December 11, 2012

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLVII No. 67

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to clarify a

statement that was made in the House of Assembly yesterday.

During Question Period, questions were asked regarding the environmental

cleanup of Abitibi properties. In my answer, I referenced land in Buchans area

that government did remediation work on that was not expropriated.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to leave the impression that we did not

expropriate land in Buchans because we certainly did, but prior to government's

expropriation of Abitibi properties the company sold land privately in the area

of Buchans. Government did not expropriate that property, Mr. Speaker, but we

did do the remediation work on that land, and that is the land that I was

referring to.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I said yesterday that I would provide a

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) admit strangers?

MR. SPEAKER: I am assuming there are no strangers to come in today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: I said yesterday that I would provide a ruling today on the

point of privilege that was raised by the Member for St. John's North. I will

share my comments with the House.

The Member for St. John's North has brought forward a point of privilege with

respect to the response by the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador to

the member's question on Bill 47. The member claims that the minister misled the

member and the House by implying that the member's question had been addressed

earlier in debate.

The debate on Bill 47, both in second reading and Committee of the Whole

occurred during the evening sitting of Tuesday, December 4. In raising his point

of privilege, the member indicated that he had "asked the Minister who he

consulted on Bill 47 and how he carried out any consultations."

The Member for St. John's North indicates that the minister responded by

effectively saying, "If you had been paying attention during discussions of the

Bill you would know that I discussed this."

Since yesterday both the video of last Tuesday night's proceeding and a draft

transcription of the relevant debate from Hansard has been reviewed. Hansard

indicates at the close of second reading

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members who are entering the gallery to do so quietly.

As I was saying, since yesterday both the video of last Tuesday night's

proceeding and a draft transcription of the relevant debate from Hansard has

been reviewed. Hansard indicates that at the close of second reading the

minister stated:

"One of the things I think is very important we clarify here is that all of

the appointments to all of these boards are done through consultation... We

consult with many of the professional agencies these boards represent... Each

board is consulted with before the appointments are made and we look to have

professionals sitting on these boards so that the professional, intelligent

decisions are made with each board."

Later, while in Committee of the Whole in responding to a question from the

Member for Burgeo La Poile, who asked specifically if the department had

consulted with the boards on the bill amendments, the minister stated: "It is a

very good question. My answer to that is that the department does consult with

the boards on a regular basis, and there were certainly consultations with these

amendments."

In the context of the member's point of privilege, I find that the minister

addressed the issue of consultation on appointments to the boards and that he

also indicated that there had been consultations with respect to the amendments

to the bill. The exact detail wished by the member may not have been given but

to say that the issue had not been addressed is incorrect.

I want to take some time, for the benefit of the House; in 2012, we have had

more Points of Privilege raised than we have over the past five years. I think

it is important for members to understand the whole issue of privilege, so I

want to make some further comments to guide members of the House as they raise

Points of Privilege in the future. I trust that these comments will enlighten

members with respect to points of order.

The volume of House of Commons Procedures and Practice , 2nd Edition,

edited by O'Brien and Bosc, is a compendium and a codification of parliamentary

law and precedence as it exists in Canada, and it applies and is frequently

referred to in this House.

Chapter 3 of O'Brien and Bosc deals with Privileges

and Immunities of the House. It cannot be referenced as a collection of random

statements. Members should not select a word or a sentence or a paragraph in

isolation to support or refute an argument that a valid Point of Privilege

exists. It must be read and understood in its entirety in order to properly

apply the concept of Privilege. In fact, if you study

chapter 3, it is evident

that true Points of Privilege are quite rare and are certainly serious matters.

In placing this issue before the House, the Member for St. John's North made

a reference to O'Brien and Bosc with respect to misleading statements and the

alleged breach of privilege. The member's argument raises two issues.

The first: whether, in fact, the minister failed to make the comments he

alluded to making. I just dealt with that issue.

The second issue is whether or not the member's allegation, if found to be

true, is in fact a matter of privilege. The member quotes from O'Brien and Bosc

as follows: "It is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted

as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation and as such

constitute prima facie cases of privilege. However, some matters found to

be prima facie include the damaging of a Member's reputation, the

usurpation of the title of Member of Parliament, the intimidation of Members and

their staff and of witnesses before committees, and the provision of misleading

information." Further, the member states: "Misleading a Minister or a Member has

also been considered a form of obstruction and thus a prima facie breach

of privilege."

The member's argument has been carefully reviewed.

The first quote can be found on page 111 of O'Brien and Bosc. The second is

at page 115. However, a key component of the context of these quotes has been

omitted. When one is citing a document or a source in this matter, care must be

taken that there is an understanding of the nature of what has been asked and to

ensure that the full rationale for an order, decision or precedent is made.

The Member for St. John's North quoted a sentence from page 115 of O'Brien

and Bosc. In the very next sentence, in the same paragraph, O'Brien and Bosc

makes a direct reference to the statement emanating from Speaker Jerome during

December 6, 1978. Speaker Jerome found that a prima facie case of contempt of

the House existed where a government official, by and this is the operative

word: "deliberately misleading the House, had impeded the Member in the

performance of his duties and consequently obstructed the House itself." And

further, at footnote 242 on that same page, with respect to another plan before

the House, Speaker Milliken "found no evidence to indicate that departmental

officials had deliberately intended to deceive or obstruct Members."

The citations made by the Member for St. John's North from page 111 and 115

cannot be taken in isolation. The explanatory footnotes, completion of

paragraphs, and discussion of privileges elsewhere in

chapter 3 are important.

When one considers that a contempt may also occur when the House is misled,

O'Brien and Bosc on page 83 refers to a 1999 UK Joint Committee on Parliamentary

Privilege which listed the kinds of contempt which may occur and included:

"deliberately" again the operative word "attempting to mislead the House

or a committee" On pages 85 and 86, further comments: "By far, most of the

cases of privilege raised in the House relate to matters of contempt challenging

the perceived authority and dignity of Parliament" It goes on to indicate

further: "the provision of deliberately misleading information by a minister"

will be contempt.

At footnote 128 on page 86 of O'Brien and Bosc, Speaker Milliken ruled that

the Minister of National Defence had deliberately made misleading statements in

the House and as a prima facie case of privilege and the matter was referred to

the Standing Committee on Procedures of the House Affairs. It was pointed out at

this Committee that as laid out in Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand ,

the following elements must be established to find a member in contempt for

deliberately misleading the House:

One, it must be proven that the statement was misleading;

Two, it must be established that the Member making the statement knew at the

time that the statement was incorrect; and

Three, in making the statement, the Member intended to mislead the House.

The Committee found, however, there was no evidence to support the allegation

that the Minister of National Defence had deliberately misled the House.

This is a very high bar for members to surmount in alleging a member had

misled the House. Our own House has also addressed this issue; Speaker Snow, on

April 30, 1999, with respect to an acknowledgement by the minister that he was

not sure that a statement had been made. Speaker Snow, stated, "If there was

some misrepresentation about the closing of the galleries it would have to be an

admitted, deliberate misrepresentation to be considered a matter of privilege."

Misleading statements are sometimes made unintentionally during debate.

Members often find themselves inadvertently making such statements and stand to

correct them. All precedents point to the fact that the word "misleading" is not

the issue and that the point of privilege or contempt can only exist where

statements are "deliberately misleading".

The Member for St. John's North has brought forward a claim of privilege, but

in trying to support it has not made a complete disclosure of the context in

which the rulings on the issue has been made with respect to the misleading

statements in the House. All hon. members must ensure that they understand and

clearly state the point being raised, and that it is supportable.

I ask members if they are raising points of privilege in the future in the

House, they might find it helpful and beneficial to read clearly the content of

Chapter 3 of O'Brien and Bosc, and particular note to the footnotes on each of

those pages. I ask members to be guided by this in the future as they raise

points of privilege in the House.

Before we start the members' statements, I want to acknowledge a special

guest in the public galleries. We have Ms Kandice Power, who is Miss Achievement

Newfoundland and Labrador. Welcome to our gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we have members' statements from the District of

Conception Bay East Bell Island; the Member for the District of Terra Nova;

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; and the Member

for the District of Kilbride.

The Member for the District of Conception Bay East Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand in this House today to acknowledge a remarkable young lady from my

district.

Kandice Power is an eighteen-year-old, undergraduate Business student from

Paradise. In November, she was crowned Miss Achievement Newfoundland and

Labrador. She also won the VOCM Cares Charitable Activity Award and the Talent

Award at the pageant, taking home $2,500 in scholarships.

Kandice is Holy Spirit High School's Valedictorian and Student of the Year,

as well as the recipient of the Humanitarian Award and the Eastern Education

Foundations Scholarship.

Kandice has been awarded more than $29,000 in scholarships for academics,

volunteering, and community leadership. This remarkable lady has been a leader

in community for years and serves as a role model for citizens of all ages.

She has been recognized as the youth of the year in her community for three

years and has taken a leadership role in such groups as Special Olympics, World

Vision, Students Against Drunk Driving, Gay Straight Alliance, McHappy Day,

Model United Nations, Tutoring for Tuition, and her community's Green Team. Her

accomplishments are a testament to her commitment to helping others.

I ask all members to join me in congratulating the accomplishments of this

young lady.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise today to recognize John Crisby. Mr. Crisby has an extensive resume of

serving both country and community.

After graduation, he joined the Canadian Armed Forces and would later be

posted in various locations across Canada, including CFS Alert, as well as being

posted in Germany.

After five years military service, he decided to leave the Forces and return

home where he would marry his wife, Carolyn.

In 1981, he again heard his calling and returned to the Forces. During that

time he completed a UN Peacekeeping Tour in Cyprus and returned to Germany for

the second time. In 1992, through the Force Reduction Plan he returned to

Eastport where he trained and practised as a barber.

