Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 22 May 2008 (46th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLVI No. 31)
2008-05-22
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
May 22, 2008
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVI No. 31
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order please!
Admit strangers.
Today we certainly want to extend a warm welcome to three schools who are
visiting our House of Assembly. We would like to welcome twenty-two Grade 8
students from Smallwood Academy in the District of Terra Nova. The students are
joined by their teacher, Ms Glendene Barrow; chaperone, Ms Berdina Connolly, and
bus driver, Mr. Bruce Lush.
Also joining us today are twenty-one Grade 8 students from Our Lady of Mercy
School in the District of St. George's-Stephenville East. Among these
students, I might add, is Byron Bennett, the grandson of the former MHA for St.
George's, Ms Hazel McIsaac, who was the first woman elected to the House of
Assembly after Confederation and she served from 1975 to 1979. These students
are joined by their teachers, Ms Darlene Sexton, Mr. Ivan MacDonald, Mr. Chris
Hutchings, and parent chaperone, Ms Janelle Bennett.
The third school joining us today is St. Thomas Aquinas School from the
District of Port au Port. There are fourteen Grade 7 students who are
accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Jim Conran, and chaperone, Ms Lori Ann Young.
Welcome to the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard: the hon.
the Member for the District of St. John's West, the hon. the Member for the
District of Placentia & St. Mary's, the hon. the Member for the District
of Humber Valley.
The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to recognize a young resident of
my district.
Jessica McErlean, a thirteen-year-old student at I.J. Sampson Junior High
School, is a member of Team Newfoundland and Labrador that will be travelling to
Calgary later this week to participate in a national Skills Competition.
Jessica earned this right by placing first in the prepared speech
competition, both at the intermediate level in her school in November, and again
in March at the College of the North Atlantic with her speech entitled: How
Skilled Trades Programs Can Take You Places.
Mr. Speaker, I have been told that Jessica has an amazing talent to captivate
audiences, while at the same time delivering a very important message concerning
skilled trades in our Province.
I ask all hon. members of the House of Assembly to join me in congratulating
Jessica on her achievements thus far and in extending best wishes for her
competition in Calgary.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Placentia & St.
Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to pay tribute to the Genesis
Employment Corporation of Placentia, a community-based supported employment
agency serving the Placentia and the Cape Shore areas.
Mr. Speaker, supported employment provides job search assistance, placement
and on-the-job training for individuals with developmental disabilities.
Recently, I was pleased to attend the Genesis' Annual Employment/Supporter
Recognition Night, in partnership with the Argentia area Chamber of Commerce,
marking the eleventh anniversary of Genesis in Placentia. As always, the event
was exceptionally well attended.
Mr. Speaker, during that time, the corporation has generated over 165,000 man
hours of employment. Genesis has provided meaningful employment to forty-three
clients, with up to thirty people working at any one time.
This year, Mr. Speaker, twenty local businesses participated in this
worthwhile initiative. The Fox Harbour Library was the recipient of this year's
Employment Merit Award, which recognizes the employer who has made an
outstanding contribution to the employment of individuals with developmental
disabilities.
Unfortunately, Genesis has lost its CEO, Loreli Loder, who has left the
organization to take up another position. She has been the backbone of Genesis
for seven years, and the driving force behind its success, and we wish her well
in her future endeavours.
I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the board, the staff, the
business partners of Genesis, for eleven years of meaningful contributions to
the lives of these individuals.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I stand in this hon. House today to pay tribute
to the community of Cormack. Cormack is now using its new community centre for
civic functions.
Mr. Speaker, on May 10, I attended a special event at the new centre. It was
the thirteenth annual Firemen's Ball that was held in conjunction with an
evening to recognize the volunteers on their significant contribution to their
community. All volunteers, including the twenty-three firemen, were recognized
for their special work they do on behalf of all citizens in their community. It
was so nice to have all volunteers recognized and made feel special as part of
their community's picture.
Mr. Speaker, Cormack had its beginnings after World War II, when land was
made available for veterans to move to new careers in the agricultural sector.
This was indeed a creative economic development project designed to assist
veterans and their families begin a new life.
Mr. Speaker, the new facility is an accomplishment of the entire community.
They are to be congratulated for their vision and strong belief they have in the
future of their beautiful town. Rural communities in our Province can enjoy
economic success through outstanding local leadership like that being
demonstrated by the people of Cormack.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in paying
tribute to Mayor Warwick Hewitt and the residents of Cormack for this new
facility, demonstrating such remarkable pride.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
It really gives me great pleasure today to stand in the House and recognize
the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Miawpukek Band Hunger Strike of April, 1983.
I, along with many people here in St. John's, were quite honoured to be able
to walk in solidarity with them in that year, twenty-five years ago.
The Miawpukek Band, at that time known as the Conne River Band, had gone a
full year without any operational funding. The community received 85 per cent of
its operating money from the federal government, money that was funnelled
through the provincial government; however, the government of the day had held
up $850,000 for over a year in an attempt to force the Band to accept its
participation in the Band's decision-making.
The Band had unsuccessfully negotiated for these funds to be released
directly to the Band. The government would not compromise so the people of
Miawpukek, at that time, as I said, known as the Conne River Band, took
affirmative action.
Not only did the hunger strike result in the $850,000 being handed over to
the Band; the federal government also agreed to the establishment of key
services in the community. In 1984 the Band received Reserve Status and for most
of us, I am sure, the rest is history. There was no looking back for the Conne
River Band.
The hunger strikers were: Michael Joe, Jr., now known as Chief Misel Joe;
Aubrey Joe; Michael G. Benoit; Rick Jeddore; Chesley Joe; George Drew; Billy
Joe; Andy Joe; Wilfred Drew.
I ask the members of this hon. House to join me in honouring those who
participated in the hunger strike and who were, without any doubt, willing to
give their lives, if necessary, to assure justice for the Aboriginal People of
Conne River.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to inform all Members of the House of Assembly that the Canadian
Union of Public Employees CUPE - has ratified the collective agreement that
was reached on April 24, 2008, between CUPE and the Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the ratification vote was 95 per cent in
favour.
This agreement spans four years with salary increases of 8 per cent in the
first year and 4 per cent in each of the following three years. As Premier
Williams has said, this is a good deal for the members of CUPE and a good deal
for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
With a 20 per cent salary increase over four years, this agreement recognizes
the valuable contributions that members of CUPE have made to the people of this
Province on a daily basis; yet the agreement is also sustainable in regard to
all of the demands on the Province's finances. This agreement also reflects
our government's acknowledgement of the sacrifice our public employees have
made in achieving greater financial stability in our Province in recent years.
The deal includes a larger increase in year one of 8 per cent in recognition of
the contribution that they have made. This agreement also provides increases in
shift differential rates and increases in standby provisions.
I was very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to hear through the media that CUPE National
President Paul Moist, at the annual CUPE convention here, referred to this
agreement as probably the best deal in the country. We have consistently said
that we fully intend to negotiate collective agreements that are reasonable,
responsible and sustainable, and that is exactly the deal that has been reached
with CUPE.
On behalf of Premier Williams and the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador, I would like to thank Mr. Wayne Lucas and the CUPE negotiating teams
for their professionalism throughout the entire process. We look forward to
concluding other collective agreements with public employees that, like the CUPE
agreement, are in the long-term best interest of all Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement, and
congratulations to the CUPE members who have overwhelmingly voted in favour of
this contract, 95 per cent, as the minister said.
CUPE, of course, is one of the smaller sector unions in this Province
public sector unions. I understand they are one of the smaller ones, with NAPE
and the NLTA and the Nurses' Union, of course, being more substantial in
numbers. I guess we will see in due course whether the template that government
has set down for CUPE, and which has been accepted by CUPE, will be acceptable
to those groups.
As we are aware, the pathologists are certainly in the process of making a
special case for themselves and we, of course, know where the nurses stand. They
are also expecting some kind of special treatment and they are trying to make a
special case, a strong case, to suggest that. I guess we will see in due course
where the other majority of public sector unions in the Province stand at the
end of the day.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal HillQuidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement, and I
congratulate CUPE, its members and the government, on a successful collective
bargaining process.
Of course, I, too, look forward to hearing that the other agreements come to
a conclusion. I hope that will happen fairly soon. To use the words of the
minister's statement, part of "long-term best interest of all
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians" is having workers who are happy -
happy with the reimbursement that they get for their work and with their working
conditions. By having workers who are happy in the workplace, then we will
ensure that the services that are being offered to Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians will be top-notch.
I encourage the government to keep that in mind as they continue with the
process and, of course, I am sure that the unions have that in their mind as
well.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all hon. members, I offer
congratulations today to a group of highly talented and motivated students from
Stephenville High. They are the winners of this year's Marine Advanced
Technology Education Centre regional underwater robotics competition. I would
also like to congratulate students from Heritage Collegiate of Lethbridge, who
took second place in this year's competition.
These students will join a team from Eric J. Lambert School in Churchill
Falls and the legendary Easter Edge robotics team, comprised of post-secondary
students, at the international ROV competition next month in California.
Each of these teams designed and built a remote operated vehicle or ROV.
These ROVs, Mr. Speaker, are technically advanced machines and are the result of
months of hard work, creativity and expertise.
