April

30, 2009

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 13

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we welcome the following members' statements: the

hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South; the

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

District of Mount Pearl North; and the hon. the Member for the District of

Kilbride.

The hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise in this hon. House today to

congratulate Miss Courtney Woodford of Triton, for taking home the Miss Talent

title for the second year in a row, while competing in the Miss Teen

Newfoundland and Labrador pageant.

Ms Woodford is a Level II student at Dorset Collegiate and has competed in

several other pageants in the past few years.

These young ladies are judged on personality, academics, fitness, public

speaking ability and on stage casual and evening wear competitions, of which

Miss Woodford placed fourth.

Her goal from here is to attend Memorial University to obtain a Bachelor of

Physical Education, along with an education degree.

I would ask all hon. members to join with me in congratulating Courtney

Woodford on a job well done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, today I want to personally congratulate Irene

Porter of Port de Grave on being awarded the Order of St. John Life Saving

Award.

His Honour, the Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador, conducted

the investiture of the Order of St. John at the Anglican Cathedral. The award

was presented at this ceremony.

On September 15, 2007, Ms Porter was working at a local retirement residence

as a personal care attendant when the incident occurred. She realized

immediately that one of the residents was choking and could not breathe. Ms

Porter, though small in stature, instantly ran to his aid. Shocked residents

looked on as she came to his assistance. After one unsuccessful attempt, Irene

administered a second abdominal thrust and the obstruction was dislodged.

Because of her quick action, the resident soon began to breathe on his own. It

was reported by the medical people that without her immediate intervention, the

resident may not have survived.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in commending Irene Porter for

her quick actions and for her knowledge and use of first aid in saving a life.

Truly an unselfish act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize and congratulate O'Donel High

School in partnering with FedEx, Tree Canada, and the City of Mount Pearl in a

property enhancement program which involved tree planting and landscaping on the

school grounds.

Funding for this program was provided by FedEx through Tree Canada. FedEx

employees also gave generously of their own time to assist with the project. As

well, consultation and equipment was offered from the City of Mount Pearl. I

would be remiss if I did not mention the students of the Environmental Science

class at O'Donel, as well as their parents, who gave freely of their time to

ensure that this project was a success.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating all

of those involved in this wonderful project of property enhancement. I would

like to thank FedEx, Tree Canada, the Parks and Community Services Staff of the

City of Mount Pearl, and, of course, the staff, students and parents of O'Donel

High School for their dedication and hard work.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, as you know, it is important for any society to

develop a strong pool of young people who can assume leadership positions. As I

go throughout my district, I am always impressed by our youth who are dynamic,

focused on their future and already demonstrating strong leadership abilities.

Today I want to tell you about one seventeen year old woman in my district. She

is Samantha Elton Taite, a Grade 12 honours student in French immersion at

Bishop's College.

In 2007, Samantha was selected as one of the 100 Student Torch Champions from

across Canada for the SOS-4000 Campaign for Organ Transplant and Donation. She

launched this campaign from the steps of City Hall in St. John's and then

travelled to Gander where she met with the town council and Premier Williams to

pass the torch on to the next champion. When the campaign finished in Nunavut in

2008, Samantha was named the National Torch Champion and Media Spokesperson for

this group, and in July of 2008 she travelled to Ottawa.

On the weekend of April 6, 2009, Samantha travelled to Toronto as the

National Champion and Media Spokesperson to oversee the formal awards ceremony

and to launch the international campaign.

Samantha is very active in her school as a member of the student council, and

in 2008 she represented her school at the Provincial Student Leadership

Conference. She also competed in the Miss Teen Newfoundland and Labrador pageant

in that year and placed in the Top 10. She also spent that summer in Quebec with

the YMCA Student Exchange Leadership Program and worked at in the University of

Quebec - notice I did not say that in French, because my French is poor as a

day camp counsellor.

Samantha is enrolled in MUN for the fall of 2009, and with a Bronze Medallion

and Bronze Cross in lifeguarding she recently secured employment with the

Aquarena.