Mr. Speaker, lo and behold, a few years later an opportunity came along to

join the Air Reserves, becoming a member of 91 st Construction

Engineering Flight Gander. Through that position he would be deployed throughout

Canada, the US, Europe, Middle East, and the Caribbean.

When he reached retirement age, he settled down in Eastport where he became

an active member of the Legion and Air Cadets, as well as other various

community organizations.

I ask all hon. members in joining me to thank Mr. Crisby for his dedicated

service.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. CORNECT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to congratulate

three constituents from the District of Port au Port that I recently had the

honour of presenting with the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal Award.

Stephenville Mayor Tom O'Brien received the Queen's medal for his many years

of volunteer service to the community through his involvement on numerous

committees and boards, such as the Western Health Care Corporation.

Major Henry Gaudon, CD3, retired, from Lourdes, received the Diamond Jubilee

making him a three-time recipient receiving the Queen's Silver, Golden and now

Diamond Jubilee medals for his forty-eight years of service in the Canadian

Forces.

Another recipient was Gunner Ignatius Flynn of West Bay, a dedicated and

distinguished World War II veteran. Mr. Flynn has also been an active member of

the Royal Canadian Legion for more than sixty years. Mr. Flynn is to be

commended for his service to our country and our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me in congratulating these

outstanding citizens in receiving the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. CROSS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in our hon. House today to recognize one of the newest chapters of

Special Olympics.

Steve Perry of New-Wes-Valley has volunteered with the Special Olympics for

four years, and he decided to take his interest to his hometown. There are

currently ten special athletes ranging in age from approximately ten to fifty

years old called the Bonavista North Polar Bears.

The group meets at the Badger's Quay Lions Club on Thursday evenings to take

part in bowling and other social events. They are accompanied by family members,

caregivers, coaches and volunteers

Recently, five members of the Polar Bears travelled to Gander to compete in

the Toyota Invitational Bowling Tournament hosted by the Gander Wings Special

Olympics.

Coach Perry said they were a little nervous bowling before a larger audience,

but after a few tries they quickly adjusted to the new surroundings, the heavier

ball and the longer lanes. The athletes representing the Polar Bears were

Madison Sheppard, David Knee, Dean Green, Wallace Winter and Travis Spurrell.

They proudly left Gander with silver medals and a big photo in The Beacon.

I invite all members to join me in congratulating these special athletes and

remembering Steve Perry saying, competition is secondary, we show up, that is

winning.

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 Jamie Korab on

receiving the Queen's Jubilee Medal. Mr. Korab was presented with the medal

recently in a ceremony at Government House for his contribution to sport, his

enthusiastic volunteerism and his continued dedication to his community.

Mr. Korab is an accomplished curler and has had tremendous success in his

sport. He was a member of the 2001 World Junior Curling Championship team and,

in 2006 he also won the Olympic Gold Medal in curling.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Korab's success and leadership in sport is paralleled with

his vast volunteer work. He has worked with schools across Newfoundland and

Labrador to encourage youth to pursue their goals and to follow their dreams. He

has extensive community involvement with not-for-profit organizations and

charities across the Province and throughout North America. He currently

volunteers with the Baccalieu Trail

Chapter of the Kidney Foundation and the

Kids Eat Smart Foundation which brings him into schools to promote healthy

eating.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Korab is truly an inspiring figure for our youth and I ask

all hon. members to join me in congratulating him on receiving the Queen's

Jubilee Medal.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I stand in this hon. House today to congratulate a

young constituent of Kilbride, Jeremy Cross, who recently was awarded the Young

Leader Award for Independent Living. Jeremy received this award for his work and

system and paving the way for others to access those systems more smoothly.

Jeremy is twenty-seven years old, living with cerebral palsy, confined to a

wheelchair, and unable to speak verbally. He uses an iPad eye gaze and facial

gestures to communicate with others. Jeremy has not let his disability hold him

back, and with the care and dedication of his parents, he was able to graduate

Grade 12 in 2003. He moved to St. John's in 2006, and today he is enrolled in a

therapeutic recreation course at Academy Canada, due to graduate in May, 2013.

Jeremy lives in Kilbride in his own apartment with assistance of personal

home care workers. He loves baseball and is a great Blue Jay fan. He has season

tickets to all IceCap games.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Jeremy on winning the

Young Leader Award for Independent Living and commending him on his dedication

and commitment.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to highlight the recent release of three new

resources that promote and support healthy eating and nutrition education in the

Province.

Healthy eating practices established in a child's early years set the

foundation for a healthy life. Children develop healthy eating habits under the

guidance of their parents and caregivers, so to assist parents, the Department

of Health and Community Services has developed the Healthy Eating for Your

Toddler guide. This guide provides answers to common questions about feeding

toddlers, and instructs parents and caregivers on how to use Canada's Food Guide

to plan healthy meals and snacks.

Copies of these guides are available to all parents of toddlers during the

regular twelve-month Child Health Clinic visit. Electronic copies are also

available on the Department of Health and Community Services' Web site and on

the Baby-Friendly Newfoundland and Labrador Web site.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to this guide, the provincial government has

developed two toolkits. Partnering with family resource centres and the regional

health authorities, the Healthy Baby Club Healthy Eating Toolkit and the Family

Resource Centre Healthy Eating Toolkit promote healthy eating for children up to

the age of six and their families. This user-friendly material assists family

resource centre staff to support and encourage participants to make good

nutritional choices.

These toolkits are available from regional nutritionists with each of the

four regional health authorities. Electronic copies are available on the

Department of Health and Community Services' Web site.

Mr. Speaker, this work was supported by the Provincial Wellness Grants

Program. Since the launch of the Provincial Wellness Grants Program in 2005, 211

community groups have received approximately $3.9 million to fund programs to

enhance wellness.

Healthy eating and child and youth development are identified as priority

areas within the Provincial Wellness Plan in which we invest $4.2 million

annually. Our government will continue to develop initiatives and strengthen the

supports available to the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador that help

create a supportive environment and allow us to take action to improve our own

health and wellness.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement. Educating people

on healthy eating is critical to addressing the exceptionally high rates of

chronic disease that we have in our Province. For example, we have the highest

rate of obesity as well as the highest diabetes rate in Canada. Both of these

are directly related to nutrition.

Telling people how to eat healthy is only part of the solution. Our food bank

usage is double the national average. Food donated to food banks is generally

full of preservatives, which is detrimental to people's health. The cost of food

is rising, with some food doubling in cost over the last four years.

In the more remote areas of the Province, access to healthy food is even more

limited. For example, the same baby formula that retails for $24.99 in St.

John's goes for $32.65 in Rigolet. Sadly, healthy eating is a luxury in our

Province.

In closing, education is part of the solution. Resourcing healthy eating is

the piece that we are missing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I too thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. These guides

and toolkits are good examples of how the Wellness Grants Program is being

utilized to provide good information to parents about healthy foods.

However, there is no way that low-income families, people in coastal areas,

and single people on Income Support can afford all the food recommended in these

resources. Community kitchens and meal programs in our schools do help children

and adults get some healthy meals. If people do not have enough money to put the

recommended healthy food on the table, all the toolkits in the world will not

make a difference.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation and

the Minister Responsible for the Office of Climate Change.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to give you an update on the great work being been done to

implement our Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Action Plans released in

2011. These plans established a strategic approach to climate change and energy

efficiency and set out government's vision and goals for the next five years for

adapting to climate change, increasing energy efficiency, and reducing

greenhouse gas emissions.

We have made great strides, such as meeting our greenhouse gas target for

2010 by reducing provincial emission levels below 1990 levels, while at the same

time, real economic growth increased by 63 per cent. We provided grants to

approximately 4,000 low-income homeowners to make their homes more energy

efficient, allowing them to save, on average, $775 per year on their home

heating costs. We launched a pilot Hurricane Alert Program in 2012-2013, under

which more than 4,700 storm forecasts were generated for forty communities,

including fifty-five flood alerts. We have also shown leadership by reducing

energy consumption and operating costs in government's own operations by

installing occupancy sensors in place lighting controls, upgrading fluorescent

fixtures, and procuring energy-efficient appliances, computers, and vehicles.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we launched the Province's first public campaign on

climate change and energy efficiency, Turn Back the Tide, receiving more than

9,200 visits to our campaign Web site in the first two and a half months. We

also commissioned an independent study on how we can increase jobs in the green

economy by 30 per cent by 2020, and are in active dialogue with businesses on

the next steps.

Mr. Speaker, this is just a brief overview of some of the important work

being done in this Province on these important issues. I am also delighted that

our efforts received national recognition in September when we won a Clean16

award for our outstanding work.

Without ongoing action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the

impacts of climate change, our communities will be at risk from adverse impacts

such as extreme weather events and coastal erosion. Mr. Speaker, there are also

significant opportunities such as utilizing our vast clean energy resources like

Muskrat Falls, enhancing energy efficiency, and improving our Province's

resilience. This is why we must ensure we are well placed to seize the

opportunities and minimize the risks associated with the transition to a

low-carbon global economy.

I look forward to the continued implementation of our action plans as we do

our part to help tackle climate change in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, we

all accept that climate change is no longer a theory; it is an ever-increasing

fact of life. Sadly, our federal government has backed out of the Kyoto

Protocol, which is a shame for a G8 country not to be taking the lead in climate

change combat.

Even in our own Province, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have focused enough

on efficiency. For example, the whole viability of the Muskrat Falls depends on

people not conserving energy. We are looking for new energy sources because we

are unable to conserve. Mr. Speaker, the taxpayer is footing the bill, so it is

a disincentive to conserve energy.

