, Mr. Speaker; you see it all over their documents because we are supposed to believe – I am not saying it is wrong, but they use it in such a way to make us believe this is really special, they are investing in families, that means they are spending money on services that we need. It is an investment, but not the way they use it, Mr. Speaker.

They talk about investing annually in home care. They talk about investing in new drug therapies. That is investment in people all right, Mr. Speaker, but they use it to get people to think we are making something from your money. They are. They are making healthier people, but that is not how they mean it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the time that I have left, thank you.

What I want to say to this government is I do not know who you thought you were fooling and your omnibus bill, your Budget, has fooled nobody. People are naming what they are finding in it.

I hope you are happy that you are in the state that you are in because you are bringing the people of the Province down with you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight as we continue the debate here in the House of Assembly. For the people who are tuning in at home tonight, being Tuesday night, it is not the replay of the events of the afternoon sitting because quite often that is what is there in the nighttime. This is actually a nighttime sitting of the House of Assembly as we debate parts of the Budget; it is under the Concurrence Motion of the Government Services Committee. What that means, Mr. Speaker, is that it is a debate over results of what we have done through the Estimates process.

What the Estimates process is for the people who are following along at home and wondering what all this is about, there is an Estimates book published with the Budget each year, Estimates 2013, it is listed department by department, the estimated expenditures of each department. We come in here in the House of Assembly not during the normal hours of the House sitting, but in the mornings and also in the nighttime, we come in here as a department. Senior officials and executive members of departments come with the respective ministers. The members of the Opposition come in and put questions to the minister and the executive, senior officials of the department, about their budget allocations and their plans for next year.

Now, I just heard the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi opposite. Earlier in her comments, she made a lot of comments that I am going to address during my comments tonight, Mr. Speaker. One of the things she talked about, she said: Through the Estimates process we had a lot of discussion, and I heard members opposite talking about all the investments we have made in schools, investments that government is making in schools and education, the investments government is making in infrastructure. She said: We heard all about how they are making investments in roads. She talked about hospitals. We do not need to talk about that. She said: We all heard that in the Estimates.

Then she went on for the next little while talking about that, talking exactly about her own position and her own take on the investments that government has made and the investments that government intends on making into the future. Her words were, I stand to be corrected, something like: I do not need to hear that again. That is what she said: I do not need to hear that again. Then she went on talking about it, Mr. Speaker. Talking about her spin, about her take, about her own spin on what is happening in the investments and the work that government is doing. That is what she did.

They like to talk about, and we all know about it because we heard it several times here in the House. She is the leader of the party that is promoting a diverse economy through the production and usage of shrimp shells. She is leader of the shrimp shell group over here. She talks about how that is what they want to do to grow our business, grow our economy. I do not want to use any terms that would be inappropriate or disrespectful because that is not my nature and I generally do not want to do that, but I would just like to lay out the facts. She stands here in the House, Mr. Speaker, and then criticizes us for the efforts that we make.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, and I tell members of the House here, I have never claimed to be perfect. I can tell you that. I never claimed to be perfect. I do not mind coming to work every day. I come to work early and I am here many nights, and many of us are. I know members of the Opposition as well do the same thing. They work all hours. They work hard in this business that we do. I never claimed that I do it all right, I can tell you that, and that is not the kind of attitude I hear coming from over there.

Over there in the Third Party, over there in the NDP, they have all the answers, Mr. Speaker. They have all the answers. She talks about and criticizes what we are talking about, the investments in schools, roads, infrastructure, and education, and then she says we are not doing enough of it.

You see, over on that side of the House they are not accountable to the taxpayers. They are not accountable for the expenditures of the Province. We are as a government, and we have to govern, maintain, and manage to the best of our abilities. We have to manage the taxpayers' dollars and get the best results we can from the taxpayers' dollars that we have to utilize.

It is easy for the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi to stand in her place and put on the doom and gloom. Now, I do not know where she lives, Mr. Speaker, but I like to travel around this Province. I talk to a lot of people around this Province and it is not what I hear from the people of the Province. That is what I say to you, Mr. Speaker. I say to the members of the House, that is not what I hear from the people of the Province, that there is doom and gloom.

What I hear from them is that we have a thriving economy. We have businesses growing and doing better than they have ever done in the history of the Province. We have more people working, earning better wages. High paid union people getting better wages and better job opportunities than ever in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, because of the investments that we have been doing here in this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: She stands over there in her place, stands here before the people of the Province and tries to suggest that we do not care. That is what she did tonight, and she has done it over and over. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, I am getting kind of tired of listening to it. I am getting tired of listening to it.

For a person who claims to be the person she is and to stand here and say we do not care about the lives of people in Newfoundland and Labrador. I am going to tell you, it takes everything I have to stay on track sometimes when I hear those kinds of comments coming from the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi, when we have more unionized people working in this Province than we ever did before. People who she claims to represent, Mr. Speaker. Better wages and better jobs, a better standard of living, a better quality of life than ever before, and that is what she does. She stands over there and says doom and gloom and how bad things are.

Mr. Speaker, during the break tonight - because we sat until 5:30, and after 5:30 we had a break until 7:00 o'clock and then we reconvened at 7:00 o'clock - I left the House of Assembly and I had a bite to eat because I was hungry. I was a bit tired and I went back over to my office. Now I do not think members of the House had much of an opportunity to see any of the evening news tonight, but I caught a clip on the evening news and it was quite interesting.

It was: Today there was a Member of the House of Assembly who made a speech to a local rotary club. Yes, a member made a speech to the local rotary club today. The member was talking about out-migration, and he has the solution to it.

It was quite interesting, Mr. Speaker. It was the Member for St. Barbe, actually. I tell you, I will have to check it again when I go home because I almost fell on the floor when I heard it. I have to tell you, I almost fell on the floor when I heard it. NTV News tonight played the clip. Now I PVR the news, so when I go home tonight I am going to have to play that again. I am going to have to sit in my comfy chair and relax and say: Is that really what I heard?

I will tell you what he said. He said there are three things that the government needs to start doing – and I am paraphrasing because it happened really quickly. So I apologize if I am interchanging the words because I never really had an opportunity to play it over and over. I will play it tonight when I get home.

He said there are three things the government needs to do to change the out-migration that is hurting the Province. He said, number one, we need to have – are you ready for this? – a lean, efficient government. The Member for St. Barbe said on the news we need to have a lean, efficient government.

Now, if I am not mistaken, since we have been here discussing the Budget we have heard some comments from the other side about having a lean government. I think there have been some criticisms over there. He says: Government needs to create the best climate for business of any province in Canada. I think that was the words.

MR. BENNETT: That is true.

MR. DAVIS: He says that is true.

Then he also said: We need to fully develop – or words to this effect – our natural resources. That is the three things we need to do. It sounds to me, Mr. Speaker, like the Progressive Conservative plan. That is what it sounds like to me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I have to thank the hon. member opposite for confirming the fact he agrees with the Progressive Conservative plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but he rose in his place to take the opportunity to make sure Hansard reflects that he agrees that his plan is consistent with the Progressive Conservative plan. Thank you to the Member for St. Barbe for doing that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: It was rather interesting, I have to tell you. I almost chocked on my dinner tonight when I was listening to it, a lean, efficient government, because that is the same type of thing that we have been talking about, Mr. Speaker. That is the same thing we have been discussing and working towards, and working hard to create in this Province, because the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador should not be the centerpiece for employment opportunities in the Province.