I have every reason to believe that our four teams will shine at the world
competition. Last year, this event was held in our Province, the first time it
had ever taken place outside the United States. This Province was chosen because
of the exceptional, world-class facilities at Memorial University and the Marine
Institute. At that time, both the Eastern Edge and Heritage Collegiate teams
took second place in their respective age groups. What's more, Mr. Speaker, in
the two previous years Eastern Edge has claimed the top prize at the world
competition.
Mr. Speaker, it is students like these who will carry this Province forward
as the premiere location for cold ocean research. Last year, we invested $1
million for the creation of a new School of Ocean Technology at the Marine
Institute, as well as almost $90,000 for the establishment of an advanced
Command and Control Centre to receive live broadcasts from international ocean
exploration projects. This year, we are investing $1 million in MUN's Ocean
Sciences Centre, as well as funding to support the Faculty of Engineering. We
are making these investments so students can access the highest quality
post-secondary training.
Newfoundland and Labrador is rapidly emerging as a hotbed for ocean and
marine technology industries. In the St. John's region alone, there are now
more than forty small- and medium-sized enterprises that have developed
innovative ocean technologies, products and services. From offshore systems
evaluation to underwater acoustics and integrated marine navigation, the
Province's ocean technology enterprises are achieving world-wide prominence;
and, it is the students from Stephenville High, Heritage Collegiate, E.J.
Lambert and so many others from schools across the Province who will make these
businesses grow.
Mr. Speaker, I offer sincere congratulations to all team members and their
teachers, and on behalf of this hon. House I wish them the best of luck at the
world competition next month.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement and to say
that we, too, on this side of the House, want to congratulate Stephenville High
on taking first place in this regional underwater robotics competition, and also
to Heritage Collegiate in Lethbridge for placing second. I also understand that
St. James School from Port aux Basques, from my hon. colleague's District of
Burgeo & LaPoile, were into the competition as well when it took place here;
I think it was at MUN or the Marine Institute or whatever.
Mr. Speaker, I know in the Conception Bay North area there are similar
competitions that our students get involved in, but I think they are above
water; they are not the underwater competitions.
Having said that, I want to congratulate all of those who were involved and
wish them every success as they join with Eric J. Lambert School from Churchill
Falls and the Eastern Edge group as they travel to the world competitions.
I guess it goes to show the wonderful talent that we have in our young people
here in the Province, coupled with the facilities at the Marine Institute and
Memorial University, is something to be dealt with and we want to wish them
every success.
I understand Eastern Edge, as it says in the statement, took first place on
two occasions in the world competition and we want to wish them every success
again this year.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement.
I join in congratulating the teams who have been successful, not only this
year but in past years. It is really great for us to have this wonderful growth
in the ocean-based sector in our Province because this is really a major part of
what our future should be: having industry that is involved in new technologies
and new, exciting ways of dealing with our marine environment, and looking at,
in particular, ways in which we can save that environment, ways in which we can
build up fish stocks that have declined.
This is very encouraging, and I encourage the government that I really do not
think we can invest too much in industries in this area.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.
The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to report on the latest trade
initiative of the provincial government.
Newfoundland and Labrador is home, as many people would know, to dynamic
business and academic communities. In markets around the world, our companies
and institutions are earning a reputation for excellence and innovation - as we
just heard.
To facilitate continued growth, it is essential that we have the necessary
infrastructure in place to position the Province on the global stage and enable
our businesses to grow and succeed.
Trade is a very large and very important part of our provincial economy.
Newfoundland and Labrador - surprisingly to some people, probably - ranks third
in Canada for exports per capita. We rank higher than any other Atlantic
Province, higher than Ontario, higher than Quebec, and higher than British
Columbia.
To help open new doors and opportunities for our businesses and institutions,
we have signed Memorandums of Understandings with the State of Rhode Island,
Ireland, and, most recently, Iceland.
These MOUs have fostered positive working relationships relationships
that have enabled our business and academic institutions to target new markets
and explore new opportunities.
In fall 2007, we also entered into the Southeastern United States-Central and
Eastern Canadian Provinces Alliance.
The objective of the alliance is to present opportunities for businesses to
enhance commercial exchanges, promote two-way investment, and encourage
technological linkages between provinces and states.
More importantly, it creates opportunity and eliminates any potential
barriers to entry for locally produced goods and services. In 2006, the
Southeast United States states represented $482 million in trade activity to the
Province.
The alliance will meet annually and alternate between countries, Canada and
the U.S., with the first meeting scheduled for next month in Georgia. I am happy
to report to the House of Assembly today that St. John's has been selected as
the site of the 2009 meeting, the first meeting of this organization in Canada.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: The conference will attract between 300 and 400 distinguished
guests including premiers, governors, industry leaders and company executives.
Throughout the conference, businesses will connect with businesses; local
businesses will be able to meet directly with key audiences; and site visits
will be co-ordinated for visitors to view the Province's world-class
facilities and see first-hand the depth of opportunities in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
The provincial government is a committed partner to improving the Province's
trade and export development opportunities. The 2009 meeting of the alliance
marks an exciting opportunity for the Province's innovative enterprises to
grow their business with our trading partners to the south.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
Some persons, of course, the naysayers of the world, might question the
government expense on these types of initiatives. I, for one, am a firm
supporter of it. I think MOUs, trade shows, conferences, initiatives, anything
that advances the people and the businesses in this Province on the world stage
to make them more competitive or more successful, I think, is certainly a wise
investment.
There is no question and no reason that we are one of the country's biggest
exporters when you look at our fisheries, our forestry, our mining and, of
course, our oil; it puts us on the world scale when it comes to being an
exporter.
The world today is a much smaller place. We hear about the global economy,
and given the Net and how quickly things happen today, we have to be involved in
that global economy in a big way and that only happens if the businesses and the
people involved have the support of governments in order to do these things.
There is an evaluation process, no doubt. We have had some instances where
companies just do not come in and pick up the money and grab the cash and run.
There is an evaluation process in place. As long as the process is followed, due
diligence is done and it is properly evaluated, we in the Opposition are
certainly supportive of these types of initiatives.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for the advanced copy of his statement.
This is good news. It is always good news. Of course, our history as a
Province is exporting. We have been exporting our stuff right from the
beginning. I think the difference now, which I think is very important, is that
the exporting is being done by companies that are grounded here in Newfoundland
and Labrador, not companies that are outside of our Province, taking our
resources and exporting out to themselves. This is good news, what is happening
through the ministry that the minister is representing.
I do think, though, that there needs to be more effort, and I know the
minister knows this, I do not mean effort is not being made, but we have to make
sure that there is a lot of outreach to small and medium-sized businesses and
that they are getting the opportunity to access the export markets and access
the funding that government has made available. I understand that there has not
been as much of a take up on some of the funds as one would have hoped. We saw
that during some of the Estimates meetings. I encourage the department and the
minister to make sure that a lot of advertising, a lot of outreach is made,
especially to the small and medium businesses in the Province so that they, too,
can benefit from these export agreements.
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
Oral questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Transportation and Works stated that
she felt strong-armed or intimidated by the former Deputy Premier to give him
extra money for roadwork in his district, and this happened while the Premier
was in Houston. Mr. Speaker, the Premier returned from Houston on May 8,
according to his appearance in the media on that date. The Minister of
Transportation and Works announced the extra money in a press release a full
week later on May 15.
I ask today, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister if she had concerns about this
extra funding, she felt somehow threatened or strong-armed or pressured, I
believe were all the adjectives that she used, into making this decision, I ask
her: Why didn't you speak to the Premier in the week leading up to your
announcement and have this sorted out?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledged in this House yesterday to my hon.
colleague that I had erred in judgement, when my gut feeling told me that I
should do some consultation with the Premier's office. I did that, Your
Honour, and I take full responsibility for the judgement I made but I would like
to say to the hon. member there, it would have been very easy to sweep this
under the rug but that is not my feeling and not my principles so I went and did
consult with the Premier. There was a process to go through -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS WHALEN: - and I have to tell you that the ultimatum that the Deputy
Premier had put to me in a conversation that he would walk, he did just that
yesterday,
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe the minister can tell me if her consultation with the Premier was on or
before May 15 at the time she made the public announcement?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of conversations with the Premier's
office. I cannot tell her the exact time or date but I did have a number of
consultations about this issue.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: It is a regular thing on the other side, Mr. Speaker, when
Cabinet ministers are questioned that they forget specific details. We have
learned that over the last few weeks, like when they had conversations and who
they had them with.
Mr. Speaker, this morning on the Open Line show the former Deputy Premier
stated that he had never put pressure on the Minister of Transportation -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to continue with her question.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In fact, it was the minister who contacted him on this issue.
I ask you, minister: Did you make this call and, if so, why did you state
yesterday that you were strong-armed into giving the funding and to making the
announcement?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I had a couple of conversations with the Deputy
Premier. In one of those conversations the Deputy Premier asked for an extra
million dollars and his words to me were: If I don't get this for my district,
I will walk. I took that to be a threat. Obviously, the Deputy Premier called
that yesterday. He resigned when he did not get the extra million.
I want to say here too, that there is a message here; everybody has to be
treated alike. The Deputy Premier at that time, I felt carried a lot of weight
in this House and I looked up to the Deputy Premier. When he gave me that
ultimatum, I did not want to see him walk but there was no choice, my gut told
me otherwise. I had made an error. I own up to that, I take responsibility for
that. I would say to every member sitting in this House here that I would say
all of us at some point or other have erred in judgement and I regret that very
sincerely. I regret that error in judgement.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question was very simple, and that was, who initiated the contact with
regard to this funding arrangement and this announcement? Was it you contacting
the member, minister, or the member contacting you?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, as with roadwork, there are a number of contacts
made with all MHAs, back and forth, to take their input for their districts, the
kind of issues that they lobby for. I had no different with the Deputy Premier.