When I look at young people like Samantha, Mr. Speaker, I know our future is

in good hands.

I ask all hon. members to join me in recognizing this outstanding young woman

from my District of Kilbride.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, as Minister Responsible for the Status of

Persons with Disabilities, I rise today to inform this hon. House that the

Disability Policy Office is now open for business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: I am pleased that Mary Reid has accepted the position of

director of this new established office. Mary is well known and respected in the

disability community. She has worked with communities and governments for over

twenty-five years leading integrated inclusion initiatives.

Mary has previously held the role of executive director of the Independent

Living Resource Centre in St. John's, and has been a board member with the

Council of Canadians with Disabilities, Coalition of Persons with Disabilities,

Human Rights Association Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Roeher Institute.

Mary recently returned to Newfoundland and Labrador, and we are happy to

bring her back to Newfoundland and Labrador, to accept the position of Director

of the Disability Policy Office following four years of similar work in another

province.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment is

excited to see the establishment of the Disability Policy Office, and to take a

lead role in developing and implementing a government-wide strategy for the

inclusion of persons with disabilities. In keeping with the provincial

government's commitment for citizen engagement, we will undertake an extensive

community consultation where we will seek direction on how we can best achieve

inclusion for all citizens regardless of disability.

In addition, to ensure that we work in collaboration and address barriers

across all departments and agencies of government, we will establish a number of

committees. These will include a committee of ministers, a deputies committee,

and an interdepartmental working group.

Finally, in the near future, a call will go forward for Expressions of

Interest to participate on a new Advisory Council for the Inclusion of Persons

with Disabilities. This advisory council will be instrumental in accessing

guidance from the experts; that is from people who have disabilities themselves.

Mr. Speaker, the Disability Policy Office will be a focal point for all of

government, providing policy leadership to achieve full inclusion. The office

will also work to strengthen partnerships with community agencies, business, and

the public sector.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very exciting and challenging new initiative for my

department. I look forward to working with persons with disabilities and their

advocates towards making Newfoundland and Labrador an inclusive and accessible

Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: I want to thank the Minister Responsible for the Status of

Persons with Disabilities for an advance copy of her statement, and to say

congratulations to Ms Mary Reid on accepting the position of director. As the

minister stated, I have to say that she comes to this position with a tremendous

amount of knowledge and experience to bring to the office. It is very important,

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about inclusion of persons with disabilities. I know

how well it has worked in two schools in my district, in Holy Redeemer School

and Ascension Collegiate, when it comes to some of the young people in that

particular area.

I guess the most important statement in the minister's statement is that

the people with the experience, the expertise, the people with disabilities

themselves, will be serving on the advisory council. That is very important

because, I can assure you, there are many issues that they will bring forward -

find it very difficult. We also heard concerns recently about our various ferry

services.

I think it is a great thing, Mr. Speaker, this announcement, to know that the

office is open, and I want to wish Ms Reid every success in her role as

director.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement and I am very

pleased to join with others in congratulating Mary Reid on her new position. We

all know that she brings a great deal of experience and knowledge, as the

minister's statement has pointed out, and I think will give real leadership in

this new division that has finally been put in place.

I do encourage the minister that, as well as setting up this division,

government must provide also adequate financial supports for people who cannot

work because of their disabilities. I encourage the new office to actively seek

input from people with disabilities for solutions aimed at eliminating

disability-based discrimination and poverty, because poverty is much higher

among people with disabilities, especially women with disabilities, than it is

for the general population.

I also hope that this government will invest more in employment programs that

allow people with disabilities to work without losing government support

payments as they do that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today on behalf of

my colleague, the hon. Clyde Jackman, Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation, to inform members of an exciting new development in the Newfoundland

and Labrador film industry.