The government itself should not be the place where Newfoundlanders thrive to go get work. It should not be that. It should be a mechanism that leads the Province. It should be a mechanism that stimulates the economy. It should be a mechanism that helps businesses grow and develop. It helps to foster the development of communities and organizations within communities. It helps to foster neighbourhoods so that everybody in the Province gets an opportunity and so that the opportunities are there for all the people of the Province, especially young people in the Province, Mr. Speaker. That is what we should be doing.

Government should be efficient. Yes, it should. It should not be oversized. It has to be rightsized. It has to be lean, to use the words of the Member for St. Barbe. We do have to create a climate for business opportunities for the Province, and we should be the best Province in Canada. Mr. Speaker, I would say the studies are showing that we are. We are becoming the best Province in Canada for stimulating the economy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: He also referred to our natural resources. He said that we have to develop the full potential of our natural resources. Now, I do not think he was talking about shrimp shells. I think he was talking about the natural resources.

We are sitting on so much here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have so many natural resources in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have just come through and are working our way through the largest natural resource project in the history of the Province with Muskrat Falls and the Lower Churchill. The Lower Churchill, Mr. Speaker, is the greatest opportunity. It is an opportunity that is going to create the future for the Province.

As an individual, my hair is greying, I am getting a little older, and I am aging. I am going to tell you –

AN HON. MEMBER: More mature.

MR. DAVIS: More mature, more experienced, and I will not be around long enough to appreciate the full potential of our natural resources. I know our children and our grandchildren will because that is what it is about. It is about creating that economy that can continue to flourish and thrive in today's climate. It is creating that economy and that Province where people have the opportunities they should have. It is about creating a Province and a climate that holds the future for us.

That is what the Budget is about, A Sound Plan, A Secure Future, which the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi related to. She talked about our plan.

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible)

MR. DAVIS: I would like to thank the Member for Bay of Islands for his comments over there. He has not gotten up on a point of order on me yet. I know he likes to pop up every now and then. Now I have recognized the fact he is here in the House tonight and he is participating, so he should be good with that.

The Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi talked about a plan. It is important to have plans and, I can tell you, it is important to talk to the people. When we were doing the ferries, we were looking at ferries – when I came into this department last year, it is a big department and there are many operations that occur that are very critical to the people of the Province. I started to try to get my head around the ferry services in the Province. I tell you, it is immense. The ferry services in the Provinces are immense.

We spend over $80 million a year in operating our ferry services. We are spending towards $76 million in ferry replacements, which is to keep that fleet going. We know it takes a long time to build ferries, and we know it is a hard business in securing those significant assets to operate in the climate that we have in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi talks about consultation. I agree with her; consultation is important. It is not always possible to do the consultation you would like to do. It is a hard process in consultation, but it is also important to listen.

I have taken some time since I have been in this department to try to visit some of the ferry communities in the Province, to meet with ferry communities, to meet with the ferry users committees, to meet with mayors, to meet with councillors. I have spoken to the MHAs who have ferry services and I talked to them about the ferry services. I talked to them about what are the priorities.

I also had a hard look at the usage of ferries and the schedules of ferries. Understanding that even though in some of those communities there are small numbers of people who utilize the services, there still has to be a balance in trying to provide those services to the people, while maintaining the cost at a reasonable level. It has to be, because we cannot do everything for everyone at any cost. We just cannot do that.

That is what the NDP would have you think we should do. We should provide the best of everything. We should provide everything free. We should provide everything free to everyone who wants it, or asks for it, or feels they need it or deserve it, and not worry about who is going to pay for it. It is very simple. If you increase the uses of ferries as an example, your costs go up. If you increase all of your operations within the government and you increase your budget, your costs, and your expenses, if you increase your expenses, then you have to balance that out with the funds from revenue to balance your books or you drive up your debt.

Our debt was up to $12 billion a decade ago. This government has worked really hard to wrestle that debt down. We have to try to manage that and keep it down and lower it as best as we can. When times are good, we manage to lower that debt. When times are tough, we cannot let it balloon back out of control again.

I say, Mr. Speaker, to you, and I say to the Members of the House of Assembly, that would be the easy thing to do. Let's continue to provide all the services that people want. We will respond to all their requests and all their demands. We will drive up the debt. Do you want to increase taxes to help pay those costs? No, do not want to do that. So the only other alternative then is to drive up the debt, and that is the easy thing for a government to do.

We could do that and say oh, times are bad, we have to keep you services, and we are going to bankrupt the Province. That is okay; we can keep going. Our Premier was not prepared to let that happen. She was not prepared to let that happen. She said: We have to try to find that balance.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you, that was a hard job. For me, as a minister, I have a department that is heavily weighted in human resources, the people in the Province – almost 2,000 employees in my department. I can tell you that in the days and nights and hours and hours that my Cabinet colleagues and I spent working through a Budget process, it played a lot on me; because, in the back of my mind, all the time were the things that the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi would say to you and has said: we did not care; we did not care about employees and we did not care about people.

I can tell you, that is about the most insulting thing that anyone could say to me, and I know could say to my colleagues as well, that we do not care about people. That is why we are doing what we are doing, is for the people of the Province.

We understand that the things that we are doing and the decisions we are making have implications on people's lives and on people's careers. We understand that. The bumping process is a hard process, but it is a process that is in the union agreements. It is a process that protects the union members who are senior people who can bump junior people when the qualifications and the processes allow that to happen.

It is not about bumping positions; it is about bumping people. That is what the union, the NDP process, allows us to do. The management and non-union positions, they are out of work; they do not have those bumping rights. The bumping process, as tough as it is, and it is a tough process, is a process that is allowed within the collective agreement – and it is called an agreement because it is an agreement between the two parties, between the union and between the employer.

So, Mr. Speaker, I had fully intended tonight, during this process – and I know I am going to get a chance to speak in the Budget again as we proceed to talk about some more of the investments and the decisions that we have been making within the Department of Transportation and Works. It is a big department; it is a 365-day a year operation. We have had some really tough and challenging times with ferry services; we continue to work through those. I continue to build, through the time I have been in this department, relationships, either directly by myself to members of ferry communities, or through senior officials or my staff to ferry communities. I think that is very important to have.

I have taken some time since I have come into this department, with time allotted, to travel around the Province, to get on our ferries, and to meet with ferry committees to consult with them and talk to them about the services they receive and how we can make improvements to the service within the budget that we have. We know, as I said, it is an expensive investment and operation that we continue to do and we want to find ways to do it better. To do it better within our means, is the way we are trying to do that, Mr. Speaker.

That is what this Budget is about. It is about maintaining what we have today. It is about setting up a bright and solid future for our children and our grandchildren to make this place the best that we can make it, Mr. Speaker, and that is what the Budget is all about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am pleased to stand here and speak again to the Budget. I did not know I was going to get another opportunity. So having this unexpected opportunity to speak is certainly a pleasure here tonight.

We have heard speakers from all sides speak about the Budget tonight, just talking about different things. Depending on which side you are on, the comments are different, obviously. Listening to the Minister of Transportation, he said the members on the other side are not accountable. I disagree with that, though, because we are accountable.