I had a couple of conversations with him, as well as I have had with other MHAs.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Media reports have also indicated that the Minister of Municipal Affairs was
as well intimidated and felt his position was under threat and strong-armed by
the former Deputy Premier as well.
I ask the minister: When did this occur, and how much money would have been
coerced from your department as a result of that strong-arming and threatening
approach?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The recent program I announced is a multi-year capital works. That is for the
larger centres. In doing so, Mr. Speaker, I contacted all the MHAs that had
multi-year capital works, and I had a conversation with all of them, exactly
what was going to happened.
I did contact the Deputy Premier at the time to let him know what was
happening and, yes, we did have a discussion. It was not a very pleasant
discussion, I might add, and one of the issues was the fact there was
insufficient money there for him.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the minister, if he can tell me how much money was committed to the
Member for Baie Verte-Springdale at the time that he felt threatened and
pressured and strong-armed by that member to provide money?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DENINE: Just a correction there, Mr. Speaker.
When the money is dealt with in multi-year capital works, it is not done to a
district. It is done to a municipality. In terms of the municipality, there
could be one or two in each municipality and it is done to the municipality.
So, after the discussion - a very heated discussion we had, a very aggressive
discussion - there was $875,000 given over three years. So, it is roughly around
$250,000 per year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe the minister can provide for us the details of additional funding that
the Member for Baie Verte-Springdale was requesting at the time?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DENINE: I am not sure if I got all of the question, I was trying to
listen to what was happening there. This money is allocated to a municipality
and the money is done in bulk. For example, the municipality Multi-Year Capital
Works will come in with a list of what they want to do, priorities, and we will
basically look at the priorities and try to share it out as equally and fairly
as possible, and then it will be up to the municipalities to decide their
priority list.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister is indicating that he had committed to $875,000, I think, over a
three-year period.
My question is very simple.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask members for their cooperation. There are questions being asked,
ministers are having difficulty in hearing questions and the Chair is having
difficulty not only hearing the answers but hearing the questions. I ask members
for their cooperation.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for your intervention.
I would like to ask the minister: What was the additional amount of money
that the member was requesting, for what community within his district, and was
that money granted?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, as I just said, under the multi-year program
there is a bulk of money that is allocated to a municipality that applies under
multi-year. There is another program, the Municipal Capital Works Program, which
is a separate program.
What happens is, when they send in their priority list the municipalities
will determine their priorities. When the money was given it wasn't for a
specific item. The municipality then would have to fill out
Schedule A, send it
back into us, and then it is approved.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Did the minister at that time make the Premier aware as well that he was
being strong-armed by a minister to try and give him money for his district? Was
that reported to the Premier's office at that time or only after this
occurrence with the Minister of Transportation and Works became public?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, just being new into the Cabinet back in
November, I took it upon myself, the responsibility for that department, and
when something happens I try to do it as best I can, to the best of my ability,
to decide which way I will go. I don't have to run to the Premier with
everything that happens. The Premier expects me to handle it and I hope I
handled this as best I could.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My next question is for the Premier, because it is quite obvious, Premier,
that you have ministers who are unable to fend off the lobby tactics of their
own colleagues, and make decisions that are firm that they are prepared to stand
by.
I ask you: Does this cause you any certainty in their ability to be able to
carry out and exercise proper judgment in doing their jobs as ministers in your
government?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: I have certainty now, because Tom Rideout is gone.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it seems like yesterday the Premier made a statement - I read it
in the paper this morning that, even if the Member for Baie Verte-Springdale
did not table their resignation, he was about to ask for that resignation.
I have to ask you, Premier, because we have seen other ministers here, and in
particular today the Minister of Transportation and Works, who is not being
reprimanded in any way for making an error in judgment, or a decision within the
department that was not in due process of that department.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: What will be the disciplinary action of him,
as a Premier, to a minister in a case where those ministers breach the process
that has been outlined within their department and their responsibilities?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it would be totally inappropriate for me
to discipline or reprimand or deal with a minister who has been threatened,
while I am out of the Province, by my Deputy Premier, with his resignation, in
order to get extra money for his district. She has indicated that she has made
an error in judgment by granting it to him under a threat of resignation. She
said it several times. She cannot do any more than that.
As far as I am concerned, the minister has basically acknowledged her
mistake; however, the most important thing here is that we have a minister of
the Crown that was threatened by another minister of the Crown with a
resignation in order to get money from that minister of the Crown. That is
totally inappropriate.
His resignation stands, and I am quite pleased with it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this is a Premier who did not think it was even necessary to
take action or to call for a resignation of his Health Minister at a time when
that minister did not even read his briefing notes and be informed on one of the
major health disasters facing the people in this Province - a sure sign of
incompetence.
I have to ask the Premier: Why is that you are so keen today to take actions
where the Deputy Premier was concerned? Is it because he was in disagreement
with you, and not just in non-compliance and incompetent in his job?
MR. SPEAKER: Order please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health was Parliamentary
Assistant to the former Minister of Health, had been in that department for a
long period of time. He is trying to manage that department under a lot of
stress, under a lot of difficulty, and manage this government and the people of
this Province who have had health problems that certainly were not caused by
this government. He has done that to the best of his ability.
If he happens to know about a problem, and understands it, then if he decides
not to read a briefing note that is his prerogative; I am not upset over that.
Nor am I - if a minister makes a decision in good faith, which is done in good
faith in order to prevent what she thought would have been an embarrassing
resignation to this government while I was away, of the Deputy Premier, and she
acted in good faith, she now acknowledges that was a mistake, then I do not have
a problem with that.
You know, our Code of Ethics says that we cannot undermine the democratic
traditions. That is the Code of Ethics that is being passed; it is going to be
passed in this House. We cannot allow that to happen. You know, I am sure -
MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. the Premier to conclude his answer.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: I am sure Mr. Rideout's intentions were
well-intentioned for his district; however, he knows and I know, and everybody
in this House knows, and the people in this Province know, that it is
inappropriate to threaten a minister of the Crown.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Just a quick interruption; I ask hon. members to refer to members by the
district they represent, or by their portfolio.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
You know what the real irony in this situation is? It is that you have the
former Deputy Premier who was out there lobbying for extra funds, Mr. Speaker,
for an issue in his district, but what happened in 2004? In 2004 the Premier
intervened, himself, in the VON strike in your own district, Mr. Speaker, on the
West Coast of Newfoundland, and allocated extra funding to that group, against
what we saw as knowledge of the Minister of Heath and Community Service at the
time. In fact, it led to the resignation of the Member for Topsail at that time,
in that position.
I ask the Premier: Why is there a double standard today? How are the actions
of the Member for Lewisporte, in lobbying for extra money not allocated for his
district, any different
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to pose her question.
MS JONES: - than you accessing money for an issue in your district?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: The difference is that the Member for Baie
Verte-Springdale threatened a minister of the Crown. That is the difference.
That is very clear; it is very, very obvious. I cannot tolerate it, and I will
not tolerate it, and my Cabinet will not tolerate it, and my caucus will not
tolerate it.
That is the clear distinction. I cannot say it any more. I have said it to
you four times. The worst thing about this is that you were once a minister of
the Crown and you understand exactly what I am saying, and you know that it was
wrong to do what he did at that particular point in time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The other side to this, that has become very clear, is that there was no
conversation between the Deputy Premier and the Premier with regard to this
issue.
I ask the Premier: If this individual, who was your right-hand man, cannot
get a face-to-face meeting with you to deal with these issues, what does that
say about the dialogue within your own government with the rest of your Cabinet
ministers?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: The former Deputy Premier met with my chief of staff
and asked if he could get an extra allocation for $1 million for his district.
He was told by a senior official in the Premier's office that was not going to
happen because the money was not available, and he could not get it because the
money had already been allocated.
He came up, then, two days ago actually, he was asked to come up by the
chief of staff - and was informed that, that money was not available; that, in
fact, the decision that had been reached by he and the minister, the agreement
that had been reached by he and the minister, had to be rescinded. Then he said
he was going to resign and he would table his resignation. There was no request
for a meeting with me.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe the Premier can tell me today what roadwork would have been scheduled
for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale that has been cancelled as a result of
this. What communities will be affected, or what piece of roadwork has been
cancelled?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: I have no idea, Mr. Speaker. It was money that was
improperly obtained and it does not matter. If there is a need in that district
then over the course of the time that we are in office, for the rest of this
term, it is certainly a need that we will look at on a priority basis. If it is
necessary, we will get it done. If it is not a priority then we will not be able
to get it done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We did make an inquiry to the Department of Transportation and Works this
morning to find out what that $1 million would have been allocated for, for
roadwork that had been cancelled.
Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Minister of Transportation and Works, because we
did not get the information from the department; they were going to look into
it: What piece of work was to be done with this $1 million? Now that it has been
cancelled, how will that affect that area?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. colleague is referring to the $1
million. There is no extra $1 million for that district.
We will assess that district, the needs that are there we will look at, and
we will work within the budget that we have right now that was prior allotted to
that district.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister: When you committed to the
$1 million - under whatever restraint you claimed to have committed to it - you
must have at least been looking at a piece of roadwork that would have been
done.