Mr. Speaker, while the Province has made great strides in recycling, we still

lack a glass recycling program, which has a considerable impact on our

environment. The rollout of the Waste Management Strategy has been piecemeal,

and the question remains: How do we encourage residents throughout the Province

to recycle? Recycling is a very important component to making this program

successful, Mr. Speaker.

This organization does good work, but I think it would do well for this

office to operate at arm's-length from the government from government's direct

involvement. Then, Mr. Speaker, I think we can see a significant forward

movement as we combat climate change that affects each and every one of us.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

today. I would like to inform government that there are more than 68,000

recipients of the Heating Rebate Program who would also be capable candidates

for home retrofits and this is a great place for the government to start a

savings per household that would equal close to 150 megawatts of electricity

from the Province's overall carbon footprint. We need more money directed to

retrofit for homes.

These initiatives, while small, add up, so government has much more work to

do before it can sleep on the carbon footprint issue. Witness these numbers on

carbon omissions: Terra Nova Project, 569,000 tons of carbon emissions; SeaRose,

394,000; Hibernia, 491,000; the Carol Lake Project in Labrador, Mr. Speaker, 1.1

million tons;

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: then we go on to North Atlantic Refining at 1 million tons.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: The total including something in the order of 4.1 million

tons of carbon emissions in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, thanks for his statement, but he has a

lot more work to do before we address this issue finally.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Two weeks ago the Premier signed a term sheet with Stephen Harper on the

federal loan guarantee for Muskrat Falls. The government has called the term

sheet a binding agreement. However,

section 4.4 of the agreement, Events of

Default, states it is "a non-exhaustive list"

I ask the Premier: How could you agree to include a non-exhaustive list on

what would trigger a default, allowing anything to be added to that list in the

future?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Lawyers and people from the Department of Natural Resources in our Province,

Nalcor, Emera, and Ottawa spent six months working on this agreement, Mr.

Speaker. There is no such thing as a perfect agreement, but this is a good

agreement. It states that it is binding and irrevocable. The Prime Minister of

Canada has given his commitment. Emera and Nova Scotia have given their

commitment. This agreement is a binding federal loan agreement. We do not expect

anything that will result in default, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: I ask the minister, if he has a commitment from the Prime

Minister that nothing else would be added to the so-called non-exhaustive list,

I have not seen it or it should not have been there.

The Premier has signed a term sheet that allows the federal government to

take control of Muskrat Falls assets in the event of a default. She has also

given Stephen Harper control of what is considered a default, allowing them to

add to this list.

How could you decide to sanction the project when you do not even have a full

list of the default events?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the member opposite is well aware, in commercial agreements you have all

kinds of standard clauses and conditions. Precedents are not unusual, Mr.

Speaker. In fact, they are rather standard.

There is only going to be one issue of default here, Mr. Speaker. It is if

the people of this Province and the other energy is not used or not paid for. We

know and the federal government has gone through an exhaustive financial audit

of this project, as have the bond rating agencies, Mr. Speaker that this asset

will produce revenue. The Province will make a lot of money off this project at

some future point in order to not only to pay for the project but to pay for

social programs and to allow us to transition from a non-renewable resource

economy to a renewable resource economy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, the member opposite knows that without the list completed there are

many things that can happen. This needs to be firmed up in my opinion, Mr.

Speaker.

The Premier signed this deal and is ploughing ahead with billions in spending

of taxpayers' money. On top of that, the Minster of Finance will have some bad

news for the Province this week with the midyear update, but spending on Muskrat

Falls has already ramped up. In September it was $35 million and in October it

was $28 million.

I ask the Premier: How much was spent in November?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I do not have the November number. I

remember it being approximately $38 million in October. What we have done, Mr.

Speaker, we have slowed down the process in terms of the sanction. I can tell

the member opposite that no further monies have been released from my department

until a decision on sanction is made.

Let us not forget one good thing, Mr. Speaker: yesterday I was at a

conference where I can tell you the people in that room, from all across this

country, would love to be doing business here in Newfoundland and Labrador

today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: I sat at a table where there were three other ministers who

would love to have a Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: I guess every province would love to have a Muskrat Falls

Project as long the ratepayers in Newfoundland are going to pay for it.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier said she is considering new legislation to ensure

that government does not get stuck with another bill for an environmental

cleanup, for future environmental cleanups. Since this process actually started

in 1999, why has it taken a decade to figure out the legislative changes that

would be required to prevent this from happening again?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have a long, sad history in this Province of cleaning up

messes after companies have come here and used our resources, taken the profits

from those resources, Mr. Speaker, and vanished. I only need refer to Baie

Verte, Mr. Speaker, where we have had to clean up the mess

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Yes, Sprung is not a bad example.

Mr. Speaker, there are mines in Labrador and in Hopedale, where, in fact,

governments have been responsible, and fish plants falling down, and it was

because at the time that these industries were started in the Province, we did

not have the foresight to put the kind of arrangements in place to ensure that

when companies left they provided for remediation. We will take care of that on

a go-forward basis, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, well, the process, as I said, started in 1999 to

take care of the mining activity. My question was: why is it taking a decade to

prevent what happened in Grand Falls-Windsor from reoccurring.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Premier about the cost to settle with

Fortis, about the energy assets that were expropriated in the Abitibi

expropriations.

I did not get the answer, so I will ask it again: What is the status of the

Fortis negotiations and how much more money will the taxpayers of this Province

be on the hook for?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The last update I had, discussions were ongoing and almost finalized. I will

undertake to find out from my deputy minister this afternoon whether or not the

numbers have been finalized, Mr. Speaker. I think they are either recently done

or very close, so I will get back to the member as soon as I have the answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, another question that I asked yesterday was

related to the court costs about the expropriation of Abitibi. What I am looking

for, we did not get the answer yesterday.

I would like to know what the updated court cost is for the three court cases

that we have had so far related to the expropriation of Abitibi in Grand

Falls-Windsor?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are gathering information on those costs. As soon as that

information is collated we will provide it, Mr. Speaker.

Let me get back to his point in his last question, Mr. Speaker, about the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador being on the hook to Fortis. Mr. Speaker,

when we did the expropriation both leaders of the two parties opposite were told

that we intended to keep the private operators of the water generation assets on

the Exploits River whole. They were going to get fair market value for their

asset, Mr. Speaker. So they will, one has already, the other is in the process,

Mr. Speaker.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are not on the hook, Mr. Speaker. We bought

an asset at fair market value.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We already know the question to the Premier is: How much are you going to

settle for, and what is it going to cost us? Mr. Speaker, the Minister of

Natural Resources had a press conference on Bill 53, the amendments to the

Electrical Power Control Act today.

I ask the minister: Will these changes in Bill 53 impact the way rates are

currently set for residential and commercial customers in Labrador's integrated

hydro system?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the member opposite is aware, the new industrial rates policy is necessary

to allow for mining companies in making their decisions of whether or not to

proceed. The industrial rates policy has two components for the industrial

customers. The generation component is outside the PUB, transmission costs are

set by the PUB, Mr. Speaker.

The commercial and residential customers will still go through the PUB. There

will be no increased cost other than if there was new transmission built, then

there would be cost to service as is and that would go through the PUB also,

Mr. Speaker. So, they would still go through the PUB.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, government will negotiate power purchase agreements in Labrador

with industrial customers on the rate of power generation.

I ask the minister: Will these agreements favour companies that choose to do

secondary processing in Labrador? For example, will a company that mines 20

million tons of iron ore and has secondary processing get a more favourable rate

than the company that mines 20 million tons of iron ore and ships it out of the

Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we are doing is taking the TwinCo block of power, the 225 megawatts, Mr.

Speaker, which expires in 2015; we are calling that the development block. There

will be a lower rate. We combine that, Mr. Speaker, with the market block or new

power, either recalled power or Muskrat Falls, and come up with one rate, Mr.

Speaker. That one rate will have the generation and transmission costs. So, it

will be the same for all companies it is one of the reasons we are doing this

on the interconnected grid.

One of the reasons we are doing this, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that

companies are treated fairly, but also we know that we have to remain

competitive with Quebec. We have several other companies that are not on the

grid and there may have to be discussions with them, but our intention is to

post one rate that will be applicable to all; however, Wabush Mines and IOC will

be phased in over a period of time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister would know the purpose of my question is because some processing

is done by currently based companies,

whereas new companies are not proposing to

do the same, at the same rate at least.

Mr. Speaker, what is interesting in Bill 53 is that government is now giving

the Public Utilities Board a role in industrial energy rates in Labrador; yet,

they have said they have no confidence in the Public Utilities Board and they

are removing them from having anything to do with rate setting of Muskrat Falls

power.

I ask the minister: Why do you see the Public Utilities Board as being good

enough to be involved in industrial rates in Labrador, which we feel is a good

thing, but not good enough to set the Muskrat Falls power rates, which we see as

not such a good thing?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we are doing with the industrial customers in Labrador is what is being

done on the Island, Mr. Speaker. There is a role for the PUB to play. The PUB

will still play the role in terms of the residential and commercial customers in

Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

In relation to the Muskrat Falls, and we will discuss this more when the bill

comes in, there has to be a revenue stream, a guaranteed revenue stream. The

federal loan guarantee is worth more than $1 billion to us and that is one of

the conditions that we require, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, what we will do, we will

still go there will still be a role for the PUB; however, Mr. Speaker, it will

not be the same role as they would otherwise have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On September 21, the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills committed to

do an investigation into the activities of the MHA for Conception Bay East

Bell Island as it related to his involvement with the Adult Basic Education

Program that was receiving provincial government funding.