Our job is to hold government accountable for the expenditure of public funds. Our job is to keep them accountable to the people of this Province, and we get elected to do that. So we are going to continue doing that. That is why we like to stand up and ask these questions, to make sure that the money is expended in the best way possible because it is all of our money. It is public money. So I appreciate that.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a lot of time, so I am going to try to cover off as much ground as possible because there are certainly a lot of things. I listened to the Minister of Service NL. He stood up and spoke about Labrador, and that is good for him. That is his job. He is the minister for Labrador and he is going to speak about it. He referenced a lot of the spending that is going on. A lot of what he talked about was spent in 2005.

What I am going to try to do is limit what I am talking about to 2013. I am going to limit what I am talking about to the Budget this year. What I would like to talk about is – let me see, I have a top ten.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: I have a top ten. Again, I know the noise coming from the other side shows that they do not want to hear about Budget 2013, but I am going to keep talking as best I can. It is kind of hard because there is some commentary from the other side, but I will overcome that.

Now, one of the things I want to talk about is, let me see, there is a number here. How about we talk about the Department of Advanced Education and Skills? We will start there. That is the department that was created just after this government was elected. Actually, we are doing the Estimates for that department tomorrow. That is going to be very interesting. We have three hours to go over this, and we have the benefit of having the report done by Mr. Noseworthy.

I had a member on the other side Tweet me tonight, saying it was ironic that we are referencing the Noseworthy Report. I would say the fact is he was hired on a six-figure untendered contract to critique the department and figure out how it should run. The least that the government could do is actually look at the report, read the report, and use that report if they paid for it.

Again, he identified a lot of stuff here. I do not have all the details here, there is a lot to it, but some of the words he came up with, it was absolutely ridiculous how poorly managed and configured that department is. It is funny, because in order to make these changes to that department, you are looking at about ten years to get there and you are looking at an amount of staff. The irony is that they cut the guts out of that department in order to make those changes happen. I find that interesting. You are going to make these changes, yet you cut out the people on the front line who were supposed to do it.

There are a number of different areas, because it is mishmash, a hodgepodge of different things tossed together in the hopes that it would all work, and unfortunately it is not. That is evidenced by the people who call us with complaints about the department and the running of the department. Whether it is Income Support, whether it is apprenticeship, whether it is the labour market, whether it is JCPs, you name it.

One of the things they talk about, we talk about this labour shortage that gets talked about all the time. We just made that labour shortage – we have actually flooded the market with a number of new people, people who came from public jobs who are tossed out here because of the cuts of this government.

Now, it is funny, we talk about a labour shortage, at the same time we have a literacy plan that was looked at and never completed and never put in place. That would have helped people work towards that. We had EAS workers, people whose job was to help people attach to the labour market. They are cut adrift and tossed to the side, too.

We have the apprenticeship program. Again, there have been some investments made there, but I still get a lot of complaints. People calling that department cannot get calls back, cannot get calls answered. That seems to be rife in that department, when you call in and you cannot get somebody on the phone. It is funny because the statement you get is: There is a higher than anticipated volume of calls. That is not the case. It is the same number of calls. There are just less people to handle the calls. That is what it comes down to.

That is an example on Income Support. That is a department that gets anywhere from 400 to 600 calls a day, and there are actually less people to handle the calls. They are batting about 40 per cent right now on calls answered in a day. That is what the department is averaging, four out of ten calls answered. Now, that has gone less because we have cut those people who were doing it. Vacant positions, people there, and we have cut it. So actually they are going about 25 per cent now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, 25 per cent. You imagine now, these people –

MS SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. A. PARSONS: I will say to the Minister of Health, I will get to your department now in a second. We have some issues there. I might talk about the hospital, the dental plan, the drugs you will not cover, or the people who cannot get access to drugs if they are not on insurance plans. I will get there. I am going to stick to Advanced Education, so let me get through that and I will get to your department. You let me get there. We will continue on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. PARSONS: I say to the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador that is right. He is over there. He is sitting down. He is certainly not standing up for Labrador. That is what is going on right now.

Now, I am going to continue on. Actually, we talk about Advanced Education, so I am hoping three hours is going to be enough time to continue on with the multitude of questions we have. We talk about the literacy plan. That ties right in with poverty reduction. Poverty reduction is that we are going to have the best results in Canada in eight months. How are we going to do that when we cut out all the people working in poverty reduction? That is funny. We cut out all the people working in poverty reduction, yet we expect us to hit the best levels.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that is evidenced by the fact there are more people on Income Support today than there were in 2009.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: Now, I have not heard anybody come back at me with –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I have not had anybody come back to me with an answer on that yet. We talk about poverty reduction. We talk about the great things. There are more people in the Province today on Income Support than there were in 2009. That is a fact.

We can talk about the white-hot economy. We can talk about the steps we are making in the investments. There are more people on Income Support right now. Those people when they call in, they are not getting the calls through. They are not getting answers.

Now, we will continue on here. Actually, it is funny. Advanced Education, we are saving this one for last and it is probably the one I had the most questions for.

We can talk about the Noseworthy report, the fact that this crowd promised action within sixty days of reports and they are making all reports public. Now, they did make this report public. They tossed it out I think it was Budget day or the day after, a good way to divert attention away from the Budget. They did put it out, and to that I credit them.

They made it public but you are supposed to act on it within sixty days. Right now, you are not going to get those actions. There is nothing going to be done on that. It is going to take years to implement half of these (inaudible). We look at the fact that there are seventy programs and they were all critiqued very, very intricately by Mr. Noseworthy. I am wondering how the changes are going to come.

I am going to try to move off this. I can look at all the different jobs that were cut and all the different aspects of this department. It is amazing how we are going to provide the same service with less people.

We could talk about efficiencies, but that is absolutely amazing.

It is funny; I hear the minister over there talking about 2003 – the minister of history –

MR. JOYCE: Ask him how many boil order advisories (inaudible) –

MR. A. PARSONS: We can talk about 2003 and how many boil water advisories are still in the Province right now – how many were there then and how many are now.

I digress; I am trying to stay on track, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to stay on track.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: I am going to continue on now. I will move on to – let me see what else. The Minister of Health wanted me to talk about health. Well, I will talk about health.

The fact is we are getting the worse bang for the buck in health spending – the worse bang for the buck.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the protection.

We have a Budget that the highest percentage goes into health and we are not going to be able to continue sustaining that, so when you make those cuts in health, what happens then? Do we still get the same level of service? Do we get the same delivery?

One of the reasons why we have had this high Budget is you take things like the dental plan. This dental plan that was started – and the dental plan is good. The problem that I have is next year – this is coming from Estimates; this is actually going to be in Hansard when we get it – you are going to get your dentures one half at a time.

What kind of Province do we live in when this is the kind of care that comes out to the people of this Province? The minister can actually laugh about it; she can talk about it. That is the answer that I got when it came to dentures, to dental care. We budgeted $6.7 million, we spent well over $20 million, and this is what we got.

We can talk about the Ondansetron. That is the drug for the children with cancer who are having nausea, but they cannot get it covered. We are the only Province in Canada that cannot get it covered; $20 a day for the pill and we cannot get that covered.

MR. JOYCE: Can they get a meeting?

MR. A. PARSONS: No, I do not think they can get a meeting either, but the fact is this is something that we asked for, so I have to put that out there.

We can talk about Cystic Fibrosis. We can talk about the TOBI Podhaler – again, something that cannot get covered. We can talk about screening, something that all the other provinces – actually the Western-developed world is moving towards that, but we are not. We are still stuck here, not moving forward. Actually, we are not doing anything when it comes to the preventative side and it will save us money down the road.