I ask you, Minister: What
section of roadwork was to be completed by the $1
million investment, whether it is there today or not?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, there is a four-year plan submitted for that
district. We are now looking at that four-year plan and we will identify the
work that needs to be done in that district, within the confines of the budget
that was allotted, $2.5 million. We will certainly assess that district.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Premier stated yesterday, in response to one
of his questions, that school children travelling on a rough
section of road
somewhere within the Province will now get this extra funding.
I ask the Premier: Can you tell us what road that is, where it is located,
and which member approached you for that extra funding to do that work?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: It was a road, one of the roads going to or leading
from Long Island. There was an issue with respect to safety on that road and the
reason being was, my understanding is that a bus route had been reallocated to
that particular road for children, a school bus, on the clear understanding and
on the commitment from the member at that particular point in time that, in
fact, that road would be brought up to standard in order to ensure the safety of
the children. That is where that money will be going.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have asked twice in this House now in the last week if we
could have the names of the individuals who sit on the Conflict of Interest
Advisory Committee, as recently as Tuesday. Surely, the government puts millions
into communications; this is not a big task.
I ask the Minister of Natural Resources, who responded last Tuesday, I ask
again: Can we have the names of the individuals who sit on the Conflict of
Interest Advisory Committee and the dates of their appointment?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have committed to provide that information to the House. As soon as it is
gathered, Mr. Speaker, and I have time to attend to it, I will provide that
information and it will be done before this session of the House is complete.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
God forbid, if we ask for something that is really complex, getting a few
names of who sits on a committee.
Mr. Speaker, last week we had the fundraising caper of Mr. Andy Wells, which
was in violation of the Conflict of Interest Act. This morning, Mr. Wells was on
Open Line supporting a mayoral candidate in the upcoming St. John's
by-election. Now the Public Utilities Board is a quasi-judicial body. The head
of a quasi-judicial body is supposed to be independent, supposed to be unbiased,
and not be giving political endorsements. It is absolutely inappropriate, it is
contrary to the provisions of the Conflict of Interest Act and it creates an
apprehension of bias.
I ask the Premier: Will you advise Mr. Wells to cease and desist from this
activity, bring him into line, or else dismiss him, because he obviously got no
respect for the laws of the Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can inform the Opposition House Leader that there has been a close review
of the Conflict of Interest Act, that we have been looking at sections 14 and 15
of the act, and the issue raised here today will be taken under advisement and
will be examined by this government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that government's mega-dump
concept will not be in place for a number of years, yet many communities need a
solution to their serious waste disposal problems right now.
I ask the minister: What does government intend to do -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: What does government intend
to do to address the serious problems which need to be addressed immediately?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, I will take it, but I am not sure of the
question. I will probably infer the question, is that -
AN HON. MEMBER: Tom Rideout (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. DENINE: I think the Opposition chastised us once for about being
rude.
Mr. Speaker, right now the Waste Management Strategy is moving forward; 2010
for the Avalon, 2011 and 2016 for the Western. Labrador, we are waiting for the
report to come back on and see where that is going to go from there.
Mr. Speaker, we talk about - the Western one is 2016. If it can be shortened
up, it will, and if it cannot then we will look at 2016, but the other two are
2010, 2011.
I am not sure if that is the question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, Fogo Island is offering government a crystal
ball into what will occur in many communities in this Province once they
eliminate the teepee incinerator system. Residents suggest that in that
community the rat population has exploded, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the minister, I do not know if this government is predicting that a
Pied Piper might come along, but I am asking this government, what will they do
to see that this problem is solved with a lack of composting programs in this
Province?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Order, please, for the last time, and the Chair will have no hesitation in
indentifying members by their district if they continue to interrupt.
The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, in November of 2003 this government signed on to a Canadian
Council of Ministers of the Environment commitment to eliminate teepee
incinerators in this Province.
Mr. Speaker, there are three issues identified. One of the main areas to
tackle this problem was to eliminate teepee incinerators in Newfoundland and
Labrador because they account for 27 per cent of the national dioxin and furan
emissions that go out into the country. There were forty-one at that time in
2003. We have that number from forty-one down to twenty-five and we are very
committed to eliminating those twenty-five by the end of this year, all for the
reasons of health for the people of the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I heard the member for - I think it was Government Services saying they were
toxins. I say he must be sniffing them by the way he is acting over there today,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, already we are hearing reports from community leaders of
increasing dumping in the wood roads in this Province.
I ask the minister: Does she see this as a serious problem, and how is the
department dealing with it?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we are eight months away from the deadline to eliminate teepee
incinerators and we are not going to throw in the towel right now and give up,
and say: Do you know what? We will go ahead and let you expose these people to
dioxins and furans.
We have a committee between the Department of Government Services, the
Department of Municipal Affairs, and my department.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order please!
MS JOHNSON: We have a steering committee in place and we have committed
to meeting with all twenty-five communities over the next coming weeks to ensure
that there are alternatives in place.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order please!
The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, in answers to questions yesterday, and again today, the Premier
has made it clear that he plays an essential role in the approval of the money
that goes to roadwork in the Province, both during the budget process, prior to,
and obviously afterwards, because since the Budget he has said no to the Member
for Baie Verte-Springdale for more money and he has said yes to the Member for
Lewisporte for more money. So, he is essentially involved in that process.
I would like to know from the Premier, why he has chosen this area to be so
closely involved in?
MR. SPEAKER: Order please!
I ask the Member for Gander for his co-operation.
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: As the Premier of the Province, I have responsibility
for all departments generally. Unfortunately, I can't drill down to all the
details at every department. From our perspective, as a department, there is an
official in our department who liaises with the minister and her officials.
There is also a caucus liaison who liaises with caucus members and ministers
with regard to road allowance. That procedure is disseminated through all these.
It is very rarely that I have to meet with a member or a minister over roads. As
a matter of fact, I am sure I can probably count on one hand the number of times
that has actually happened.
This is a different experience, but generally I oversee it and I also look at
the allocation for roads generally to make sure that I feel it is fair. That is
why I was particularly informed of this particular incident in Baie
Verte-Springdale, because in fact that district had already gotten, over the
last seven years, over $20 million in road money allocation. That was more than
any other district in the Province. Therefore, I was trying to keep things
somewhat symmetrical although there still are disparities.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know from the Minister of
Transportation and Works what the criteria are for approving the roadwork that
is going to be done in the Province, because obviously your department goes
through a whole process of coming to an agreement. What are the criteria that
you use?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, there is a process that the department goes
through, but one of the emphasis that we do put on is that safety comes first.
We try to address all of the safety issues that are prioritized in our Budget
when we are doing roadwork.
Over the past number of years, we have put significant dollars into our roads
infrastructure. It was in deplorable condition prior to taking office in 2003. I
am very proud today to say that we have invested $182 million in road
infrastructure this year.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Notices of Motion.
Answers to questions for which notice has been given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. TAYLOR: You are not ratting on somebody, are you, Roland?
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of the
Conception Bay North area, who have made their concerns with the shortage of
doctors, and I want to advise all my hon. colleagues across the way, it has
nothing to do with rats whatsoever.
Mr. Speaker, on a more serious note, it is a major issue in that particular
area of the Province, and no doubt probably in other areas of the Province, but
more so here recently we hear so many people coming forward. I would like for
everybody to get a copy of our local paper The Compass today, and just
see the complaints that are put forward by residents from the Conception Bay
North area. Mr. Speaker, it is worthwhile for anyone to read it. We have the
town councils coming on side, the joint councils, the Joint Mayors'
Associations, with regard to general practitioners.
We know it is probably a problem is various areas of this Province, but we
find it very difficult there; people do not have doctors. If you read The
Compass today, there are some people who have been waiting as high as three
and four weeks to see a doctor to get their prescription filled, and that is
uncalled for.
I do not blame the government for it, but I am just calling upon the
government to listen to the residents of that area and other areas of the
Province when it comes to this issue, and hopefully recruitment and retention
can be the order of the day.
Mr. Speaker, I present the petition on behalf of those people, and hopefully
government will try their best to do something about it, not only in my area but
throughout the Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.
The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased today to be able to rise and present, again, more petitions with
regard to the concern that people have in the Province with regard to a
Province-wide 911 service. The hundreds of names that I am presenting today,
that go along with the prayer that I have already tabled here in the House, are
from the Marystown, Creston area.
Again, these are people who are quite concerned, both about the lack of 911
and, related to that, the inconsistency of emergency response services that they
have on the Burin Peninsula as well, and these two things go together.
Once again, I say to the minister responsible, I know that his department is
starting to look at this issue and they have begun taking
part in meetings that
go on in Atlantic Canada with regard to uniform services around emergency
response and 911. I encourage the minister to respond to these petitions by
being able to table in this House, as soon as possible I know they are
working on it a plan that will show people exactly when we might be able to
have universal 911 in the Province. We know that this will take many years to
happen. It cannot happen overnight. My understanding is that it could be up to
five years. If we start now to really take action and to put a plan in place, it
probably would still take about five years before we would get universal 911.
On behalf of the petitioners, especially the petitioners today from the
Marystown, Creston area, I encourage the minister to speed up this process as
much as possible and to at least get a plan presented to us here in the House so
that people can be assured that, down the road, 911 is going to be there for
everybody.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Order 6, to move, pursuant to
Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock p.m. on today.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock
today, being Tuesday, May 22.