I ask the minister today, if the report has been completed and if it will be

made public?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SHEA: Mr. Speaker, some concerns regarding the Adult Basic Education

Program surfaced in the last few months. We have done some work, a review within

the department, and within the next day or two I will be able to speak further

about that particular review.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, while they claim to be open and transparent,

the hallmark of this government is its secrecy. Yesterday, I questioned the

Minister of Education on the secrecy sanctioned by this government where school

board trustees are permitted to vote in secret on school closures.

I ask the minister: Given that these officials are elected by the people to

represent them, will he not agree that this voting process is unethical and from

the dark ages, and will he mandate that school trustees' votes are openly

recorded?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I often wonder where the member is coming from, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ontario.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes, I am wondering if it is Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday he put out a piece of information that was not true.

On two previous occasions, around busing, he put out something that lacked all

the facts I will put it that way. In terms of a school climate survey, he put

out some things that simply were not true.

Mr. Speaker, these school board officials certainly do not take these

decisions lightly. They have been engaged in a process now for about nine

months. They have consulted. They have recognized the input from MHAs, such as

for Trinity North and for Placentia St. Mary's, and MHAs have made their views

known. I have no intention of interfering with that process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before I acknowledge the Member for St. Barbe, I ask the

Minister of Education if he would withdraw his unparliamentary comment, with

respect to the untruths.

MR. JACKMAN: Withdrawn, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Office of Public Engagement was set up by this government only a few

short months ago to supposedly increase access to information.

I ask the minister: Will he show the rest of his colleagues how the openness

and transparency concept works, and rescind the order where votes on school

board closures can take place in secret?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member is headed down the

road whereby we take authority from elected officials. We want this process to

be non-political. Look at the schools that are in question, they are not in the

Liberal or NDP districts, Mr. Speaker. We are acting and the boards are acting

responsibly, and we will allow them to continue that process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the Special Child Welfare Allowance helps families offset some

of the costs of caring for a child with a disability. The Department of Health

and Community Services is responsible for reviewing that program every three

years. That review is now two years late.

I ask the minister: When will you review and update the program?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have that question because that is something we are

in the process of doing right now. We have been working on that for several

months, and I would be happy to update the House and the member opposite when we

have completed that review.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: The minister could have just said soon or very, very

soon, I guess.

Mr. Speaker, we have been in contact with another family with a toddler with

a severe disability requiring twenty-four hour care. The father works in Fort

McMurray, the mother works full time, but the child hardly sleeps and the mother

hardly sleeps.

They receive fifty hours of home care per week leaving virtually no time to

shower, house clean or attend parent support groups. Parents of children with

disabilities in this Province are suffering complete burnout trying to make ends

meet.

I ask the minister: Will you commit to meeting with parents in these

situations prior to updating the Special Child Welfare Allowance Program?

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 is an issue that we take very, very seriously. Whenever I

have had requests to meet, I certainly, if I can possibly do it at all, will

meet. If not, I will have officials in my department meet. Mr. Speaker, that

door is always open.

I have extended that invitation to other members and to other people who have

brought forward their concerns and I am really happy to be able to offer that

service. Any time you have a concern like that, bring it forward, we are happy

to sit down and discuss it all. We want to know all the details as we

reformulate policy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo La Poile.

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

I appreciate the answer from the minister. A parent of a child with a severe

disability made an appeal for home care when she was restricted to bed rest on

her second pregnancy. Apart from risking miscarriage to care for her first

child, she was given the option of surrendering the child to foster care.

I ask the minister: When will the government refocus its programs and

policies to empower families and keep them together?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of concerns around special child welfare and

each one of them is individual; therefore, we have to evaluate each one of them

on an individual basis. The issues that are brought to us are often different

from one situation to the next. That is something that we are looking at.

Again, in the overall review that we are doing around special child welfare,

those are issues that we need to hear about in more detail. I invite the member

opposite to bring me those concerns and we will certainly sit down and examine

those as we re-evaluate that particular policy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

According to Bill 53, to be discussed today in this House, the Public

Utilities Board will apply to most transmission lines and related assets in

Labrador while excluding those that are part of the Muskrat Falls Project. The

PUB will not apply to lines or the setting of transmission rates for Muskrat

Falls.

I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Why is her government exempting electricity

transmission related to Muskrat Falls from the Public Utilities Board?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: I think the Opposition House Leader asked the same question

recently, Mr. Speaker, and I guess I will give the same answer again.

Mr. Speaker, the PUB has a role to play in terms of the industrial rates in

Labrador. They will set transmission rates. Mr. Speaker, the generation rate

will be set by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro based on a policy. The PUB will

continue to set rates, Mr. Speaker, for residential and commercial customers in

Labrador as they do on the Island.

Mr. Speaker, we need a guaranteed revenue stream in order to assure the bond

rating agencies and the federal government that there is going to be monies to

satisfy the requirements of paying the project. It is as simple as that. So,

therefore, there has to be a restricted role of the PUB.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Let's try it another way, Mr. Speaker. It is incredibly

ironic that the government sees fit to solidify the Public Utilities Board's

role in setting industrial rates for mining corporations in Labrador but not for

the protection of the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier again: Why is her government giving mining

companies more protection than the people of the Province who are going to foot

the bill for Muskrat Falls?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have answered this question time and time and time again in

this House of Assembly. It is nothing short of incredible. Not that we should

not be asked hard questions, Mr. Speaker, and put forward the answers, and if we

have to do that a number of times before people understand, so be it, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, isn't it interesting that the Province through the development

of Muskrat Falls not only provides the most stable and lowest-cost rates to

ratepayers here in the Province, enables industrial development in Labrador, but

will earn over $20 billion for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador over the

lifetime of the project, and not one question on that, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I am just asking the Premier, why is this

government so obsessed with keeping the Public Utilities Board out of the

Muskrat Falls Project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, some time ago the Liberal Administration exempted hydro projects

of this size from the PUB's jurisdiction. The government is a regulator, too,

Mr. Speaker. They like to shout across the way that it was only for the Lower

Churchill and that power was for export. That is not so, Mr. Speaker. It was

also for a hydro power project here on the Island. Those are the facts of it.

Mr. Speaker, what we did, we did what the Liberals refused to do. We did try

to bring this project under the scrutiny of the PUB. Over nine months and over

$2 million later, they would not give us a recommendation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the Premier to say as she did yesterday that we could only lose the

Muskrat Falls generation facility if people do not pay their light bills is

nonsense. Cost overruns, on the other hand, do pose a very real threat.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why will she not own up to the fact that cost

overruns could put the Muskrat Falls Project into the hands of Emera?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The only nonsense we hear day after day comes from the Leader of the Third

Party, Mr. Speaker. If she would take the time to try to understand the project,

then perhaps she would not ask these silly questions, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: What we have is a situation where we have a project that is

in the best interests of the people of this Province. It will provide stable

electricity rates and water will run for 100 years, Mr. Speaker. People have to

pay electricity bills. Therefore, is it better that the money goes to oil

companies offshore or is it better that we develop an asset of our own, Mr.

Speaker, which will allow for a prosperous and bright future for our children,

and an asset that we will have forever?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

The Premier knows as I do that she opened the door to privatization when she

signed the federal loan guarantee that included

section 4.11.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: What else did her government give up to Emera

besides this out clause?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, in their desperation to show that

Muskrat Falls is not in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, they are clutching at straws.

Mr. Speaker, what is their alternative? What is the alternative? Mr. Speaker,

they talk about the cost of the project, so one can assume I guess from that

they agree that there is a need for the power. Mr. Speaker, there is a $2.4

billion difference between Muskrat Falls and the next least-cost alternative,

which is Holyrood.

Mr. Speaker, if there are going to be cost overruns on one, there is going to

be cost overruns on the other. Because the other is more expensive, the cost

overruns will be greater, Mr. Speaker. She is not making any sense.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Municipalities in the Province are currently doing their budgets, the latest

being the City of St. John's, who yesterday had to lower mill rates, but at the

same time still go after taxpayers to cover their additional costs. The minister

is on record all last session saying that his department was working towards a

new funding formula, but still has not delivered on that promise.

As predicted, taxpayers are now getting the bill to meet the municipal need.

Will the minister please tell the taxpayers, especially of the City of St.

John's, why they should have to carry the load rather than the Province meeting

the commitment financially with the new funding arrangement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: The first thing I would like to say to the hon. member, Mr.

Speaker, is that there is only one taxpayer in this Province and that is the

taxpayers of the Province. When you tax, whatever level of government it is, it

comes from the same pocket, I say to the hon. member.

In the meantime, we have had some productive meetings with MNL to date, and

both parties agree and certainly understand that a formula has to be equitable,

it has to sustainable, and it has to be transparent. We are working towards that

and we are working with municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador. If you

would engage with municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador, you would fine

that out, I say to the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: The minister knows darn well that we have been consulting

with municipalities and he knows as well that we have suggested a portion of the

provincial gas tax to that end.

Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to helping municipalities with

their budgetary requirements

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: but have not delivered on those commitments yet.

The City of St. John's delivered their budget yesterday and rolled back mill

rates to absorb the shock of rising municipal taxes.

A question for the minister: If everyone in St. John's has to pay their

taxes, why doesn't government pay their fair share of taxes on properties and

services that it takes from the city?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, over the last number of years we have invested

heavily with regard to municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, there is a member drifting on the other side

again, but anyway, I will go on with my answer.

We have been investing in municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador heavily

since 2008 as a matter of fact, $280 million over the last couple of years,

Mr. Speaker. A fair bit of that is in the municipality, the City of St. John's.

Yes, I understand quite well in regards to the challenges that the City may

have, but there is, again, only one taxpayer in this Province, and whoever taxes

them goes straight to their pockets, I say to the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, a new literacy study shows that the gap between

the reading achievement of boys and girls in Newfoundland and Labrador is the

largest in Canada. As a result, fewer boys than girls are completing high school

academic programs and more boys are dropping out of school.