I heard a good analogy today, preventative medicine – when they look at the cost, it is like the resettlement program. The fact is the Province is looking at it saying we are going to save money down the road by making the package so much higher. The costs right now are greater, but down the road we are going to save. We look at the same in medicine. Make that investment now and we are going to save in the end.

Mr. Speaker, it appears that my time may be coming to a close. I appreciate the time to speak to this Budget again and remind them of some of the other decisions that they made.

MR. SPEAKER: Standing Order 76.(2) provides for three hours of debate on each of the Committee reports, so we will now call for the motion.

The motion is that the report of Government Services Committee be concurred in.

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'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

On motion, Report of Government Services Estimates Committee, carried.

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland and Labrador Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that the House do now resolve itself into Committee of the Whole and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Verge): Order, please!

The Committee of the Whole will consider Bill 1, "An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act". (Bill 1)

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 43 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 43 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 43 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act. (Bill 1)

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 1.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 1.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 1 carried without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair of Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 1 without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MR. KING: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said bill be read a third time?

MR. KING: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this time I call from the Order Paper, Order 4, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 2, Bill 4.

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to Bill 4, which is An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration No. 2 by repealing the Labrador Border Zone Tax Rebate on tobacco products.

I listened to the debate earlier today by a number of members, and one of the concerns that was put forward as to why the government is looking at removing the Labrador Border Zone Tax Rebate is that there is no rebate provided by any other province when it comes to tobacco sales. I listened intently to what the Minister of Finance had said previously about the cross-border shopping basically. He had talked quite a bit about how New Brunswick is connected to the United States; they share a border.

There are quite a number of restrictions and limitations when people go and cross-border shop. One of those things is that they have to overnight. If they are going to bring back any type of quantity, there is a certain amount that anyone can purchase when it comes to tobacco products. Those are restrictions that are placed that would prevent people from crossing the border and actually doing that type of out shopping.

If we look at the location of Labrador and how it shares boundaries with Quebec, especially the towns of Labrador City and Wabush, and how close they are connected to the community of Fermont. As well as on the South Coast when we look at from the Labrador Straits side from Red Bay to L'Anse au Clair, these communities are very close to Blanc Sablon and other parts of the Lower North Shore in Quebec.

The minister had said that there are about thirty-three businesses that receive this rebate. My big concern is eliminating this rebate and removing it since March 31 without passing legislation, how damaging this could be to local business, and if there was any type of consultation.

It seems like, from what the Member for St. John's North said, the Mayor of Wabush, Ron Barron, had really not been informed that this type of legislation would be coming to the House. There was not a high level of consultation.

What government is saying is that removing this rebate could save government approximately $3.4 million annually. We have not seen how they are going to save this money. If there has been an analysis on the basis that if you increase the rate of tobacco products, then certainly there may be people who will cross-border shop into Quebec. As well, will this mean that there will be less people purchasing cigarettes because the price would be cost prohibitive? Those are the types of things that need to be looked at. We have not seen that type of analysis.

One thing government said is that they want to remove this type of incentive because government is committed to the promotion of health and well-being, but we are not seeing in this Province where there have been investments into trying to invest in therapies like smoking cessation to help alleviate that.

One of the things we see when we look at business – I do quite a bit of travelling and when you look at going into other countries and you look at the duties and the elimination of duties when you go duty-free shopping, you look at being enticed to make purchases because of the savings. Then if you look at a rebate that has been in play in communities that are very geographically distanced from other communities, but very close to a border where there are products that are going to be cheaper – and I know that the Minister of Finance had talked about that Quebec is increasing the rates of their tobacco products, but they still will be cheaper.

We have to look at all levels of taxation that is going to put into play – that includes the federal excise duty, which is a standard duty, but looking at the provincial excises. Quebec has a far lower excise than what the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is charging. As well as looking at the overall tax of Harmonized and where Quebec is – because Quebec charges just the federal GST. So this as well can create a broader price disparity.

In the short term, where retailers are not given much notice, this can have a detrimental impact on them and their line of business. If you look at the corner store, as the Member for Lab West had talked about, they have a set amount of product that they have right now, and if they are going to be losing revenue from one product stream, then they have to make it up somewhere else – and giving them time to look at expanding their products so that they can generate that revenue from their storefronts, and things like that, as the Member for Humber Valley had talked about with pharmacies. When they removed the tobacco products from their shelves, there was a transition period where they could look at other types of revenue streams that they could get into.

In the very short term this can be highly damaging to businesses, even if they are a small number of businesses, the thirty-three. Retailers in Quebec on these border communities would look at having various specials on product to attract and compete, to have new customers come in and purchase other things besides tobacco, whether it would be alcohol, whether it would be other consumer goods, whether it would be confectionary items, or whether it would be groceries.

The longer this goes on, the more loyal, then, and the more routine a customer would get to another retailer. That could have an impact on the current retailers, quite significantly. If they are currently having removed a rebate they have had for quite a number of years and now they are going to be placed at a disadvantage when it comes to being competitive, they are going to have to also look at lowering prices and things like that, which certainly in the short term may be good for consumers.

What it could end up doing is it could create a level where businesses just cannot survive. We may see job losses. We may see a number of things happen that can impact these small communities, especially in the Labrador Straits. They have a very strong, independent business community there. There are no big box stores like the Walmarts of the world. They really are focused on the small convenience stores and the small retailers, but just down the road there are other retailers as well that are going to now have a competitive advantage. That will have an impact on sales.

When you look at any type of amount of income that a business has, and if it is lower, if for example these small businesses now fall under the threshold of under the $500,000, then they are paying the small business tax. If because the removal of these rebates contribute to a high loss of sales, then what is going to happen is they are going to end up not paying the higher level of corporate income tax that the Province certainly needs for its provincial revenues and what is in the Budget Estimates as being an increase this year. If that is happening, even on a small level between these retailers, that will have an impact.

If the sales are down in these businesses as well, then that is going to potentially lead to loss of employment. It is certainly not going to help the employer in any shape or form in these places like Red Bay, or in Forteau, or L'Anse-au-Loup, looking at business expansion, and looking at new product lines in the short term.

I question how the government has said since 1998 that the amount of cigarettes purchased in Labrador West has more than doubled, and with the end of this program it is the hope that cigarette sales will also decrease. It is likely that cigarette sales will likely decrease because people will out shop.

That might be a nice step for the Department of Health and Community Services to say: Look, tobacco sales are reduced in Newfoundland and Labrador, we are making great strides. There is no indication that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have actually purchased less tobacco products because of out shopping. That may have a detrimental impact as well to our overall health care system. Those are types of things that we certainly need to look at when it comes to how we do things in border towns.

We have to look at how much is this going to take out of the rural economy of the Labrador Straits, as well as looking at the Towns of Labrador City and Wabush. We have a significant commuter economy, especially in the Lab West area with the high economic climate there. It would be reasonable to think with the boom that has happened and the amount of workers who are there; it is not just the residents who are actually purchasing these tobacco products.

There are some transient workers who are coming in and working there for the short term and purchasing these products as well. We have to look at the true economic climate of these regions and what is really happening. It is not to say that just because there is a rebate there, that people are purchasing more and more tobacco products.

We need to look at these communities. Are there better retail options in Lab West, Wabush, and in the Labrador Straits to see if this is actually having an overall impact and maintaining competitive prices for other consumer goods? All of these things have a certain impact.