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, further, I would like to move Motion 7, pursuant
to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock p.m. on
today's date.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock
p.m. on today, Thursday, May 22, 2008.
All those in favour of the motion, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act, Bill 37, and I further move that the said
bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce a bill
entitled,
An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act, Bill 37, 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 37, 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'.
The motion is carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to
introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act," carried.
(Bill 37)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act. (Bill 37)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time.
When shall the said bill be read a second time?
MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 37 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 30,
An Act To Amend The
Partnership Act, be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 30,
An Act To Amend The
Partnership Act, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Partnership
Act." (Bill 30)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to rise today to introduce Bill 30,
An Act To Amend The
Partnership Act.
This bill proposes to add a new
Part II to the Partnership Act dealing with
the formation and registration of limited liability partnerships and extra
provincial limited liability partnerships in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, is the last of the Canadian provinces
to implement such legislation, besides Prince Edward Island, providing for
limited liability partnerships. These amendments will remedy that situation by
providing full shield limited liability to partners and allowing professional
businesses to form a limited liability partnership.
Under the amendments included in this bill, partners in a limited liability
partnership will generally have protection from personal liability for the debts
of the partnership and the other partners; however and this is very
important, Mr. Speaker - a limited liability partner will not have this
protection in instances of negligence or wrongdoing by that partner.
These amendments also contain a number of provisions to ensure that those who
deal with the limited liability partnership are aware of that fact.
Under the current legislation, Mr. Speaker, each of the partners in a
partnership is personally liable for the debts of the partnership and the other
partners. This is often less than an ideal business structure, Mr. Speaker, as
it means that the personal assets of every partner are at risk from the actions
of every other partner as well as the partnership employees and all debts
incurred by the partnership. This would speak, Mr. Speaker, from a personal
experience, to someone like myself, coming from a law background in terms of a
law firm, the Opposition House Leader, for example, the Minister of Finance, and
some other members of this House; the way law partnerships are set up, basically
each partner would be liable for the debts or acts of the other.
A limited liability partnership, Mr. Speaker - and this is a common form of
business structure around the world and, as pointed out, is a common form of
business structure in this country except for ourselves and P.E.I. - is a
partnership in which the partners have protection from personal liability for
the debts of the partnership as well as the other partners. Now, I will explain
that again in a second, Mr. Speaker, to put it in common language for members of
the public to understand.
This limited liability afforded partners is similar in many ways to limited
liabilities that shareholders of an incorporated company enjoy. It also provides
many of the same benefits: protection of personal assets, the ability to focus
on the business of the partnership, and certainly for all parties as to what
assets are available to creditors.
The lack of limited liability partnership legislation in Newfoundland and
Labrador has also meant that limited liability partnerships in other
jurisdictions have been discouraged from doing business here. These amendments
will make this Province a more attractive place for limited liability
partnerships to carry on business.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this new act will impose a number of requirements on
limited liability partnerships in order to protect those who deal with them.
Most significant in this regard is that a partner will not have limited
liability in instances where there has been negligence or wrongdoing by the
partner. Now, I will try to explain that in simple language, Mr. Speaker, and I
am sure that the Opposition House Leader will correct me if I am wrong, but if
myself and the Minister of Finance are in a law partnership together - again, I
use law. There are other types of partnerships but I use law because it is one I
am familiar with.
If myself and the Minister of Finance are in a partnership together and the
way it currently stands, my personal assets could be utilized to satisfy his
debts or whatever debts they may be. However, in the new, with the limited
liability partnership, it relates to the business of law and what we are doing
together. So that if the Minister of Finance had some personal, financial
problems, which we would hope the Minister of Finance certainly would not have,
then what would happen, I would currently be responsible or could be responsible
for that if our law partnership was sued.
The way it will now work, however, is that with limited liability that the
assets of the firm, whatever those assets may be - they could be money, they
could be equipment in the office, they could be assets, obviously, except our
trust accounts which would belong to other parties, the individual clients. So,
what would happen then is that they would all be open to creditors, especially
with negligence or wrongdoing, because that is what we are trying to protect
people against, Mr. Speaker. If there is negligence of one partner then
obviously the other partner is liable, but the general thinking - again, I am
sure the Opposition House Leader will correct me if I am wrong. The general
thinking is that I should not lose my house because my business partner could
have personal debts. However, when it comes to those assets that are within the
firm the public is fully protected.
Again, if I am going to use this example of lawyers, I should also point out
that lawyers are heavily insured. We, or at least I used to when I was a lawyer.
I am not sure if I still am. I do not know if someone could help me with that
but, in any event, lawyers carry up to, I think it is $1 million in liability
insurance and also there can be additional liability insurance purchased.
Essentially, what the new act does, Mr. Speaker, it protects the innocent
partner. However, in cases of wrongdoing or negligence, then all of the assets
of the firm are available to satisfy the judgement. So, what we are trying to do
is protect the public, while meanwhile protecting the innocent partner. Again,
there are other limited liability partnerships, as we see in recent sessions,
other than just lawyers.
Most significant, Mr. Speaker, and again, I repeat this, is that a partner
will not have limited liability in incidents where there has been negligence or
wrongdoing by that partner. In other words, if I commit
an act of negligence or
wrongdoing, then my personal assets would still, if I understand this correctly,
my personal assets are still liable to satisfy that judgement.
As well, in order to obtain and maintain their LLP status, limited liability
partnership, and if you look at a lot of law firms, accountant firms, will have
LLP after them. The partnership must register at the corporate registry, notify
clients of their change in status, and include the letters LLP in their business
name. They must also make an up-to-date list of partners available to the public
at all times, and remain in compliance with all the relevant laws and
requirements.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, as in many other Canadian jurisdictions, places
restrictions on the types of businesses able to register. It limits the use of
LLPs, or limited liability partnerships, to members of eligible professions that
are regulated under
an act; such as doctors, lawyers and accountants. That
again, Mr. Speaker, the reasoning for this is perhaps obvious, but we want to
make sure that these LLPs are governed by a profession. There are self-governing
regulations, such as the - and I think we have done this a number of times. The
Minister of Government Services, we have introduced some legislation during this
session.
This approach has been adopted in limited liability partnership legislation
in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick. So what we are doing here today, Mr. Speaker, is nothing earth
shattering. We are simply trying to bring our legislation in line with
legislation in the rest of this country, and to allow then for consistency
throughout the country, both for the individuals or professions who want to
benefit from limited liability partnership, and individuals or professions in
other provinces who want to engage in practice in this Province.
In those provinces, and in this bill, Mr. Speaker, professional partnerships
are permitted to use the LLP structure only if the profession is expressly
authorized by, or under its governing act, to carry on the practice of a
profession through an LLP, and if the partnership has met any prerequisites to
the authorization established under the governing act. Again, I refer to the Law
Society Act because that is one to which I would have personal experience.
Government has received direct representation from certified general
accountants or CGAs, certified managerial accountants, as well as public
accountants, with respect to the formation of LLPs in this Province. Further,
Mr. Speaker, this government has consulted with and has the support of the Law
Society of Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to LLP legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I am a firm believer in uniformity in legislation as we move
across this country. In a federal estate, where there are provinces that make up
the state, there should be, as much as possible, uniformity and consistency in
legislation. I would suggest that these amendments are positive. They bring us
in-line with the rest of the country. They will make this Province a more
attractive place to do business, while at the same time, providing a balanced
level of protection to those who do business with the limited liability
partnership.
Again, as in all pieces of legislation that this government is looking at,
the public interest or protection of the public is a primary concern.
Unfortunately, we have seen, in various professions over the years, that issues
of negligence arise. That perhaps can be expected, even though negligence is
certainly a higher breach than simply a mistake. Negligence requires a breach of
a standard of care that the reasonable prudent practitioner in, whichever
profession, would have complied with. There has to be a special relationship
between the parties.
What we have in terms of protecting the public and establishing though that
innocent partners are not liable for wrongdoing, because unfortunately - and the
Law Society and some other professions are not immune to this. We have seen over
the years a number of instances whereby there has been conduct that certainly
resulted in significant adverse consequences for the public. What we have tried
to do as a government is balance these competing interests but always
maintaining and protecting the public interest.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this amendment to the Partnership
Act. I ask for the support of all hon. members in passing this bill, and I look
forward to the comments of the Opposition House Leader in relation to the same.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words in second reading on Bill 30,
An Act To Amend The Partnership Act.
Albeit, I come from a legal background, I certainly do not profess to be, nor
am I informed or properly informed or expertly informed when it comes to
partnerships. I had a lot of dealing with corporations. Of course, there is
basically three ways a person can carry on business. My understanding was you
either do it as a sole proprietor, an individual, or you do it as a corporation,
which means you would get incorporated under another law of this Province,
called the Corporations Act, and the third way was by way of a partnership. No
matter which way you do it, there has to be rules and regulations surrounding
how you can conduct yourself in that form of business and, as the minister
points out, we are basically playing catch-up here again.
We are not bringing in a partnership act, that already existed. We are now
here amending the existing partnership act because we need to be in step with
the times. We were not up to scratch when it came to some methods and concerns
when it came to operating as a partnership, and that is what these amendments
here address. We will certainly be speaking in favour of them. I personally do
not understand them. Maybe the minister can educate me on this, too, and I say
this in all seriousness. I cannot determine in my head the distinction between a
limited liability partnership and a corporation. It seems to be very fine lines
and I really do not understand the legal distinctions of it. I do not profess to
be an expert on it but I can gather from the tenor of what I read here, the
intention is to put us in step with the rest of the country, to afford the
protections to the partners who are in that type of business arrangement, but
only to a certain extent, i.e., if you do everything reasonable and proper and
you act in good faith and so on, there shall be certain protections for you.