Why has the minister failed to help teachers and parents close the gap

between boys' and girls' reading performance?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased with the results that came

out in terms of how our students are doing at the Grade 4 level. They have

scored on par with Canadian averages, Mr. Speaker, better than internationally.

Recognized within that is the challenge that boys are struggling. It has been

something that has been constant if we could say that, Mr. Speaker for a

number of years. It has been recognized, and efforts are put in towards that. Do

not underestimate our investment in this; we have the best teacher-student ratio

in this country, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: We have increased our per capita funding, Mr. Speaker, to

teacher allocations; 822 additional teachers are remaining in the system because

of our continued commitment to the needs-based formula

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, students in this Province are less likely than

others in Canada to read when they are out of school. While public libraries are

critical to improving family literacy, we have fewer libraries in Newfoundland

and Labrador compared to the 1990s.

Why is government failing to invest in new public libraries when they are

such a crucial resource for families with young children?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: I am quite glad; it seems that something has finally sunk in

to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am waiting for the day for the gentleman to rise and applaud

government for their $4.8 million investment into early childhood education,

because, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I am echoing, what he just said. We

recognize that there are places that we have invest outside the school, and the

zero-to-three age is exactly where we put $4.8 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The member has time for one quick question without

preamble.

MR. KIRBY: When will the minister stop blaming parents and seriously look

at the need for more public libraries across the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The minister has time for one quick answer.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the most disgusting questions I

have ever received. Parents are our most important partners in education, Mr.

Speaker. We recognize it and we invest in it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for St. John's Centre, on a point of order.

MS ROGERS: I understand that props are not allowed in this House and the

hon. member across the floor has raised his huge calculator, yet again.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, to the point of order.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure if there is a point of order. I would ask, for your ruling, that

the member be more specific, instead of making a blanket statement of thirty-odd

members in the House on a point of order. I am certain that every member here

does not have a calculator to raise in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's Centre, further to the point of

order.

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for Conception Bay South once again raised his oversized

calculator, not only today but last week as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: I understand that props are not allowed to be used in the

House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, it is my recollection that the member referenced

in a point of order was not recognized to speak in this House at any point in

time during Question Period. It is my understanding, subject to your response,

Mr. Speaker, that

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KING: If the Member for St. John's North wants to contribute, he can

stand up after me, Mr. Speaker, but I am entitled to respond.

It is my understanding that the ruling on props is tied into a member who is

participating in the debate in the House. As I said, it is my recollection that

the member was not recognized to speak in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The issue with respect to props when members are speaking,

they are not intended to use props. Sometimes, reference to props in the House

tends to be used when members are speaking and they use props to support an

argument; however, it is not exclusively to those members who are speaking.

Members are not allowed to bring in placards or large displays, or

promotional brochures and buttons and things like that that have not been

sanctioned by the House. Any display of anything that is considered

unparliamentary is still not to be used in the House, even though the member may

not necessarily be speaking at the time.

If members of the House are doing such a thing, I would ask members to

refrain from such an activity and I would ask members to be guided by that.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To

Amend The Enduring Powers Of Attorney Act. (Bill 56)

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To

Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act. (Bill 57)

With apologizes, Mr. Speaker, the previous notice was Bill 56, I do not think

I said that in my notice.

MR. SPEAKER: Duly noted.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will move that the House, according to Standing Order

11, will not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, December 13, 2012 and I also give

notice that the House will not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock on Thursday, December

13, 2012.

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

Petitions.

Petitions

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 and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of

the undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS with declining enrolment, distance education by Internet is now an

accepted way to deliver educational services to students living in small

communities; and

WHEREAS students have little to no say in where they or their families

reside; and

WHEREAS many families do not have the ability to relocate so their children

can access educational opportunities in larger centres; and

WHEREAS many small businesses rely on the Internet to conduct business; and

WHEREAS high-speed Internet permits a business to be more competitive than

does slower dial-up service; and

WHEREAS no high-speed Internet service exists in the community of Eddie's

Cove West; and

WHEREAS there are no plans to offer high-speed Internet to residents of this

community;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the

House of Assembly to urge government to partner with the private sector and

offer high-speed Internet service to this community.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a small community of maybe fifty people or so,

approximately twenty kilometres north of the Town of Port au Choix. It is a

vibrant, tiny community. It has a local service district. It manages its own

affairs. A number of people work in different communities; some work in the

fishery. They feel that they are being left behind in a modern era when

high-speed Internet is seen, as one time we saw telephones. Not very long ago

having a telephone was a luxury. Today, we will see having a telephone as being

an absolute necessity, land lines, cellphones and so on.

Not very long ago nobody had television. Then we had television, now people

have satellite television. This small community is pleading with this House of

Assembly to urge government to include them in the Internet strategy that this

government claims to have where it says it will hook up the entire Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I have a petition. To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS residents of the Southwest Coast must travel the Trans-Canada Highway

between Channel-Port aux Basques and Corner Brook for work, medical,

educational, and social reasons; and

WHEREAS Marine Atlantic ferries dock at Channel-Port aux Basques at various

hours on a daily basis resulting in extremely high volume of commercial and

residential travellers using this

section of the Trans-Canada Highway; and

WHEREAS the world-renowned Wreckhouse area is situate along this

section of

the TCH; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador initiated a twenty-four

hour snow clearing pilot project in 2008 that excluded that

section of the TCH

from Channel-Port aux Basques to Stephenville;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the

House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to include

the

section of the Trans-Canada Highway from Channel-Port aux Basques to

Stephenville in the twenty-four hour snow clearing project.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition that I have brought a couple of times now

since I first started it. The response that I have received from my constituents

and people outside my district even is overwhelming. It is something that I put

What I have had is constituents writing and telling me how much they need

this and want this. In fact, I had a video posted on my Facebook at 5:01 this

morning of somebody in my district who had to drive to Deer Lake this morning

and drive through a snowstorm. I actually got to watch what they had to

experience. It is not a surprise. I have experienced it a number of times

myself. This is something that we need and that is necessary. We have had a

number of accidents on that road.

We have a lot of commercial traffic coming off the ferries in Port aux

Basques at all hours of the day and night. The fact is that no matter what time

they come in, the trucks are off the road at 9:00 o'clock at night, no matter

what the weather is, and they are off again until 5:00 o'clock in the morning.

We still have people who have to use those highways day and night, seven days a

week, 365 days a year. It is not acceptable.

I have a suitcase full of these petitions brought back with me. I have people

from Port aux Basques, from Cape Ray they are from Nova Scotia. I have

truckers who are signing this petition because they all want the same treatment

that they should get. It is one of the busiest routes in this Province. We need

to apply common sense, just not volume to it. The fact is we have a lot of

people who are not used to this area of the roadway coming off there. The

traffic is congested and we have the Wreckhouse area there as well.

This needs to be recognized, and I am hoping that the government will heed

the call and make this service available to this

section of the roadway.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS ROGERS: 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 humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS with the passage of Bill 29, the Access to Information and Protection

of Privacy (Amendment) Act, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has

weakened citizens' access to information and has reduced government

transparency; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has moved towards greater

secrecy and less openness; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is breaking its own

commitment for greater transparency, accountability and freedom of information

which it said at one time was the hallmark of its government;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the

House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to repeal

the passage of Bill 29.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, again, we continue to get people signing this petition. The

people of the Province are not happy, they are not happy at all. They feel

actually betrayed by the passage of Bill 29. People across the Province are

still reeling from the fact that this very regressive bill has been both

introduced to the House and then passed by the House.

One of the particular concerns at this point is the weakened role of the

Privacy Commissioner. Where once he had the authority and he had the mandate to

review responses, there are whole areas of responses now that he cannot even

review. What happens then is that people will have to go to court, which is a

cumbersome and expensive, and time-consuming process.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner and the role of the Privacy

Commissioner have been weakened by the very fact that his term of office is two

years instead of five years, which is a golden standard across the country for

Privacy Commissioners. This legislation is very unfortunate. The people of the

Province do not like it and people are still opposing it.

One of the aspects that is particularly concerning is: What happens now if

Nalcor goes over budget with Muskrat Falls? Will there be any access to the

information as to what has happened and why has it happened? How will the people

of the Province have access to information that is so crucial to Muskrat Falls,

particularly at a time when we need so much more openness, transparency and

accountability? The people of the Province were relying on this government to

honour its commitment to that kind of democracy and this government has failed

in that. This government has betrayed the people by not honouring its

commitment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, 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 the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities is the entity

responsible for the regulation of electrical utilities in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the Muskrat Falls Project proposal is potentially the single-largest

expenditure the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has considered; and

WHEREAS the PUB is an independent, quasi-judicial regulatory body capable of

providing an unbiased and apolitical decision on the Muskrat Falls proposal; and

WHEREAS government is breaking its own commitment to greater transparency and

accountability by not allowing the PUB to review the Muskrat Falls proposal;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the

House of Assembly to urge government to mandate the Board of Commissioners of

Public Utilities to review the Muskrat Falls Project proposal along with any and

all alternatives available for meeting our energy needs.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to get these petitions from people who will not give

up telling this government what it thinks about the fact that the PUB will not

be covering the Muskrat Falls Project. It is a major concern that they have and

I am sure they are not going to be very happy about the fact that today we have

a bill coming into this House we actually have the first bill saying that

the PUB will not have any regulation over Muskrat Falls when it comes to the

transmission lines and the rates in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I think these words speak for themselves, that the people of the

Province want greater transparency and accountability, and without the PUB

regulating Muskrat Falls they do not know where that transparency and

accountability is going to come from.