I think a more comprehensive strategy to reduce smoking in the Province was needed. One of the things that government may have considered was to look at maybe something like how other borders – when you go into other jurisdictions, what they have is a limitation for a certain timeline and a certain period as to being able to go to the US for a certain number of days. You are able to purchase a certain amount of product at that rebated or that lower duty rate.

Maybe that is something government could have done when looking at this rebate. Is to consider looking at maybe some sort of timeline and looking at allowing the business community, allowing the retailers, the people who are availing of this rebate, time to adequately transition so that they can then make wise business choices to expand their product stream.

I talk to small business in my district all the time. I go in and the small stores are talking about the products that they sell. The Member for St. John's North had talked about it, is that when you look at beer, when you look at tobacco products, if you look at lottery tickets, the regulated prices, like gasoline, retailers make very small margins on these products. It is the other products they have in the store that really helps. These products that are regulated by the government, that the government is making huge profits for, these are things that are bringing customers in the door.

In small rural communities there are less and less customers, in particular if we look at the Labrador Straits region. You have to look at the change in population dynamics. In many rural communities you have an older population, so it has an impact on the viability of these businesses for the long term.

Removing these rebates is a detrimental impact to the small business community. It is really an attack on small business. It is not progressive to look at taxing small business more. That is kind of exactly what this government is doing by removing such a rebate. It is taking money out of the pocket of small business and making them less and less viable. That is something that I think needs to be understood because if we look at the Budget and we look at what is in the Budget this year for small business, if we look at the fees and increases that are there, some of them go up to 700 per cent.

This is another case where government is trying to say it is saving money and it is trying to say it is doing this for the health and well-being, but if they really wanted to do things for health and well-being when it comes to reducing tobacco products or health care costs pertaining to it, then we would see more progressive policy around preventative care. That would be things like the smoking cessation therapies and nicotine replacement therapies, which we do not see.

What we are seeing is government hinder economic development in the Labrador Straits region, as well as Lab West when it comes to the removal of such a policy that is going to make them less competitive when it comes to a product that they do sell, and in a very short time frame to adequately plan. This is kind of a shock to small business.

When you look at implementing something very quickly without consultation and it is a shock to small business, then it has a trickle-down impact and there will be repercussions for small businesses. You may see closures. If you see even one business close, that is one too many for our rural economy. We need to really look at the policies of what we are doing and how we could do things better.

I think if we looked at the health care side of things, where we look at the therapies, we could have savings from our nearly $3 billion health care budget, and the savings would be quite tremendous. Right now this policy may lower the statistics of tobacco sales in the Province. You are certainly going to see a lot more out shopping in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I do not think I am going to be able to support Bill 4 because of the implications it is going to have on small business. I have certainly made my points, and I will have an opportunity to ask questions as this bill goes into third reading.

So, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have heard from the Liberals earlier this evening, it sounds like they are not going to support Bill 4. It looks like the Member for Bay of Islands is prepared to speak, so maybe he will enlighten us further shortly.

Then, of course, the New Democratic Party calls Bill 4 an attack on small business, the Member for The Straits – White Bay North said, taking money out of the pockets of small businesses. On one hand he acknowledges the profit on cigarette sales is minimal for retailers, and on the other hand he calls this bill, which will eliminate the subsidization of cigarette sales in a certain region of the Province, an attack on small business. He goes on to talk about how badly impacted by this recent Budget small businesses are in Newfoundland and Labrador. So, I am not sure what Province he is living in, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure what region of the Province he is living in.

When I look at this Budget, when I look at the improved, enhanced suite of programs available through the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural development as a result of this Budget, we are driving growth in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We are driving growth in every region of the Province. We are driving growth and key sectors. We are seeing incredible growth in Ocean Technology, in the Information and Communications Technology sector, in Tourism, and 80 per cent of our investment through the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development is in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Some of the comments made by the Member for The Straits – White Bay North I find rather challenging and certainly difficult to accept and extremely difficult to even understand, to comprehend.

This is a simple bill, Mr. Speaker. This bill will amend the Revenue Administration Act by repealing the Labrador Border Zone Tax Rebate on tobacco products. I support the legislation and I believe it is the right move to make at this time. It was in late March that the Minister of Finance announced that we would be bringing forward these amendments during this spring session. It is part of Budget 2013. We are bringing forward these amendments for a number of reasons. It is important to consider that there is no other rebate provided in any other part of the Province for tobacco sales, and no other province in Canada offers a similar rebate.

The savings that will come to taxpayers as a result of eliminating this program is about $3.4 million annually. Mr. Speaker, this reduced tax rate on tobacco products was introduced in 1984 in Labrador at the request of some retailers in the area. In 1997, the Labrador Border Zone Rebate was linked with taxation levels of tobacco products in Quebec in an effort to limit the incentive for cross-border shopping in the Labrador West and the Southern Coast areas of Labrador. The rebate has been provided to approximately thirty-three retailers in Lab West and on the South Coast.

The provincial government has made a number of changes to legislation to discourage tobacco use: banning promotion of tobacco products, for instance; eliminating smoking from bars and restaurants; and banning smoking from areas around public buildings. Really, this move we are making through Bill 4 is consistent with those efforts to discourage tobacco use among the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The member opposite suggested somehow we are not interested in promoting the health and well-being of people in this Province and that we are not making efforts to reduce the prevalence of smoking in this Province, and nothing could be further from the truth.

The fact that we are, in this day and age, providing a tax rebate that really provides an incentive for increased tobacco sales, it goes against the commitment of this government, Mr. Speaker. We want to promote health and well-being of the people of this Province.

I think previous speakers have acknowledged that since 1998 the amount of cigarettes purchased has more than doubled in the Labrador West region. We really hope that with the end of this program and with the end of this rebate cigarette sales will decrease. We think this is a positive move for all the right reasons.

Mr. Speaker, each year retailers were given a quota for tobacco sales. The quota consisted of a subsidy to retailers based on tobacco sales, which allowed them to sell tobacco at a reduced cost. The program was costing taxpayers about $3.4 million a year, so that will be the savings that we realize as a result of eliminating this rebate.

The program will officially end on July 1, but affected retailers were given notice. The member opposite suggested no notice was given. That is also false. They were given notice on March 27.

As well, Mr. Speaker, providing a tax rebate on tobacco that serves as an incentive for increasing tobacco sales just does not make logical sense in this environment we find ourselves in. It creates an unfair advantage and really it is not consistent with the aims, objectives, and principles of the health policies of this government. I think this is a positive move.

It seems members opposite disagree, and they are interested in continuing to subsidize tobacco sales, but that is not something we are prepared to continue to endorse on this side of the House. We are concerned about the prevalence of smoking, particularly among young people in Newfoundland and Labrador. High tobacco prices discourage smoking, and hopefully high tobacco prices actually are effective in preventing youth from taking up the habit.

It is interesting to note that since July 2008 the RCMP have had an additional presence on the West Coast of the Province to address contraband issues. Canada Border Services has also increased enforcement presence to address the contraband trade in our Province.

Some people are probably wondering why we have not raised tobacco taxes more, while we are talking about tax rebates on tobacco. We have to weigh concerns for public health with the potential for increasing the demand for contraband products, so that is a key consideration as well. To increase tobacco taxes significantly would actually fuel the demand for black market tobacco products and it would result in an increase in unregulated product in the Province.