Just because you are operating in partnership with someone else, you should not
lose, necessarily, everything that you own and possess simply because someone
else does something improperly. So that builds in these appropriate protections
from that respect but, at the same time, the public interest piece is protected.
If somebody does something negligently or not in good faith, they of course are
still going to pay the piper, as it were, and they are going to be on the hook
for it.
We will be speaking in favour of this particular piece of legislation. I am
pleased to see, as well, that the department that is responsible for this piece
of legislation, the Justice department, of course, that they did consult with
people who deal with this thing in the field, i.e., the Law Society Act. So we
certainly, Mr. Speaker, will be speaking and voting in favour of this, and I
will not belabour the matter any further.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
No, I would like to tell the Minister of Justice, he did not get that seat.
He got the next one he ran for. I just want to be on record, minister. I just
want to be on record also, obviously, supporting this bill.
Government has the responsibility for protection both of individuals as well
as corporate bodies. This piece of legislation is taking on that responsibility.
As has been pointed out by both the minister and the Opposition House Leader,
this bill also puts us in step with the rest of the country, and so puts our
Province on an equal footing with regard to being a place where people will want
to come, companies will want to come, to do business.
Again, just to put on the record that we are speaking for this bill and I am
happy to give the support to it.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General
speaks now he will close the debate on second reading of Bill 30.
The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to apologize, in my rush, to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi, but I am going to blame it squarely on the shoulders of the new House
Leader who had me on my feet.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank both members for their comments and I
close debate on this issue.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice closes debate on Bill 30 in
second reading,
An Act To Amend The Partnership Act.
This bill has now been read a second time. When shall Bill 30 be referred to
a Committee of the Whole House.
MS BURKE: Now.
MR. SPEAKER: Now.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Partnership Act," read a
second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by
leave. (Bill 30)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 29, an amendment to the Legal Aid
Act, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Legal Aid
Act." (Bill 29)
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to hear continuing debate - this debate
was adjourned at an earlier time on
An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act, Bill
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words with respect to Bill 29, An
Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act.
I will just get my papers in order here.
The minister spoke at length on this issue last week, and this, of course,
concerns the right to, under the Legal Aid Act in the past I just misplaced
my papers there. This is an amendment to the Legal Aid Act whereby justice is
now going to provide for counsel of choice in certain circumstances and under
certain conditions.
The minister made some very worthy comments and certainly explained the
matter. I still have some issues and this is, of course, the appropriate place
in second reading to raise these concerns so that when we go to the next stage,
the Committee stage, by that time the minister will have had an opportunity to
check out the details and provide the details so that we do not delay matters
unnecessarily in Committee stage.
First of all, I am aware personally that in the past there were instances
where certain persons charged with certain offences did not automatically have a
choice of what counsel they could have, and it became an issue to the point
where people quite often made applications to the Trial Division judges to get
their own personal lawyer. I know when I was in the department, for example, I
was the subject of several Supreme Court orders whereby Supreme Court justices
ordered that individuals be allowed to have certain counsel and that the bills
be paid. I do not recall the exact details of what cases they were, but I know
there was one involving a Mr. Buckingham who practices here in the Province.
There was an actual order from the courts.
I am just wondering now - I think it begs the question - if albeit we are
going to change it so that in the case of murder, manslaughter and infanticide,
that an individual will now, under the Legal Aid Act, be permitted to have their
own counsel, I am wondering how that is going to stack up against the existing
practice that someone can still apply to the Supreme Court and say: I am not
satisfied with the $60 an hour arrangement.
I heard the comments of the same Mr. Buckingham in the public media, once the
announcement was made recently that this new system would be brought in, he
indicated - and I noticed; I paid close attention to what he said - that he is
in favour of the fact that you can now, an individual charged with these serious
offences, select your own counsel through the legal aid. You are not required
any more just to have the legal aid lawyers do it, but you can actually choose
your own, but he was not overly optimistic, I do not believe, from his comments,
to the $60 an hour thing. I think his comments were to the effect that I have
checked my office and we see what we can do and we will try our best to do it,
but I think that we can fully expect down the road that the $60 an hour fee is
not going to cut it.
I have seen and heard the amount of money that the minister has put in the
pot for this year to deal with this issue, but I am just wondering, and I guess
we will only know with experience whether it pans out or not. It depends on how
many murder trials you have, it depends on how many people select counsel
outside of the legal aid, and therefore that will determine what the dollars
are.
I am not certain, either, was there any consultation done with counsel in
this area at least - because most of the major trials take place here in the
Northeast Avalon, murder trials and so on, and manslaughter trials - I am
wondering if there was much consultation with the local Bar who practice in the
criminal field as to what the buy in would likely be into this type of program.
I think everybody recognizes it as a positive step in the sense of giving the
accused a choice of counsel, but that is only going to be successful, of course,
if the local Bar buys into the $60 an hour piece.
The other point I would raise is, I am not sure but I thought I heard the
minister say that there was a limit. Because, obviously, if it is $60 an hour
and the person is hired to do that, is there any cap on the number of hours that
the person is allowed to put in? Because that may be a determinant as well,
whether the Bar buys into this thing, because obviously different trials have
different complexities and require different amounts of time. Obviously, if you
are going to go to a full-scale, all-out trial versus if someone is going to
plead guilty to one of these offences, it makes a difference in terms of hours.
I am just wondering, as part of the package, if there is any further detail
the minister can provide to us in terms of: Was there consultation, and what are
the number of hours that would fit under such a tariff? Is there any limit on
the number of hours that a counsel who were so engaged would be limited to in
that particular case?
I believe he mentioned a figure of $400,000 was put into the pot for this
year. The other thing I actually have a problem here with the wording, and I
am not sure if the minister can help me with this. I will read it exactly
because I do not want to mix it up here. Under the
section it says, :Where the
application is for legal aid with respect to an offence of murder, manslaughter
or infanticide the applicant may select a solicitor employed by the commission
or a solicitor in private practice in the province" and this is the
next phrase that I am totally lost on "except a solicitor whose name
has been removed from the panel, other than upon his or her own request,
however, this subsection does not place an obligation on that solicitor to act
for the applicant".
Now, I am at a complete loss as to what that wording means, "except a
solicitor whose name has been removed from the panel, other than upon his or her
own request". So I am assuming there is a panel of some sort, that the
Legal Aid Commission has, and anybody who is prepared to have their name on that
panel, if the person wants to select that counsel, they would do so, and then
the counsel, of course, signs on to the requirements that they are left with,
whatever the tariff regulations are $60 an hour, and how many hours but
I am just wondering, what do we mean here when we say, "except a solicitor
whose name has been removed from the panel".
For example, what if the Legal Aid Commission has removed a solicitor's
name from the panel or does not have their name on the panel, but yet that
solicitor is the one who the accused person chooses. I am somewhat at a loss
here. Maybe it is just a case of semantics where I do not understand it but it
certainly not very clear. I am just wondering if there is a clearer way to put
import of it. I am at a loss in that regard. I think that is very important
because we are here to try and make a system work better. We are trying to do
something positive here. I can see right now where that wording is froth with
difficulty and if there is some way from a language perspective that it can be
cleaned up a bit - maybe a different
section or more explanation. I am at a loss
to see how it fits.
Except a solicitor whose name has been removed from the panel, other than
upon his or her own request; I read it on the one hand to be, that my name would
not be on the panel because I wanted it off myself, but are there circumstances
where my name would not be on the list because the commission did not put me on
the list? What are the details surrounding this panel? Who creates the panel?
How do you get on the panel? Any information and instructions that we might have
in that regard would certainly be helpful.
Again I go back to the original point I made because I think it is important.
Does the minister expect - I know he expects, but does he anticipate that
counsel are going to buy into this or will we see a repeat of what currently
happens when someone is not satisfied, i.e., there is an application to the
court? Because, albeit good intentions, we are not going to get very far along
just to use Mr. Buckingham for example, the media figure on this, if Mr.
Buckingham says, thank you very much, I will represent Mr. Citizen, the accused
person, but I am not prepared to do it for $60 and I am going to make an
application to the court again.
I am just wondering if there has been any anticipation there is nothing
here that outlaws or prohibits the counsel's and the accused's right to
still make the application to the Supreme Court. I did not know if there was any
way to prohibit that and prevent that. Albeit this is a well intentioned piece
of legislation, if people want to circumvent the system, and no doubt they will,
if an individual could not get paid $100 an hour or $200 an hour why are they
going to work for $60 an hour?
I am wondering as well, is there any piece whereby the regulations
surrounding this issue - does that become a part of the regulations under the
Legal Aid Act, the $60 thing, the tariff thing? Is that done by regulation and
so on? I just want some details surrounding those types of issues, so at least
if we ask them here and if it might be helpful in making something more positive
and acceptable to the Bar and to the accused and make it right that we could
have that information right here now. I think it would assist in the process.
Mr. Speaker, I do not have any further comments. I look forward to getting
some responses to those concerns when we call the matter in Committee.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to be able to speak to this bill as well.