The Canadian Broadcast Corporation recently approved its upcoming television

season lineup and confirmed that a one-hour father-son police drama entitled Republic

of Doyle , will be among the new shows featured next year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON : Republic of Doyle is one of the biggest

budget television series ever produced in Canada, and the twelve episodes

commissioned to date will be filmed right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, this is an unprecedented opportunity for our

film industry, and for film industry workers in this Province. We recognized

this when the producers approached us last year with a view of securing our

financial support in making the television series a reality.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has committed $1.5 million in

film equity funding to the project in Budget 2009 to ensure this Province

accrues the maximum benefits from this television production. The size of this

production will also enable producers to avail of approximately $3 million

through the Newfoundland and Labrador Film and Video Tax Credit.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the direct commitment from the provincial government

in Republic of Doyle is $4.5 million -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: - with economic spin-off activities estimated to result in

about $11.3 million in benefits to the local economy.

This is an investment that will reap both tangible and intangible benefits.

Since Republic of Doyle is produced and written out of Newfoundland and

Labrador, the opportunity for talent development is significant. The show's

producers intend to hire key crew, cast and other creative partners who are

based in this Province.

Newfoundland and Labrador professional film artists will be given the

opportunity to develop substantial credentials and expertise and, as an added

bonus, with filming taking place in St. John's, this is an extraordinary

opportunity to showcase the capital city, and indeed the entire Province, to the

rest of country and indeed the world.

Mr. Speaker, we are very excited about this project. Filming is expected to

begin this summer, and we intend to make a further announcement at that time,

with the producing partners, to provide more details on this initiative.

I certainly invite my colleagues to celebrate with us this milestone in the

development of the growing film sector.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

It looks like we here in Newfoundland and Labrador have it going and coming.

We have this film as the minister alluded to here; we have Alan Doyle in Great

Big Sea going off to perform in Russell Crowe's major motion production

outside of the Province; and now this new production, of course, Republic of

Doyle. I do not know if there is any relation between Alan Doyle and the Republic

of Doyle referenced here, but it is certainly good to see. Whether it is a

cultural event, whether it is an historical type of event, all of these events

and initiatives that are sponsored by governments, of course, attract people to

this Province. Whether it is the ECMAs or the Junos which are coming here next

year, all of that gives an opportunity to either showcase this Province, bring

money into this Province, give people employment in this Province, and let

people experience and gain skills at the same time.

We have a long history, of course, when it comes to the film industry. We

have had Random Passage , we have had Rare Birds, we have had Red

Door - The Shipping News was made here - all of which have

contributed significantly to the economy here and to the skills development of

our film community and the people involved in it. We can even go back further

than that. We go back to The Rowdyman days and we go back to Orca

which was made sometime twenty-odd, thirty years ago.

We have had a long history, and we congratulate government for continuing

with efforts to support these types of ventures. There are indeed positive

spin-offs in a lot of ways, whether it is in terms of hospitality and showcasing

the Province, in terms of talent development and the economic spin-offs, so we

encourage the minister to keep up the good work in this regard.

Thank you.

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

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

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

I got a bit of a start, because I knew I was speaking to Tourism and Culture

and I hadn't read the title that the Minister of Fisheries was presenting.

When I heard that the Minister of Fisheries was standing up, I said, oh, my

goodness, and I kept looking through my papers to see what I had to respond to.

Now I know that you are speaking for the Minister of Culture, so thank you. I

got a bit of a start.

In the Estimates a couple of weeks ago we learned that government had put a

large part of money aside for a special project for the film industry, and at

that time the minister couldn't, I guess, for whatever reason, say. So I am

glad to know what the special project is. I think this really is very important.

It is good to see CBC choosing Newfoundland and Labrador once again, because

when we had our own production services in the CBC television studio years ago,

back in the 1970s and 1980s, we were nation-wide then in the productions that

were being put on here in Newfoundland and Labrador. I am hoping that this will

see CBC choosing us more frequently. I know that the government would continue

to put money into those kinds of ventures, if CBC does that.

I also encourage government to continue to invest, and I would hope in the

next Budget to invest more, in our Arts Council, because it is through funding

of our Arts Council that we are giving money to people who are at the beginning

of their careers and who do the much needed work, the spade work, with people

here in our Province that brings us to the point that we are at today.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

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

My first questions are for the Minister of Health.