We have raised taxes on cigarettes, but not on fine cut tobacco. The Province's current tax rate on fine cut is significantly higher than it is in other provinces, Mr. Speaker. It was considered sufficient to raise the taxes on cigarettes to be more in line with the tax levels in other provinces. No equivalent increase was considered necessary for fine cut tobacco.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have had enough to say on Bill 4. I think this is a move that makes sense. I am surprised that the NDP does not support it. I do not find the explanations provided by the Member for The Straits – White Bay North reasonable in this day and age. I think it is opposition for the sake of opposition, but it is typical of the small-minded politics we see from the NDP on a consistent basis.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just rise to have a few words on this Bill 4 and I will give an explanation on some of the comments that I made earlier.

I just heard the Member for Mount Pearl North, I think, talking about the small business, how they do not think this is going to hurt the small business. I can tell you what, if anybody does not believe that this is going to hurt the small business, ask the former Minister of Finance in 2010 who said the reason why we have to keep this in place is to keep the businesses in Lab West and Southern Labrador competitive.

If you want to just criticize us and say, oh, how dare you think that we are attacking small business? ask the former Minister of Finance. Ask the Minister of Finance back in 2004, who stated that we must keep these small businesses competitive. I can go through a litany of people here, a litany of members opposite, Ministers of Finance who said we have to keep this in place.

Now, Mr. Speaker, all of a sudden everything that was said, it is a budgetary item and we needed the funds, now we do not need it. Those businesses up there do not need it. Let's scrap it; they do not need it.

Mr. Speaker, you can see why we can ask questions and realize when you go back and how this came into being back in 1984, supported in 1997 – and again, if you go through each minister, even since 2003, I can read Hansard each time it was brought in with the press releases how they all supported this. This here has been all throughout.

When you want to talk about businesses, Mr. Speaker, and you are saying oh, small businesses do not need it, I say you should all get together because up to this year, before this year, it was very well needed. That is why each Minister of Finance since 2003, when they made the announcement, said at the big press release about keeping this in place. How they needed to protect these thirty-three businesses, how they needed to ensure.

Mr. Speaker, I have to get back to some of the comments the Member for Labrador West and the Minister of Service NL said today. One of the things he said is, and I quote what he said. If I am incorrect I ask the minister to stand: up to March 27, they have the quota for this year.

When does the quota end? That is something we are not sure of. If the quota ends April 1, and it starts again April 1 –

MR. MCGRATH: No, no, no, the quota ends June 30 (inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: June 30.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Just say the quota ends June 30, Mr. Speaker. The minister is saying June 30. From June 30 last year to this year they have the quota. How can the minister say that from June 30, 2013 onward there is going to be no impact when we have not even reached the date yet?

What you are saying is they have the quota. There is no impact now because they already got the quota. They are up to the height of the rebate, so there is no impact. Let's wait until after June 30, Mr. Speaker, this year and wait until June 30, 2014, then come back in this House and say there is no impact. That is what you need to do.

You cannot say there is no impact when someone has the rebate in place right now, and cannot get it any more until June 30. By the time the next season comes around, which is July 1, 2013 up to July 1, 2014, you cannot say: oh, there is no impact. Let's wait for that year. When you give out this information: oh, they are at their quote, and I spoke to the businesses and there is no one hurt.

I also heard the minister make the comments on several occasions that there is no one who built a corner store on cigarettes. That is a simplistic attitude towards this problem, very simplistic. If you ask anybody in this House, 99 per cent of the time when you go into one of those corner stores if you pick up one thing, you pick up three or four other things. It is very simplistic.

It is almost like, do not give these thirty-three businesses the service they need, Mr. Speaker, and they deserve by saying: Well, no one built it just on cigarettes. If the cigarette industry goes and if they do not sell as many cigarettes, therefore, it is not a big deal because they do not build it on it.

We all know ourselves, when someone goes in for something cool, a few Diet Coke, Pepsi or 7UP, we are going to get a bag of chips with that, we are going to get a bar with that. If we are into a retail store we are going to pick up something else we need. We do it on a regular basis.

When the minister stands in his place and says it is only cigarettes, it is not, and you know that minister. You know that. These thirty-three businesses, Mr. Speaker, they know it also. They know the impact it is going to have because if there was no impact on these businesses, I ask the question: Why did every Minister of Finance, since 2003 up to 2013, send this out as a good news story, how they supported businesses on the border of Labrador? Can anybody opposite explain that to me, if this was not a great story?

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be political here because it is very obvious this is very important to these thirty-three people. I ask the members opposite: Did it take twelve years to realize this had no impact? Is this part of your ten-year study that you supposedly had for 2003, that all of a sudden you realize ten years later this has no impact on business? Of course not, Mr. Speaker, we know what happened here.

We had the Minister of Finance stand up here tonight talking about smoking cessation. This is why we did it, to help the smoking cessation. Then we had the Minister of Service NL, the Member for Lab West stand up, and I have to give him credit, he stood up and said: No, this is a budget item that we cut because of a budget. I have to give you credit for that.

We have one minister here trying to sugar coat it: Oh, there is a smoking sensation; we are going to do this now just for these border –

AN HON. MEMBER: Cessation.

MR. JOYCE: Sensation, cessation. It is good to see that the minister knows what I am talking about. Obviously, he never spoke about it with the Minister of Finance because that is what the Minister of Finance was trying to justify here tonight, Mr. Speaker.

If this is the case, why don't we have one all across the Province? If it is going to work in the border towns up in Lab West and down in The Straits in Labrador to help curb smoking, why are we just targeting those two areas? Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? Because that there is just a falsity. That is not the reason why they doing this. They are doing this because it is a budget cut. They are doing this because they are saying we need the funds. They are saying we are doing this because, listen, we mismanaged over the last ten years when every one of us supported this.

Mr. Speaker, the sad part about it, this is happening now. The Member for Lab West is not standing up for the people of Labrador. The reason I say that, and I say that to the people in Lab West and the people in Labrador, because I stood in this Legislature when the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair was sitting here, and he challenged her to stand up for Labrador. It is time for her to stand up for Labrador. I always said you should never challenge people because you never know when that challenge is coming back.

I say to the Member for Lab West, if it was good enough for you to challenge the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair to stand up for the people of Labrador, I think you should follow your own words and stand up for the people of Labrador, the people of Lab West, the people of The Straits of Labrador because, Mr. Speaker, they are going to be affected.

I challenge, Mr. Speaker, because you always like to know the facts. I challenge any member opposite, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Service NL, the Member for Lab West, I challenge them to produce a report where they did a financial analysis where they said if we decrease this here, it will help with the taxes in Lab West and The Straits and there will not be any financial loss to these businesses, job losses, or any negative impact. I challenge the ministers here to produce that report so we can review it.

Now, if you ever want to stand up and talk about decisions, just go into a budget item and let's pick out decisions, let's just grab one. This is one of them that was grabbed out. As the minister said, and I give him credit for saying it, it was just a budget item. They are just having one. They said, okay, I will bite the bullet. I will take one for the team. I will go up in Labrador, I will take one for the team, and I will say: Okay, Labrador, I never stood up for you here. I never stood up because we needed the money here.

The Minister of Finance said, I have to take it out, we need the money. We mismanaged for ten years. We supported this for ten years. The members opposite, the government opposite supported it for ten years but now all of a sudden they have to put it out. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? This government cannot produce a report which shows the cost benefit or the cost negative effect if they withdrew this funding, these rebates to the thirty-three businesses.