As was pointed out by the Minister of Justice when he presented it, this is
an extremely important issue because every individual should have the right to
be fairly represented in the legal system. Allowing, especially for these
serious offences, the full access to representation is extremely important. It
really does not matter, ultimately, if it turns out whether the person is
innocent or guilty because everybody has a right to be not just represented but
fairly represented. Even when a person is found guilty there are always nuances
around guilt and the most experienced lawyers are the ones who sometimes confine
those nuances that can be very important to what a person ends up having to
serve in terms of time and those kinds of things which affect that person's
life in the future. Guilt or innocence does not matter, it is the right of a
person to be adequately represented.
I am pleased with the bill, but I too have similar questions as have been put
forward by the Opposition House Leader. I may be saying it in a different way
but I would like to repeat them. I find about four limiting factors in the bill
with regard to the individuals being able to access representation. One is
assuming that because the person is going to be able to access representation
from a solicitor who the person wants that they are choosing somebody who they
think is going to give them the best representation.
My questions: some are the same as and some are slightly different from the
Opposition House Leader. The first one: in terms of the $60 per hour, how was
that tested? What was the consultation that led the minister to seeing that as a
fair number to put forward? Now he did, in making his presentation the other
day, indicate to us that this obviously is going to be asking for a fair bit of
good will in the legal profession, of people who are going to be willing to work
not exactly pro bono but almost pro bono, when you compare the $60 an hour to
what the individual might be used to getting in his or her private practice. I
would like to know what was used to come up with that; what were the criteria
that led the minister to that.
Another limiting factor is the limit of the number of hours. Now, I do
remember the Minister of Justice telling us that there was a limited number of
hours, and I wrote that down, but I did not write down the number, so I will ask
him to repeat that number. Again, I have a similar question: What was used to
determine the number of hours? Because of the fact that if, for example, not
enough hours have been allowed, a person could end up getting partway through a
trial and then no longer be able to pay their lawyer. Are there any
contingencies going to be put in place with regard to that limiting factor of
the number of hours? If it is only based on an average, what happens to the
trial of the person that is way beyond that average? To me, we are recognizing a
right in this bill but we are limiting the right, and that is my concern with
that.
Then, of course, another limiting factor is - and I know this is
hypothetical, but - what if each solicitor that the person names says no? Then
the person can ultimately end up not being able to get anybody that he or she
wants to choose anyway.
I understand that limits are sort of necessary, but I would want to make sure
that the limits are minimized as much as possible so that we do not give with
one hand and take back with another hand. That would be my concern.
This is an issue that has been - while on the one hand we are talking about
offences of murder, manslaughter or infanticide, it is not just an issue for
men; it is also an issue for women, and I would want to make sure that, whether
we are talking about a concern for a woman because she is connected to the
person who has been accused, or whether because she herself is the accused, I
would not want to see a woman limited in any way in having her rights
represented. I want concerns allayed for women with regard to this new bill
coming in, that it is going to be something that is going to work, because I
really liked what the minister said when he made the presentation, that this is
not just for the accused, this is also for the victim, because it will assure
that trials will happen in a timely way and that things are not dragged on
unnecessarily long, and by having access to the solicitor one is choosing, one
would hope that expectation of the minister is going to take place.
So our concern is not just for the accused but also for the victims. Again,
that is my concern and that is why I would want to be sure that we make sure
that the limits that are here are not going to be limiting to the point where
the amendment will not work.
I think these are my major concerns, and I do want to commend the minister on
his efficiency in bringing in important pieces of legislation with regard to our
justice system. I am really pleased to see that, and I am sure that he will
either have answers to the questions I have posed or, if he feels that he does
not have an answer nailed down, I trust that he will want to pursue the issue a
bit further.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
If the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General speaks now, he will
close the debate on second reading of Bill 29,
An Act To Amend The Legal Aid
Act.
The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The questions and issues raised by both members opposite are very valid. They
are ones that I will just need a short period of time to find answers to, and to
refine my answers, Mr. Speaker. I can do that in the Committee stage, and I
would move for the closing of the debate at second reading, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 29,
An Act To
Amend The Legal Aid Act, be now read a second time?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.
The motion is carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act. (Bill 29)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time.
When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MS BURKE: Now.
MR. SPEAKER: Now.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act," read a
second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by
leave. (Bill 29)
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would like to back up a little.
Since he did not go through all the proceedings on Bill 30, and ask for a
vote, he will do this at this time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 30,
An Act To Amend The Partnership
Act, be now read a second time?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.
The motion is carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Partnership Act. (Bill 30)
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Partnership Act," read a
second time. (Bill 30)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move now that Bill 20,
An Act To Amend The
Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, The Provincial Court
Judges' Pension Plan Act, The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers'
Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991, be now read a second
time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 20,
An Act To Amend The
Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, The Provincial Court
Judges' Pension Plan Act, The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers'
Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991, be now continued in
second reading.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Members Of The
House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, The Provincial Court Judges'
Pension Plan Act, The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers'
Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991." (Bill 20)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate an opportunity.
My comments will be very brief concerning Bill 20. I did have the benefit of
listening to the Minister of Finance last day when he introduced second reading
on this particular Bill 20; and a very straightforward explanation. In fact, the
explanations contained in the explanatory notes on this bill are very helpful in
and of themselves. The minister did a good job, as well, of presenting that
information.
What we are doing here basically is; again there are certain acts and certain
circumstances that were not covered off under these pension plans. We are
dealing with the Members of the House of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, the
Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act, the Public Service Pensions Act,
the Teachers' Pensions Act and the Uniformed Services Pensions Act. There is a
whole pile of people who are impacted by these various pension plans, and the
intent of this piece of legislation is to clean up some of these issues that
existed and have come to light with the passage of time.
What we are dealing with here, of course, is, what if a plan member died and
there was a circumstance of: what if the person died before they were ever
receiving their pension, and they didn't have a principal beneficiary such as
a spouse or kids? What would happen in that case? What this is doing is cleaning
it up so that now those provisions will be looked after. Circumstances, I guess,
or fact situations - when you draft a law the first time around you don't
always contemplate or anticipate all the circumstances and over the passage of
time a situation comes to light and you realize when you look at the law - you
say, my God, we didn't cover that off, or that is not covered off in that
particular law, we need to fix it.
What we are doing here is we are going back in some of these cases and fixing
it. Sometimes you have to make what they call transitional arrangements. You try
to be fair to people. These are people who contributed to various pension plans
over the years, and they want these protections and coverages for the money that
they contributed to the various pension plans.
We will be, and are, supportive of this particular Bill 20.
The only question I would have for the minister and I am sure being the
Minister of Finance he has the knowledge far more than I do. I like these Second
Reading Stages because it gives you an opportunity as a member of the House,
that if you don't understand something you can ask the questions. We are
obligated, I feel, that we should ask the questions rather than accept things at
face value. This is not just a case of getting a book of work done here in the
House. There is an obligation to read it, there is an obligation to understand
it, debate it and propose amendments if you think they are in order and so on.
Mine is a fairly straightforward question. It just came to me when I was
looking at the explanatory note
section here, in paragraph two particularly.
What does commuted value of the plan mean? Now, there may be a very simple
explanation of that. I am just wondering what commuted value of a pension plan
means? That may seem very simplistic to some people but I really do not know the
answer. I guess, they tell me there is no such thing as a stupid question. They
say if you do not understand, ask. The minister may have a very straightforward,
simple answer for me, but as I read through this it struck me that I understand
the intent of what the amendments are getting at but I do not know the
definition of commuted pension value. What does that entail? That would be my
only question that the minister, when he gets to committee stage or at closing
of the second reading, if he has that information at this fingertips we would
certainly appreciate it if he might be able to educate me in that regard.
Other than that, Mr. Speaker, we do not have any further comments to make in
second reading on this bill and we will be voting in favour of it.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
If the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now he
will close the debate in second reading of Bill 20.
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the hon. Opposition House Leader for his comments. Fortunately, I
will be able to answer his question. In the remarks I made previously, I think I
did give the answer to the definition of what is called commuted value.
Commuted value was a question I had myself, and the best explanation that I
can give is that it is the full value of the pension as opposed to some lesser
amount. In the situation we are trying to rectify here, which is the case of if
you have a government employee before retirement, who passes away before
retiring with the pension having vested, in most situations the commuted value,
the full value of the pension would get paid to either the spouse or to the
estate, but there was one anomaly.
It was in the case where the pensioner died or the employee died in
pre-retirement, the pension has vested. There was no spouse but there were
children. In that case the commuted value was not paid. In that case the
children, while they were of age, while they were under eighteen, or under
twenty-four attending school, that they would get 60 per cent of the pension
that the deceased employee would have been eligible to until they were no longer
of age. When they stopped being of age, they would get paid to the estate or
paid to them the total contributions that the member had contributed, plus
interest, less the benefits that had been paid out. That amount was less than
what would be called the commuted value, the full value. That was not fair. So
the pensions benefit act, which regulates pensions, provided that the full
commuted value had to be paid. In this particular situation that was not
happening. So we want to rectify that. The purpose of the legislation, of
course, is to rectify it.
There is a definition here in my notes. It says: commuted value is the
present value of the deceased plan member's earned pension entitlement to the
date of death. It represents the amount of money that would be required to be
invested in another retirement vehicle to provide the same level of benefit
promised by the plan. I guess it is a sum of money that if you had to put it in
some other plan would give you the same pension.
With that, I thank the hon. Opposition House Leader for his comments and I
would urge passage of second reading.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 20 be now read a
second time?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.