They are not going to give up letting me know that they want me to stand in

this House and let the government know that they are not happy with what is

going on. They recognize the PUB as the regulatory body that it is, as the body

that does have the mandate to take care of rates, to take care of the people of

the Province, to make sure that the rates that they have to pay are rates that

are fair, that are just, and that are affordable for the people of the Province.

What they see happening is all of that getting out of control, Mr. Speaker.

Once again I ask this House to listen carefully to the words of the people of

the Province who continue to call for the PUB to be in charge of the Muskrat

Falls Project.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, we will go to Order 3, third reading of Bill 51.

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

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Service Newfoundland and

Labrador, that Bill 51,

An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997, be now

read the third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a

third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 51 be read a

third time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997. (Bill 51)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that

the bill do pass and the title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997", read a

third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 51)

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

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and

Skills, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Provincial

Offences Act, Bill 55, and I further move that the said bill be now read the

first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of Advanced

Education and Skills have leave to introduce Bill 55 it appears on the Order

Paper on number 3

An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act, Bill 55, 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 55 and that the said bill now be 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 Advanced Education and Skills to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act", carried. (Bill 55)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act. (Bill 55)

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

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. KING: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 55 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow

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

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The City Of

St. John's Municipal Taxation Act, Bill 54, 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

Tourism, Culture and Recreation shall have leave to introduce a bill,

An Act To

Amend The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act, Bill 54, 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 54 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 Tourism, Culture and Recreation to introduce

a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act",

carried. (Bill 54)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation

Act. (Bill 54)

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

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. KING: Now, with leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, if the minister has leave?

With leave.

On motion, Bill 54 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently,

by leave.

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

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Government House Leader,

that Bill 54,

An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act, be

read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 54,

An Act To Amend The

City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's

Municipal Taxation Act". (Bill 54)

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly a pleasure today to stand and speak to Bill 54, and introduce

Bill 54,

An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act, Mr.

Speaker. I would like to tell why we are here and why we are at this point

today, if at all possible.

Actually, Mr. Speaker, this act and this adjustment to the act was requested

by the City of St. John's. They asked us to amend this act basically to increase

what we refer to as a tourism marketing levy from what today is currently 3 per

cent to 4 per cent, Mr. Speaker. There is certainly a rationale for that. It has

to do with the expansions of the St. John's Convention Centre and the piece they

want to add on and we want to add on with them collectively.

Mr. Speaker, the St. John's Convention Centre was built in 2001. At that

time, the three levels of government came together for the construction. It was

partnered with the City of St. John's, the federal government, and of course the

provincial government of the day. At that time, in 1998, it was determined that

a 3 per cent marketing levy would be established to help with the cost of that

beautiful facility.

Mr. Speaker, as life goes on, Destination St. John's was created to help

market the city and to help manage the facility, along with the city. Of recent

years, Destination St. John's took on a consulting contract to do an analysis of

the centre to see what was needed, how it was doing, and how we were making out.

Of course, the market demand was significant and it was quickly realized that

there was a demand for expansion.

There were a couple of points they found out about the current centre. That

it was too small was one of the pieces, and the other one was how it was

configured. In today's world, different things are needed when you host

conventions. It is significant to note the amount of people who like to come to

St. John's for conventions, and we have been some great hosts, Mr. Speaker.

There were a number of things and a number of challenges in the way the

current facility is. One of them, of course, the lack of a ballroom was one of

the things. The lobby was too small for hosting receptions before major events.

There were functional limitations, Mr. Speaker, such as loading and access to

the main areas. There was poor connectivity to the local Delta hotel.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, it was just overall upgrades needed for the facilities.

So, based on that contract with the consulting firm, they came up with its

partners Destination St. John's, the City of St. John's, and the industry in

general and figured that what we needed was to take the current footprint of a

little over 18,000 square feet and bring it up quite significantly to a facility

of 34,000 square feet of rentable space. The initial cost on that was about $48

million. That was a rough figure at the time. It was just some of the basic

things that were needed to bring the facility up in extra square footage.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that at the time, they approached the Province

and approached the federal government as well, and the Province stepped up with

a significant investment of $14.4 million to be a partner with the City of St.

John's and the federal government to fund that beautiful facility.

Mr. Speaker, in 2012 there was a new architectural contract let. It was

determined at the time that there was more engineering work to be done.

Certainly by today's standards there had to be something to catch people's eye,

which meant something as simple as bringing the outdoors as close to the inside

as possible. Of course, in the City of St. John's there is nothing more

beautiful than looking over the harbour and the quaintness of our city.

It was decided at that time that we would have to incorporate more things

like glass, Mr. Speaker, and different things that add to a green environment,

but also gives people a better feel for our city. When I say our city, although

I am not from St. John's, Mr. Speaker, it is our city. It is our capital city

and it is one that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should be very proud of.

Mr. Speaker, let me also point out that the competition for conventions

throughout our country is unbelievable, and we are in a very fortunate

situation, Mr. Speaker. Actually, I just recently read an article, and they

looked at twenty destinations across the country and some of the big hitters

when it comes to conventions. Mr. Speaker, the City of St. John's and our

Convention Centre ranked sixth. I thought that was remarkable, considering the

places that you have to go in this beautiful country, for us to be sixth in a

long list of conventions.

There are different levels of conventions and I will not get into them

and it is based on the size of facilities. We are basically a level three, I

think, they have us graded. We do not have facilities of over 140,000 or 150,000

square feet, like some of our competition would. It was significant.

When you are in the top half a dozen, when you are looking at places like

Quebec City, Whistler, Alberta resorts, it is no harm to say we are competing

with the big guys and when you play ball in the big leagues, you have to be able

to deliver. That is something I am very proud to say that we have been able to

do.

This expansion, Mr. Speaker, right now the Convention Centre gets about 104

days of activity, 104 nights of activity per year. This looks like it will give

us about 197 days of activity, which has significant impact to the City of St.

John's, not only to the City of St. John's but also to the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I just mentioned the competition, where there are other

facilities in the process of being built. Some significant facilities being

built in Fredericton, in Prince Edward Island; in Moncton, for example, they are

building on a piece. I wish them well certainly, but obviously this is a very

competitive business and we are not going to be left behind when it comes to

competing in the Atlantic region or the national or international region when it

comes to hosting and being good hosts and having the facilities to do so.

Mr. Speaker, the other side, if we do not move ahead with this levy and allow

for extra revenue to come in, now the facility that was $48 million is gone to

$64 million, we came to a conclusion that the best way to get the extra revenue

the City of St. John's came to us and said let us increase our levy from 3 per

cent to 4 per cent. I think the levy currently collects about $2.2 million. This

will give them $3.2 million annually and allow them the ability to pay off the

facility and the extra money it is going to cost to build it.

Mr. Speaker, without this investment, they believe that it could be a 20 per

cent reduction in the amount of activity here in the city. Certainly, that is

not somewhere we want to go. A 20 per cent reduction would mean 3,000 less

nights a year and about $2 million annually in expenditures lost to somewhere

else.

It is certainly important that we do this. It is a huge source of potential

or sustainable economic growth for the Province, Mr. Speaker, and you know many

of these conventions, ironically enough, happen during non-peak tourist time.

They happen on the shoulder seasons or outside the typical time frame that many

of our tourists would come to our Province, so it is a significant benefit, Mr.

Speaker.

We look at things like the Convention Centre and your initial thought: This

is good for St. John's, but it is no good for anybody else. It is no good for

the rest of us. Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to note that 48 per cent of

the people who come here for conventions stay. They do not come just for the

period; they extend their stay. So, 48 per cent of those extend their stay here

in our Province and 50 per cent of them go outside of the city.

Even though the convention is held in St. John's, a great deal of these

people goes right across the Island. I can only think of last year, Mr. Speaker,

I was heading to the West Coast. On my trip to the West Coast, I ran into a

group of people. I think there were eight to ten of them. Mr. Speaker, they were

all going to hike. There was a group going to the Northern Peninsula, to Conche,

and St. Anthony and hike that area. There was another group going to the Corner

Brook Stephenville area to do some hiking, Mr. Speaker. Although they were

here, the Convention Centre drew them to the City of St. John's; they were

certainly taking

part in the Province and seeing what we have to offer.

Mr. Speaker, this industry, in 2011, we had 44,425 room nights. I think we

were third in the country for occupancy rates, which is a significant statistic

because it deals with the number of people that you have coming to your Province

and staying for multiple days. That, Mr. Speaker, now is about a $50 million

industry here in this Province, our convention industry. The spinoff from this

stuff is not to be underestimated, certainly.

Mr. Speaker, like I said, I am going to clue up now. I just wanted to point

out some of the benefits of this. Like I said, just to summarize, we are taking

it from a 3 per cent levy to a 4 per cent levy. The range in Canada goes from 2

per cent to 5 per cent, so we are still very competitive. Certainly, if we

thought that this was going to be a competitive impact, we would have

reconsidered the ask from the City of St. John's.

What you are talking about is a room, based on $100 a night rental, you add

on your taxes, I think you are talking about an extra $1.18 on a $100 room

night. It is not a significant increase; however, it will certainly enhance some

of the facilities that we have here in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Opposition, particularly the Member for the Bay

of Islands, did bring up one important fact. I was glad he mentioned it to me,

because it gives me a chance to address it, and I am sure when he speaks he will

also address it. That was the whole piece around he wanted to be certain that

Memorial University students or students in here staying in campuses would not

be subject to that rate. I could not agree with him more. It was actually a

point that I had also brought up when I at first brush had a look at the bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, basically what this bill does, like I said, is increasing

from 3 per cent to 4 per cent but what it does, it also says in that bill, and

I think this is the important piece: it takes out the fact of any students that

are in St. John's staying in residence. It is very clear in the bill, Mr.