Here is an opportunity for the Minister of Service NL, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Lab West, I will sit down and give him the rest of my time if he tables that document so we can all look at it. If you cannot table a document and you cannot table a report, going by someone at a corner store and said, I spoke to one of the boys at the corner store who already has his full quota for now up to June, he is not affected.

That is the research that the minister did. Go back in a year's time and ask those same businesses in a year's time, are you affected? I say, Mr. Speaker, this is very touchy to me because I know the Member for Lab West challenged the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair on several occasions on issues for Labrador. He actually challenged her. Mr. Speaker, I always said in life, especially when you are in politics, you have to be careful because if you are going to say one thing it will always come back on you the next day.

Here is an opportunity for the Minister of Service NL, the Member for Lab West to stand up in his place here today and say no, I am going to support the people who elected me. I am going to produce the report which I made a sound decision on because I know there is going to be thirty-three businesses, plus the workers, plus the families who are going to be affected here. I, as the minister, will never make a decision without proper consultation with the people who elected me and without proper information that I can make a decision on, that I would not do it, therefore I am going to vote against this.

Mr. Speaker, I am willing to bet that this minister does not have the intestinal fortitude to do what he asked the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair to do. Do you know why? He is in Cabinet, and when you are in Cabinet you have to toe the line. You have to toe the line.

When you stand there and the minister wants to do that, this is going to be affecting a lot of people. We should go and review this. We should do a review, and I am sure it was not done. I am absolutely sure the review was not done.

When the Member for Mount Pearl North wants to stand up and say: Well, this is not going to affect small businesses. Do me one favour? I ask the Member for St. John's North, walk down and speak to the former Minister of Finance who said in 2010 how he had to keep this in place, how this was directly affecting businesses in the Labrador region, with the border of Labrador and The Straits.

Just walk down and speak to the former Minister of Finance, and ask him. If he does not want to talk to him, come over and I will show him the press releases from 2004, 2005, 2006. Every press release, right up until 2013, said how we have to support the businesses in these areas.

Mr. Speaker, I will not be supporting this bill. This is a bill that is going to affect a lot of people.

MR. MCGRATH: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: The Minister of Service NL is still over there, he had his opportunity to speak. I did not say anything to him. This is a very serious issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. JOYCE: He is over there laughing, Mr. Speaker, he has to be able to take the facts.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: You have to be able to look at the facts. It is easy to criticize me, it is very easy.

Mr. Speaker, I know the viewing public cannot see this. There are about ten or fifteen of them over there who cannot handle what I am saying. I will ask ten or fifteen of them – do you want me to go through each one, Mr. Speaker, I can? One of you ten or fifteen over there now who is heckling me, show me the report that shows this will have no effect on the businesses in Labrador and in Southern Labrador. Show me the report.

Mr. Speaker, guess what? Just to let the viewing audience know, it has gone silent. It has gone silent, Mr. Speaker, because they do not have the report. I have in my hands here press releases from 2003 right on up to 2012, supporting it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MCGRATH: Table it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: I say to the Minister of Service NL, I do not need to table it. Go in your caucus room, I am sure they are in there because you have every press release in there about it. Go in there and look at it. I do not need to table it. If you want them, I will get them for you, not a problem. You can have a copy of them. There are a few of them marked up, Mr. Speaker, and I will tell you why they are marked up, because I wanted to make sure I had the quotes right when I did it. I am sorry for marking them up but you can have them.

Mr. Speaker, we are looking at some of the quotes here, just to give you a few little hints of what they said. This is the Minister of Finance when they were on the other side: Decrease cross-border shopping to make businesses in Labrador border zones more competitive with their Quebec neighbours.

On March 29, 2010, the Minister of Finance issued a few information bulletins that said the following, "Tobacco tax rates in the border zones have been linked to the tax rates in Quebec since 1997. The reduced rates effectively match the Labrador border zone rates to those in Quebec. This is designed to decrease cross-border shopping, and to make businesses in the Labrador border zones more competitive with their Quebec neighbours."

If you really want a copy, go down to the former Minister of Finance and I am sure he is a man of his word. He would say he said it because it is here in the press release. I can give it to you.

Mr. Speaker, I can say again, even back in 2004 the Auditor General asked the government for a report, if there was any negative impact or positive impact on this. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? There is nothing yet. Since the Auditor General produced this report in 2004, there has been nothing to prove that there is any negative impact caused by Quebec coming over with this tax in place, absolutely none. He asked for it and this government had nine years now to do it and there has been nothing produced.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to sit down now and take my place. I say to the viewing audience, I am sorry for pointing people out. I like asking members – if they want to criticize me, ask for the reports that I am asking for so I can make an informed decision. You cannot make an informed decision when there is no report on it. It was hauled out of mid-air.

It is time for the Minister of Service NL, the Member for Lab West, to do what he asked other members to do. Stand up for the people who elected you, if you have the intestinal fortitude. If not, I say to the Member for Lab West, do not ever challenge anyone again. If you do not have the guts to do it yourself, you should not ask other people to do it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Though it is getting late at night, I am happy to have an opportunity to speak to Bill 4, An Act to Amend the Revenue Administration Act No. 2, dealing with putting an end to the current Labrador Border Zone Tax Rebate on tobacco. It will be effective as of July 1, 2013. I was not sure I was going to get a chance to speak to this bill. I am glad I am able to.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, is pretty straightforward. The government is trying to make it more than it is. In Budget 2013, the Budget includes the clause in there that has to do with removal of this tax. A Budget news release was put out by the government at the time. It basically deals only with the reduced tax rate, pointing out when it came in and why it came in.

Basically, it came in 1997 in order to link with tobacco taxation levels in Quebec. That would be to put an end to the cross-border shopping that was going on by Labrador West residents. Now we know that when it came in it also affected the South Coast of Labrador as well, not just the Labrador West area of Labrador.

It is pretty straightforward. We know why it was brought in and we know why government is ending it, because they were going around looking for money and this was another place they saw where they could grab some money. A very small amount, Mr. Speaker, really, $3.4 million, because that $3.4 million actually is coming from only thirty-three retailers. When you look at that, for each retailer that is relatively a small amount of money but for small retailers it is a lot of money. Government is basically saving $3.4 million and saving it on the backs of Labrador retailers who are going to lose revenue.

I was shocked, Mr. Speaker, by the fairly cavalier attitude of the Member for Labrador West. He did acknowledge that he spoke to people in his district who disagreed with it. Basically, he said: Well, you know, we will see. We will do it and we will see, not convinced that anything bad is going to happen but we will see.

Well, that is not good enough. That is an example to me of the lack of analysis that this government has done around different things they have in Budget 2013. Oh, this looks good; we will take the $3.4 million. Do you know what? Maybe it will be okay. Maybe it will not hurt the small retailers. We will see. That is like the jobs that were lost: Oh, there are not very many, we will see. It is not good enough, Mr. Speaker.

When I hear them saying, putting into the discussion that this program, hopefully, could help cigarette sales decrease and that could be a cessation of smoking going on. Well, I say, Mr. Speaker, it is just putting up a smokescreen when it comes to this bill. This bill is about saving money for the government and taking the money off the backs of retailers in Labrador. I am really shocked that the Member for Labrador West has portrayed the Labrador attitude that he did portray.

When we say, as the NDP, we cannot vote for this bill, it has nothing to do with the cessation of smoking. I would love to see, we have said it here in this House and I will say it again, I would love to see a real program to help with cessation of smoking in this Province, a real program. Money put into it so that people who want to give up smoking can really be helped to do it.