The motion is carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly
Retiring Allowances Act, The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act, The
Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The
Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill 20)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 20, has been now read a second time.
When shall Bill 20 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MS BURKE: Now.
MR. SPEAKER: Now.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly
Retiring Allowances Act, The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act, The
Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The
Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991," read a second time, ordered
referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 20)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole and consider Bills 20 and 30.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House resolve itself into a Committee
of the Whole to consider certain bills and that I do now leave the Chair.
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.
The motion is carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.
Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Collins): Order, please!
We are now ready to begin debate in Committee on Bills 20, 29 and 30.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, we referred to the Committee Bills 20 and 30 only.
We did not refer 29 at this time.
CHAIR: Bill 20. We are prepared for debate on Bill 20.
CLERK: Clause 1.
CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, nay'.
Clause 1 is carried.
On motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK: Clauses 2 to 18 inclusive.
CHAIR: Clauses 2 to 18 inclusive, shall these carry?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
On motion, clauses 2 through 18 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in
Legislative Session convened, as follows.
CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
On motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring
Allowances Act, The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act, The Public
Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed
Services Pensions Act 1991.
CHAIR: Shall the title carry?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
On motion, title carried.
CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 20 carried without amendment?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment,
carried.
CHAIR: Now begin debate on Bill 30,
An Act To Amend The Partnership Act.
CLERK: Clause 1.
CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
On motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK: Clauses 2 to 3 inclusive.
CHAIR: Clauses 2 to 3 inclusive, shall those carry?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
On motion, clauses 2 and 3 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in
Legislative Session convened, as follows.
CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Partnership Act.
CHAIR: Shall the title carry?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On motion, title carried.
CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 30 carried without amendment?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment,
carried.
CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: I move, Mr. Chair, that the Committee rise and report Bill 20
and Bill 30.
CHAIR: It has been moved that the Committee rise, report progress and ask
leave to sit again.
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit
again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the
matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 20 and Bill 30
carried without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the
Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to
report Bill 20 and Bill 30 carried without amendment, and ask leave to sit
again.
When shall this report be received?
MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Now.
On motion, report received and adopted.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to now refer to the Order Paper for
today, and go to number three on the Order Paper, Concurrence Motions of the
Resource Committee.
We will start the concurrence debate from our Estimates Committee, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to hear reports on the concurrence debate
from the Resource Committee.
The Chair recognizes the Chair of the Resource Committee, the hon. the Member
for Bonavista North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to begin the concurrence debate on our Estimates.
As I mentioned yesterday, the Resource Committee reviewed the Estimates for
six different departments. These were: the Department of Business; Environment
and Conservation; Fisheries and Aquaculture; Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development; Natural Resources; and, Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
Yesterday, as well, I thanked the members on the Committee. In addition to
the regular members that we did have, we also had three alternates who filled in
for the regular members who could not attend, and I would like to acknowledge
these now: the Member for St. John's East, the Member for St. Barbe, and the
Member for Humber Valley.
I would like to probably just, first of all, give a brief overview of each
department whose Estimates we debated during our meetings. There were a lot of
questions asked by the members on the Committee and, equally so, there were some
great answers given by the ministers and officials in each department.
First, just a brief overview of the Department of Tourism, Culture and
Recreation. This year we are seeing an increase in that department's budget of
almost $6 million. More than $3.5 million of that, the extra money, is going
into our culture and heritage sector. There is more than $2 million going into
tourism marketing and strategic product development.
I think those of us who have been following the budgets of the years since we
have been in office have seen that each year that department has increased its
marketing budget by $1 million. When our government took office back in
2003-2004, I think there was something like $6 million in marketing for tourism
in our Province. Today, in this year's budget, that has doubled and we are now
seeing $12 million in the marketing budget of the Department of Tourism, Culture
and Recreation.
I think the results of that, Mr. Speaker, can also be observed when we see
that non-resident tourists coming to our Province over the past four years, that
trade has increased by 15 per cent.
The Department of Business, Mr. Speaker, for the people who are not aware,
this is a department whose main purpose is to try to promote and encourage
businesses from the rest of Canada and internationally to come and set up in our
Province. With respect to our own businesses, local businesses in the Province,
we do have other departments that take care of these, departments such as
Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.
This year, that budget for the Department of Business has been projected to
be increased by more than $33 million over last year's actual expenditures. A
lot of this money will be dedicated to large scale investments in business
ventures and infrastructure through its business attraction fund.
The Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture: this year we are seeing almost
$6 million extra money put into that department. There is an additional $1.5
million in seafood marketing and support services. I think what is important
about this initiative is that there is going to be greater concentration on
marketing of our fish products in the European market. That is certainly a good
way to proceed in view of the situation with respect to our dollar now as
compared to the US dollar where most of our fish products have been going.
There is also an extra $2.5 million in the Fisheries Innovation and
Development programs. These will be initiatives to diversify and strengthen the
fish harvesting and processing sectors of the fishery.
There is also going to be another $2 million in other executive and support
services including the government's Fishing Industry Renewal Strategy.
Mr. Speaker, I move on now to the Department of Natural Resources. That
department is one of the largest departments in government, I guess, and it is
responsible for the forestry sector, for agrifoods and also for our mines and
energy sectors.
Gross expenditures of that department for this year, 2008-2009, will be $467
million. That is an increase of more than $374 million over last year's actual
expenditures. These expenditures will occur in all divisions of the department.
The greatest increase is in the energy initiatives; approximately $320
million of capital investment in the Energy Corporation of Newfoundland and
Labrador. These funds will be used mainly for its participation in oil and gas
activities and other energy projects, such as the Lower Churchill.
There is also a fairly large increase in the Agrifoods Development
section of
the Department of Natural Resources. Last year the department spent
approximately $16 million and this year that is going to be a little more than
doubled and going to $32.8 million. I am glad to see, Mr. Speaker, that a part
of that increase is with respect to the development of the cranberry industry in
the Province. I am pleased with that, because I do have a major employer in my
District of Bonavista North who is keenly interested in this development.
Just to give you some perspective of what the cranberry industry will
potentially mean to the Province: if we develop 1,000 acres of land, bogland,
which is not used at all now, if we develop 1,000 acres of bogland in the
Province for cranberries it will mean roughly $15 million coming into final
product production added to the economy of our Province. It will also mean that
there will be approximately $30 million in private investment going into the
development of that industry. I guess the most important thing is that we should
see approximately something more than 400 new jobs, full-time and part-time
jobs, created by the development of the cranberry industry. Mr. Speaker, I am
really pleased to see our government take that initiative.
The Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development: we see in that
budget this year an increase of more than $14 million over last year's actual
expenditures. Approximately $5 million of that increase is going into the
Innovation, Research and Advanced Technologies sector which includes our Oceans
Technology Initiatives.
There is almost $5 million extra in Economic Development and diversification
initiatives and projects throughout the Province. This fund will concentrate
also - probably the big contributor to this initiative is that it will leverage
funding from the federal government and from the private sector.
Also, there is almost $2 million extra in Strategic Industries Development
and $3 million extra to further support small and medium sized business in the
Province.
The other department that our committee reviewed was the Department of
Environment and Conservation. In that department we are seeing an increased
expenditure this year up more than $7 million. These increased expenditures for
that department will be occurring in Pollution Prevention, in Water Resources
Management, and other areas of environmental management and protection.
There will also be improvements to the provincial park system, coming from
funding in that department. Also, improvements to the management of Crown lands,
which I am sure a lot of people in the Province will be glad to see, that the
services being offered by the Crown Lands Division will be expected to be much
improved from what it currently is.
Mr. Speaker, having reviewed the Estimates of those departments, I would also
like to make a few comments with respect to the Budget in general. I have been
out in my district since the Budget was announced, three or four weeks ago, and
I have talked with a lot of people in my district, and I certainly have to say,
that there have been an awful lot of favourable comments with respect to this
year's Budget.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, I spoke with a life-time Liberal out there who told me
that our current Finance Minister is the best Finance Minister that this
Province has ever seen.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, when you talk about budgets - I think there is
more money coming to my district now as a result of the comment that I just
made. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I guess when you look at budgets, there is no such
thing, there never has been and I do not suppose there ever will be, what you
would call a perfect budget; a budget where you see everything being able to be
given to whatever has been requested. That has never happened, and I do not
suppose it ever will.
We only have to look at the Province of Alberta. Alberta has been reaping
billions and billions of dollars from their oil resources for years. We as a
Province, Newfoundland and Labrador, is relatively new into that source of
revenue. If you look at Alberta, and you listen to the radio and the television,
you will hear that they still have problems with health care, they still have
problems with their schools, they still have problems with road building and
construction, and they still have problems with people who are homeless in the
Province of Alberta. Mr. Speaker, where we are new to these additional monies we
see coming to the Province now, we certainly are on the right track, and as time
goes on things will no doubt get better.
Earlier on during the session, several members from the Opposition and the
NDP made reference to a couple in St. John's who are having very difficult
times. I am sure every member in this House understands and appreciates the
situation that those people were going through. While I say that, Mr. Speaker, I
can also say that every member in this House can look at their own district and
see dozens and dozens of cases just as bad or even worse. These are things that
we have to look at as time goes on.
A point that I want to make, Mr. Speaker, and something that people in the
general public should remember, is that since our government took office in
2003-2004, over that four-year period we are putting more than $700 million into
health care in this Province, over and above what was put in back in 2004. Mr.
Speaker, I think we can all realize that if we