We notice, Minister, that just before the House started here you had a news

conference this afternoon advising people of the situation regarding our state

of preparedness with respect to the swine flu, that epidemic - we are Level 5,

shall we say, at this point -that is on the go. That is certainly welcome news,

of course.

You did mention in the course of that news conference the fact that we were

prepared, as best we could be, and you referenced regional committees and so on.

My first question is: According to the government's pandemic planning

document, there is supposed to be established a pre-pandemic phase, a provincial

pandemic committee, and several regional committees. I am just wondering if the

committees that you referenced outside in your news conference were indeed the

committees that were established regionally pursuant to that document, or are

they committees established particularly to deal with that swine flu pandemic

that is ongoing now.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This discussion around a pandemic has been on the go for quite some time, and

as a government we have been very proactive dating back, I think it was 2005 and

2006 particularly, we made significant investments to prepare ourselves for what

might become some day a pandemic.

What I was referencing outside the House after, Mr. Speaker, was a reference

of our provincial strategy, nothing to do with the swine flu outbreak that we

are dealing with right now, but our preparedness for pandemic, period.

The investments we made over the last two or three years reflect that kind of

infrastructure, that kind of planning structure, that kind of committee

structure that exists, both provincially and through each of our four regional

health authorities. My reference earlier was clearly around an overall structure

to deal with the swine flu today, yes, but anything else that might happen in

the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, according to government's pandemic

planning documents, government assumes that the peak impact on this Province of

a pandemic would be within two to four months of the pandemic arriving in

Canada. That means the pandemic that we are possibly talking about right now,

which the World Health Organization is suggesting is imminent, that pandemic

might fall smack in the middle of a nurses' strike.

What contingency plans does government have in place to address the realities

of the swine flu pandemic during any potential strike that we might have

regarding the nurses, because that was not alluded to in a news conference

today?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to separate two things

here, and it is also important to use as we make reference to pandemics. Right

now, today, there is a six stage process the World Health Organization goes

through. So we do not actually have a pandemic until we get to that final stage.

So we are not referencing the fact that we have a pandemic today. I think that

is clear for the public to better understand that particular piece.

The second thing that the question talks about in terms of our state of

readiness should there be a strike or should there be some other event taking

place in our Province at that particular time. The pandemic planning that we are

talking about maps out a response to manage what might be an influenza outbreak

at some point in time, and if it becomes a stage six where we have a true

pandemic then we have an action plan to deal with that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his response.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the event that there is a work stoppage and nurses in the Province choose

some time next week that they are going to actually go on strike then we have a

contingency plan worked through, in some cases with the union, as to how we

might provide emergency services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I do not know where the minister is getting his timelines, but I personally

watched the World Health Organization announcement last night and the word:

eminent, is not my word. The word imminent is put out by the chief doctor who is

heading the World Health Organization on this issue, and it was her wording that

the pandemic is imminent. So, to talk even in terms of days or next week what we

are going to do that is why I raised the question, because it is their

wording, not ours.

Mr. Speaker, with no infectious disease specialist currently working in the

Province and I would think that would be a very important specialty in the

case of a pandemic what impact will this have on patients should an outbreak

take place, because you already indicated we are, in fact, doing testing in this

Province, as we speak, for some people who are suspected of maybe having this?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Just to speak to the point that the member raised in his own

commentary around where we are. The first five stages is a state of readiness.

We have been on a state of readiness for quite some time. In fact, the state

of readiness started several years ago when we started to plan for a pandemic,

which was the structure that I referenced earlier in my question.

To say, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the infectious disease specialist, I

said earlier, in response to a question by the media, it would be in an ideal

circumstance, we would love to have an infectious disease specialist. In fact,

we are recruiting for them, as I have mentioned in this House many times. In

fact, we are recruiting for the second and the third, I say, Mr. Speaker.

Within the absence, though, of having someone like that here, one of the

things that is really important when you start talking about pandemic, you have

the resources of the World Health Organization, you have the resources of the

Public Health Agency of Canada, and we have been working very closely with the

Public Health Agency of Canada, together with all other provinces.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Just before Christmas, in the last sitting of this House, the Minister of

Natural Resources committed to looking into potential financial irregularities

at the Chicken Marketing Board, that were reported to our office, and we raised

it in questions.