I am not going to get into the therapies and what needs to be done. We do know that every province in Canada, except New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador, puts money into programs to help with the cessation of smoking. If this was what this bill was about I would be all for it, but that is not what the bill is about. The bill is about this government once again trying to find a way to grab some money to make up for the deficit that it has created. To do that on the backs of small retailers is not acceptable.

The Member for The Straits – White Bay North spoke eloquently to this issue. The Member for St. John's North did as well, coming from his own personal experience from a family that had a small business. The case has been made very clearly I think, and I think the government side of the House knows what is going on. That is why they are making the noise that they are making instead of being quiet and realizing: Okay, once again we have made a decision. We are going to do it and we are going to stick by it; that is it.

That is what it is all about, Mr. Speaker. Let's not play games. Let's not pretend it is about helping with smoking cessation. I would like to point out to the government, for example, that if cigarette sales decrease it is not going to be a sign that smoking has decreased in Labrador.

I would like to know if this really were what they were interested in, then part of the legislation would be putting in place a program to monitor whether or not with this action smoking actually decreased in Labrador on the borders, not just the sales of cigarettes. Undoubtedly, the sales of cigarettes are going to go down. It is not far to cross the border, either up in Lab West or certainly not down in the south, to go to a store on the other side of the border.

I am not going to take time to go through that whole analysis again because it has been done clearly by people, but I did want to add my voice to the discussion because I am quite unhappy to see the government, a government that says it believes in small business but then does nothing about it. That is what this government has to be seen for, saying one thing but doing another. If they really cared about small business they would not be doing this to the small retailers in Labrador. Having said that –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I think the point has been made clearly and I will be voting against this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, just in case there is anybody watching and they do not understand because they may have come in late, what we are discussing is a tax break that has been provided to –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: - small retailers in the communities in Labrador that are near the Province of Quebec, so that they are competitive with the retailers in Quebec. Prior to the tax break being offered, which was many years ago, more people were more likely to shop in Quebec, because Quebec with economies of scale and lower taxation on tobacco products, could simply undercut all of our tobacco retailers.

This is not about whether tobacco sales or cigarette sales is a health issue. It is purely and simply a tax break that was provided to –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: It was a tax break that was provided to these small businesses so they would be more competitive with their Quebec counterparts. When you consider who will be affected here, besides the businesses in Labrador West, being Labrador City and Wabush, you also have the communities in the southern coastal Labrador region from L'Anse au Clair nominally north to Red Bay.

Mr. Speaker, when you go from the Island across the Strait of Belle Isle you actually land in Quebec. You do not land in Labrador. You land in the Province of Quebec, and then you drive into Labrador, which is Newfoundland and Labrador. So the anomaly was for many people, that on one side of an imaginary, unseen line you will pay one price for a Canadian-produced tobacco product, and immediately on the other side of the line you pay a higher price. Clearly, consumers were motivated to go to the lower price place, and why would they not?

Mr. Speaker, this tax break has been around for decades. It has been supported by all parties, both governments. Everybody has supported it, including this government until today. This government is going to use their majority to take away this tax break to make these businesses in the Labrador communities that are adjacent to Quebec less competitive.

Now, if we look at the competition they face in any event. If you look at the communities in L'Anse au Clair, L'Anse-au-Loup, Forteau, and these communities, they already face competition from Quebec-based communities in Blanc Sablon, and further south from Blanc Sablon. If there are nightclub types of industries, first of all, Quebec tends to be open later than Newfoundland and Labrador businesses.

Furthermore, there is a one-and-a-half-hour time zone difference just by going across a simple line that you cannot even see. In the half-a-dozen kilometres from L'Anse au Clair to Blanc Sablon, the time changes by an hour and a half. So you can leave –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, you can leave when the bar closes in L'Anse au Clair at the Northern Light Inn and it might be 1:00 o'clock at night. If you go five kilometres away to Blanc Sablon, it will be 11:30 at night. They will stay open until 3:00 a.m., which is 4:30 o'clock. Hours-wise they are already more competitive.

The additional sales, it is not because tobacco sales and cigarette sales necessarily generate a lot of revenue. It is something that attracts buyers. People who come to small stores to buy cigarettes typically buy cigarettes, they buy lottery tickets, they buy beer, they buy milk, and they buy whatever they need. It is not the ten, fifteen or twenty cents that the retailer makes on a pack of cigarettes.

MR. O'BRIEN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I might mention to the Member for Gander, I can tell him that for many decades I have been involved in businesses that have sold tobacco products, and I still own one. I understand the concept. So he does not need to comment on my business background by way of convenience stores. In any event, the sales that will be lost to these small businesses are not just the sale of the cigarettes. What would be lost are all of the other sales.

Mr. Speaker, to give you an idea of the type of discrimination that our residents face versus Quebec-based businesses – and they do face discrimination, particularly in Southern Labrador and the Quebec North Shore. Many years ago in the 1970s, I was dealing with an individual who was one of my clients. He was in L'Anse au Clair and he had a Home Hardware store. In discussing with him I asked: how did you get into this business?

This is one of the businesses typically that would be affected by the loss of this tax break. He said: Well, for twenty years or so I worked for the Hudson's Bay store in Blanc Sablon and no way could I ever make manager. There was no way. Because I was not from Quebec, I could not get the promotion. I was from Newfoundland and Labrador. I could not get the promotion. Because I could not get the promotion, I came back here to L'Anse au Clair and I set up my own business.

Mr. Speaker, he was very, very successful. He made quite a bit of money. I think it was the Hudson's Bay store that was the loser. That demonstrates the type of discrimination our people face when they deal with the handful of border communities that are close to Quebec. There is no doubt that it is in Fermont, having done business in Wabush and in Lab City. We see it there.

What we have here today is a member of Cabinet who is not defending this position. It is a tax break that is going to be lost to all the small businesses in his community that are tobacco retailers.

We have another community in Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair where there is a by-election pending, and the political party that supports the government has not even been able to find a candidate for that by-election. Good luck to them in finding a candidate to contest that seat. If they are going to sell out these little retailers, they will give them absolutely nothing. Mr. Speaker, they do not have nerve enough to go up there and face the people, and now they are going to take away this tax break.

So, Mr. Speaker, it may be a very simple thing, but it is a small-minded miserly act by this government to simply take away the little bit of competitive advantage that fewer than three dozen of our small businesses had in competing with a bigger Quebec culture. This government has railed on and on and put us in hock for $8 billion or $10 billion for Muskrat Falls because they want to take a few kilowatts around Quebec, yet they sell out to Quebec on this basis.

They will sell out our small businesses and these small communities, and they are going to say: no, we are going to leave you to the wolves. We are going to let the Quebec retailers have at you, and we are going to abandon you and leave you.

Even though the Peckford government had vision enough to do it, the Wells government had vision enough to do it, the Tobin government, the Grimes government, and the Williams government had nerve enough to back up our retailers, but this government is going to take away that rebate. It is absolutely shameful and disgusting that they would do this to small businesses in the Labrador communities that border Quebec, and have the nerve to go back to the voters.

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 Revenue Administration Act No. 2. (Bill 4)

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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 on tomorrow. (Bill 4)

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment and Conservation, that the House do now adjourn.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

This House now stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow, Wednesday, being Private Members' Day.

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