Speaker. I want to quote from it to make sure. The change that we are making,

Mr. Speaker, is that: "The council may impose a tax to be known as the

accommodation tax' upon a person who, for a daily charge, fee or remuneration,

is accommodated, lodges or stays in a room in a building in the" City of St.

John's.

Mr. Speaker, in that piece it also says: "(

a) licensed under the Tourism

Establishments Act; or (

b) owned by Memorial University of Newfoundland." So,

your initial take would be, well, hang on now; what is going on? What, are we

going to start charging our students? Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from

the truth. It says in section (3) there, Mr. Speaker, "Subsections (1) and

(2) shall not apply to" now this is the key piece: shall not apply to "(

a) a

person who pays for accommodation, lodging or a stay in a room for which the

daily charge or remuneration is not more than $20"; Mr. Speaker, the other

piece, which I think is very significant, is: "(

b) a student who is

accommodated, lodges or stays in a room in a building referred to in paragraph

(1)(

b) or (

c) while he or she is registered at and attending a post-secondary

educational institution". So I just want to say to the Member for Bay of

Islands, I appreciate him bringing that to my attention, and certainly the bill

does address that.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is what this bill is about; it is about bringing the

levy from 3 per cent to 4 per cent. It is something that we have been approached

to do by the City of St. John's. I think the numbers speak for themselves and

the impact this has on our tourism industry, not only in the City of St. John's

and the Northeastern Avalon, but indeed, Mr. Speaker, throughout the whole

Province. I certainly look forward to comments from other members in the House.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just rise to have a few words. I thank the minister for the conversation we

had yesterday about the students at Memorial University. There was concern that

the minister said he asked his officials as soon as he read the bill, and so

did I when I had the briefing with the officials. So, I just thank the minister

for clarifying that to ensure that no students will be affected by this

whatsoever in the St. John's area, Mr. Speaker. It is a concern of ours, and we

just want to make sure that it was clarified to ensure that there is no

misunderstanding. I thank the minister for that.

Mr. Speaker, as the minister mentioned, this is about an expansion of the

civic centre here in St. John's. It is very contentious, sometimes, when you tax

people, to ensure that you build the infrastructure. To look at this, we have to

look at the whole parameters of the Convention Centre here in St. John's. As I

said before, and I said it publicly, Newfoundland and Labrador has a great

potential and we do great to attract people here.

As the minister mentioned, when people come to St. John's for conventions, a

lot of people do stay in the Province, they do spend other time traveling the

Province, they do spend extra money around the Province, and they also on many

occasions want to make sure they spend as much time as they possibly can in

Newfoundland and Labrador. When this is done here in St. John's, it does benefit

all of Newfoundland and Labrador. There is a spinoff effect.

One of the things a lot of times we noticed, especially when it comes to

booking conventions, is that usually there is a cycle. There may be some years

that people may say: Oh, well, there is not much extra tourism in St. John's or

outside. The convention cycle usually goes in probably a three-year or four-year

cycle. In the third or fourth year when different conventions are up for

bidding, Mr. Speaker, we have to ensure as a Province we are ready to put in

requests for these conventions and ensure we have the facilities to attract

these conventions.

Also, Mr. Speaker, as we all know in Newfoundland and Labrador, conventions

are getting larger. There are more people attending conventions. There is a lot

of consolidation going on around the world and in Canada with different

businesses. When you go to conventions, there are a greater number of people

attending conventions and wanting to attend. We have to ensure we do have the

facilities to make sure we can accommodate the people who are applying for the

conventions and also make sure when the people come here that they have a very

favourable experience so they can look forward to coming back to Newfoundland

and Labrador.

I said to the minister last week about the ads for Newfoundland and Labrador.

They are great ads. When people see the ads, and they know they are coming to

Newfoundland and Labrador, when you see the ad about Gros Morne, when you see

the ad about L'Anse aux Meadows, you want to go visit those sites; you want to

go visit those areas.

We have to ensure that when people come here, with the Convention Centre, and

all throughout Newfoundland, the facilities are in place. Mr. Speaker, we always

hear on many occasions: your first touch of the experience is what you are going

to remember. If we do not have a civic centre large enough and Convention Centre

large enough to hold the facilities itself and to hold all the meetings you hold

and a lot of times, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of extra groups in daytimes

who want breakout groups, and nighttimes when they want to have some kind of

social gathering that they need to bring other people in also. We need to

accommodate and need to expand.

One of the things that the minister did not mention, one of the improvements

at the Convention Centre that they are going to have is for people with

disabilities, making sure it is wheelchair accessible for people with

disabilities. That is something I am sure that all people in this House are

welcoming, to ensure that it is going to be done up to standards, Mr. Speaker.

As the minister mentioned earlier, the cost of this was going to be around

$43 million, $44 million at the beginning, Mr. Speaker. There was an agreement

with the three parties: federal, provincial and municipal, to share on the cost.

As we all know, anytime we get into any type of construction, when you get down

to the final stages there is going to be an increase in cost, and in this case,

cost overruns, once we started.

This project is no different. As we see, the cost, Mr. Speaker, went from

$43.2 million to $64 million, a 48 per cent increase for this project in St.

John's. Of course, there is always a way that we could find for this cost to pay

for the cost to ensure the least amount of pain on the taxpayers and the

ratepayers in Newfoundland and Labrador.

One of the fortunate things about the cost for this civic centre is that

there was already a mechanism in place, Mr. Speaker, to help alleviate some of

this cost, that 3 per cent that the minister mentioned earlier. It is a levy tax

on all rooms in the St. John's area.

I am not sure if the minister mentioned or not, but one thing I want to have

on the record is that part of this 3 per cent, which now will be 4 per cent,

part of this 4 per cent will be used for Destination St. John's activities,

which will again allow and I think the figure last year, the amount last year

was up to about $200,000 for Destination St. John's they received out of this 3

per cent, $200,000. I believe that was the figure, Mr. Speaker, that was given,

that Destination St. John's used to help promote St. John's. A lot of this fund

is not just going into the coffers of the City Council of St. John's; it is

helping to promote St. John's.

That is very worthwhile because, Mr. Speaker, we need to ensure that St.

John's is being promoted. If St. John's is being promoted, as I mentioned

earlier, then Mr. Speaker, I will just clarify in the notes here: $900,000 to

$1.2 million. It was $900,000 at the beginning; it went up to $1.2 million that

Destination St. John's was getting from this to promote the activities that are

available here in St. John's, to promote conventions here in St. John's, and to

promote St. John's and Newfoundland and Labrador. This fund, this levy, the 3

per cent will definitely help everybody in this Province, not just the residents

here in St. John's and the taxpayers.

As the minister mentioned, they had to come up with some way to help St.

John's City Council to ensure that they could find a means to pay for this. As

the minister mentioned, there is a levy on most all major cities across Canada.

I know in some places that I have travelled over the years, the levy is included

right in the price; they say to you it is right in the price. In some places it

is added on as an additional expense and it shows on your bill. In other cases,

Mr. Speaker, they do not even mention it to you and you just get the price for

the room, but it is included.

The minister mentioned that the range for most levies is 3 per cent to 5 per

cent. I know I have travelled in a few places where it is much higher than that.

It is much higher than 3 per cent and much higher than 5 per cent range for

levies in a lot of places, Mr. Speaker.

The tax itself will help the City Council of St. John's and the people of

this area to pay for their share of the expansion to the Convention Centre. Once

again, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is fair in some cases to have the

taxpayers in St. John's to foot the bill for this when a lot of times, a lot of

the tourism is spread out through Newfoundland and Labrador when the people

visit here in St. John's. We all know, through the airwaves and through the

ability to accommodate such large conventions, St. John's is a destination for a

lot of these conventions.

Mr. Speaker, I know the Official Opposition will support this bill. The

Official Opposition will ensure and I thank the minister for that this does

not apply to any students attending Memorial University or the College of the

North Atlantic here in St. John's.

From my understanding, after rereading the bill, after speaking to the

minister, it says in the bill anybody who is being charged a daily rate. As we

know, most students usually come up and pay their tuition fees which are a

semester, which is not included because it says right in the bill. The minister

and the regulations confirmed that.

That was our only concern, that the students would not be adversely affected.

From my understanding from the minister, when the first 3 per cent levy was put

in place, at Memorial University, when they rent their rooms out in the

summertime for extra rooms for a convention here in town, it was already

included in this 3 per cent.

What is happening, from my understanding, Mr. Speaker, of the bill, and the

minister can clarify anything that I am bringing up to ensure that the briefing

that we got which was a good briefing, Minister. You can thank your staff. It

was a great briefing. It was very thorough. They were open to any questions that

we asked and they were very frank in their discussions, so you can thank your

officials on my behalf of the great briefing that they gave us yesterday on this

bill.

They also mentioned that Memorial rooms that they rent out for conventions in

the summertime were already included in the 3 per cent levy. This was only on

the daily rate when people come in for a convention and stay for three or four

days, five days. These were not students attending Memorial University or

students attending the College of the North Atlantic.

Mr. Speaker, we will be supporting this bill. We will be assuring the

minister that we will try to find ways we, as an Opposition, have a role to do

our due diligence in some projects. We also have a role that when something

comes in which is positive and is going to help, we have a role to support it.

I personally have no problem in supporting positive things that government is

bringing forth. I know, Mr. Speaker, there are some people opposite, even when

you are speaking on a bill and you are supporting it, they are trying to, as

they call it, heckle you, even though you are supporting the bill. Of course

that is just the role the Opposition, to bring up the issues that are brought to

your attention.

Mr. Speaker, in that I will close, I may have a few more questions later as I

hear speaking. I just thank the minister and the staff again for the briefing.

I say to the members opposite, who are doing a bit of heckling, yes I do

support positive things for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I do

ensure that if it is a good thing for Newfoundland and Labrador, it is a good

thing for me.

I assure the people, Mr. Speaker, of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador if the minister brings things in positive, I will be the first person

to stand up and say, Minister, it is a great job, and it is good for the people

of Newfoundland. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat and let other

people have the chance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for St. John's West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on this

bill here today. I thank you for the words from the member opposite for the Bay

of Islands. I concur I will be supporting this bill as well as he will. I concur

that the briefing you were given today by the minister's staff was very complete

and very informative.

Mr. Speaker, being a member for St. John's I am fully aware of the role this

levy plays in what is happening here in this city. I was a member actually with

my company, I participated with Destination St. John's, I was a member of the

some of the subcommittees and I am very aware of the good work that they do. I

am very privileged to stand here today and speak to this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the City of St. John's approached the provincial government to

amend the act to allow the city to increase the accommodation tax from 3 per

cent to 4 per cent to help cover the cost associated with the expansion of the

St. John's Convention Centre. Mr. Speaker, this accommodation tax, also known as

a tourism marketing levy, was put in place in 1998 to help fund construction. As

well, to help fund marketing the city and the region through Destination St.

John's, which I just mentioned.

This marketing body has been working very diligently for its partners in the

tourism sector within the greater St. John's area, and in 2009 commissioned this

report that we referred to earlier, PKF Consulting and Tract Consulting, to

review the existing St. John's Convention Centre to determine if the facility is

able to meet future demands. Mr. Speaker, in 2009 this report was prepared. It

was titled the Business Case Study and Analysis for the Recommended Expansion of

the St. John's Convention Centre. In this detailed study, analysis of delegate

spending and room nights generated by meetings and conventions was undertaken in

regard to the City of St. John's and the Province as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, while most convention centres are viewed by municipal ownership

as loss leaders, it is recognized they also contribute essential economic

activity that drives new tax revenues, economic benefit, and employment from

other services and establishments, like hotels, restaurants and retail stores.

Mr. Speaker, this study not only concluded that there was a demand for expansion

of the St. John's Convention Centre, it determined using economic measurement

methodology that business activity generated is significant to both the City of

St. John's and the Province as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to meetings and conventions, in 2011 there were 104

such events in the city, representing 44,425 room nights. PKF Consulting and

their other consulting group concluded on its study the expansion of the St.

John's Convention Centre will result in an increase of up to 37 per cent over

current meeting and convention room nights. That is pretty significant, Mr.

Speaker.

With regard to delegate per spend assumptions, it was determined by the

authors of the study that the average overnight delegate to the City of St.

John's is estimated to spend over $310 a day. Mr. Speaker, the total economic

benefits in 2011 alone translate into approximately $50 million in expenditures

by the tourism sector.

Mr. Speaker, the new expansion will attract larger groups, and with the

expanded hotel capacity which, I would like to point out just for a minute.

There are three right now presently under construction in the city area, and

eight in total have applications in play, for almost 1,000 more room nights that

we will see happen over the next few years. So this $50 million in spinoffs will

grow significantly in the coming years. Mr. Speaker, that is significant, to say

the least.

From a business case perspective and from a return on investment perspective,

this expansion makes considerable sense, seeing that the City of St. John's, the

provincial government and the federal government have recognized the need and

have made financial commitments to this project. Destination St. John's

represents hoteliers, and bed and breakfasts in the city have also recognized

the need to do this right and recognize they need to participate in generating

revenue for the project. So, hence, Mr. Speaker, the request to increase the

accommodation tax from 3 per cent to 4 per cent is where this came from.

This is not unusual. It was referenced earlier, in fact by the hon. member

opposite, that taxes are very common practice in other jurisdictions. In Canada

they do range from 2 per cent to 5 per cent. So we are within that acceptable

range, as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker. We have all the governments

aligned, we have industry aligned. This amendment is the last piece to making

this project happen.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, while I am a member from St. John's, I have an

obvious desire to see this project through, I would just like to point out that

the spinoffs from an expanded Convention Centre will benefit the Province as a

whole. Every member here in this hon. House will see some spinoffs from this

construction.

Tourism is hugely important in diversifying our economy, and we cannot stress

that enough in this day and age. The St. John's Convention Centre has provincial

scope. While it is enabling the city, it is enabling the Province's tourism

sector. This project is good for the city and it is good for the Province. It

will be a world-class facility. Beautifully designed, is what I understand. It

will be right to the nines in terms of what are best practices globally. It will

add to the ambience of the downtown core and a welcome addition to our

cityscape.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to support this amendment and to help

facilitate making this project go forward.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the Member for St. John's East.

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

I take pleasure again in rising to Bill 54, and express my views and concerns

I guess when it comes to this piece of legislation. I do have a few points for

the minister that I would certainly like to talk about when it comes to this

piece of legislation.

It does not come easy, I do not think at any time, whenever you want to

increase a tax of any kind. I think that is probably the first point I would

like to bring out, but I guess in this particular case it had to be done out of

necessity. We can appreciate the fact, we have been talking in this House over

the last couple of months, particularly about Muskrat Falls and cost overruns,

and this project is no different in being affected by the demands of the

construction industry, I would put forward.

To go from $48.4 million to a $64 million cost overrun on the project meant

that the money had to come from somewhere. I am rather thankful that in this

particular case, the taxpayers of St. John's are not going to have to pick up

the load on this one. The people who will be contributing to this are mostly the

hoteliers and anybody who is going to benefiting, particularly from conventions.

I am also glad to see, though, that part of that revenue is still going to go

towards Destination St. John's and helping their marketing of the new facility

when it is built. It certainly means that there is going to be a larger market

out there to capture and to bring into the City of St. John's. Overall, the

benefits of that, hopefully, will help this project get paid off in due course,

and hopefully rather quickly. I would just like to bring that particular point

forward.

The other point that I wanted to bring forward here

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Yes, indeed. The Minster of Municipal Affairs would be quite

right in his statement that the taxi industry of St. John's will benefit from

that and it is nice of him to make a note.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: Of course, we also have tourism companies, tour buses, and

that sort of thing, that will be probably be availing of those particular people

who would in the City on a visit, too. All in all, a positive move.

The other point that I would like to bring forward and I think that this is

kind of important, really; we have to be cautious exactly about the use of some

of the hotel rooms and how the tax levy perhaps the minister can answer the

question when it comes to that. I do not know, there might be a mechanism

already to deal with it, but if the minister can answer the question, perhaps

when it comes to the Committee of the Whole.

I am wondering about some people, for example, when hotels are already filled

up and everything, when you are talking about the medical use, the medical

necessity of having to get a hotel room, sometimes capacity in other rooms; for

example, Ronald MacDonald House may be taken up, the Health Sciences Hostel,

that sort of thing. I am just wondering if there is a mechanism there, perhaps

to alleviate some of the tax burden that might be there from people who may have

to be using hotel rooms out of medical necessity. That might be one question

that I would like to hear answered.

The other point that I would like to make is something that came up when we

were discussing Bill 30. We have to go a way back on that; we were talking about

addressing the Municipal Taxation Act and Bill 30. We had to come in and we had

to make changes for the City of St. John's when it came to if the minister can

recall; I think I am recalling this right. We were talking about the taxation

that was on vacant properties, for example, that were not being used, and the

City of St. John's wanted the power to tax some of these units as if they were

occupied and to alleviate some of the burdens some other businesses were doing

so that the City of St. John's could call the shot on how they were taxing some

of these places, which brings into question the whole matter of the provincial

government being involved in the City of St. John's taxation role, if you will.

In helping the City of St. John's, the changes to the City of St. John's Act,

for example, have come to the House of Assembly. I am wondering about the

possibility and maybe the minister can bring this up later, again, in

Committee of the Whole about the City of St. John's having the financial

independence, if you will; having, in this particular case, a new City of St.

John's Act is probably necessary.

This is the second time now this year and I think we are seventy-odd days

now into sitting that twice the City of St. John's has had to come to the

Provincial Legislature to have changes made to the City of St. John's Act. I

figure that it would probably be a good point to bring forward in arguing for my

city and for everybody's city, because, of course, St. John's is everybody's

capital; they would need that independence as well in order for them to make

their own changes to their own finances in the way they tax things in the city

right now.

I figure I would bring those two points forward. Just to let the minister

know, though, with regard to these changes, we will be supporting this bill when

it comes to these changes. We look at this as being positive, a very positive

impact on the tourism industry. We know that government over the last, well,

twenty-odd years has been putting an extreme focus on tourism. There is a lot of

money to be garnered into the provincial economy for such.

We ask government at the same time to consider the fact that not only does

the City of St. John's Act need modernization, but probably a whole new act is

in order as well; the City of Corner Brook, I think, has their own act as well,

and other cities within the Province, so that they can express their fiscal

financial independence.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the hon. the Member for Kilbride.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, before I say anything I would like to thank the

staff at Tourism, Culture and Recreation for their briefing today. They did a

very good job explaining what was going on. Even though it is a simple bit of

legislation, there is a lot of background behind this. I have a bit of an idea

of what the background is because when this stuff started, I happened to be on

the St. John's City Council.

I will start off by saying that St. John's is a city that many tourists love

to come to. Many who come to St. John's not only come once but they want to come

back. They want to come back because they love the scenery, the buildings, the

harbour, and they especially love the people in St. John's. I have talked to

many people in the past who always say that they found no better people in the

world than they find in St. John's and in Newfoundland itself.

Many who come to St. John's do not only stay in St. John's; if they extend

their stay and many times they do extend their stay by a few days they end

up going outside of St. John's. They end up in Petty Harbour, they go up to

Ferryland. They go to other places here in the Province, especially on the

Avalon if they have time.

When I was on council, a couple of decades ago, city staff and city council

saw potential for tourism growth in the city itself