Our sources told us at that time that a forensic audit was taking place, but

to date, we did not receive a response from the minister. I understand that you

have now received a forensic audit. Could you tell us who, in fact, prepared the

audit, and are you in a position to release the results of the audit at this

time?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Forestry and

Agrifood Agency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to divulge the name of his source. It is the Leader

of the Opposition, and I gave her that information in Estimates, earlier this

week, that these actions had been taken. We told her that the report had been

received, although I had not been briefed at this point in time.

Mr. Speaker, the Chicken Marketing Board was audited on a regular basis.

There were some questions raised in this House that there might be some

irregularities there. We went to an outside agency and asked them to come in and

do an audit again. They told us they would not do so unless they had some

evidence of wrongdoing, and there was none, so we came internal to government,

had the audit done, and I am happy to report to the House, Mr. Speaker, that

there are no irregularities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The minister must surely have a problem with timelines because she did her

Estimates on Monday night of this week with the Leader of the Opposition. My

questions were asked in this House of the minister last December. That is the

source to which I refer, that told us there was indeed a forensic audit being

done, which you denied at the time and you said you would check it out and get

back, which the minister failed to do, and has not done now until it was taken

out of her and pried out of her in the Estimates Committees again.

Mr. Speaker, the people who contacted our office certainly believe - and this

was back in December - the people who contacted our office and provided the

information back in December had very good information that there were financial

irregularities. These people made significant allegations.

I ask the minister: Can you confirm that anyone in your office was, in fact,

dismissed as a result of what happened involving this matter?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Agrifoods Agency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, when these issues were raised here in the

House of Assembly, we went back and we checked into the issue and we took the

appropriate action. We have done an investigation. There are no irregularities

to report, Mr. Speaker, unlike given the discussion that we had yesterday -

when irregularities were reported to the Minister of Justice back in 2000, he

kicked the Auditor General out of the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

A very timely question of reference because my next question indeed talks

about the Auditor General. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that the

department did go off and do the audit as a result of our questions. She

obviously had not done it herself.

Mr. Speaker, we understand that the Auditor General, as well - besides the

forensic audit, we understand that the Auditor General as well - is currently

doing, or recently did, an investigation involving the Chicken Marketing Board.

I ask the minister: Can you confirm that this is indeed correct, whether the

Auditor General recently did a review, if the review is completed, and, if so,

are you in a position and would you table his findings?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Agrifoods Agency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I do not do a regular check on what the Auditor General is

doing. He audits departments and the work of government on a regular basis. I

can tell you this, Mr. Speaker: It has not been brought to my attention that the

Auditor General has any issues around accounting or auditing with the Chicken

Marketing Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I guess that means, Mr. Speaker, he is in there.

Mr. Speaker, my next question I will move on to another topic here - our

federal regional minister, Minister MacKay, announced today $136 million in

funding that will ensure that Halifax is the Atlantic Gateway. Unfortunately,

our Province has lost out once again. Minister MacKay stated in a news release

that this funding will allow Halifax to play their role as a major trade gateway

to the world.

I ask the Premier: What recent discussions have you had with Minister MacKay

and the federal government regarding our Province's position as the Atlantic

Gateway, and were you advised that this funding announcement would be coming

today?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to Minister MacKay probably

three or four times in the last six weeks and raised all kinds of issues with

him: cost-shared funding through transportation and works. We talked about the

Gateway. We have talked about all kinds of other projects, kept a constant

dialogue going. He did not phone me up today to tell me that this announcement

was made, nor would I expect him to, but we have made all appropriate

submissions to the federal government. We are maintaining a dialogue with them.

If they choose not to fund us at this particular point in time we couldn't

care less, quite frankly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Minister MacKay, in his words, stated that it was thanks to the strong

relationship between the federal and Nova Scotian governments that communities

in that province will see the benefits of the Atlantic Gateway that will allow

them to remain competitive and prosperous.

I ask the Premier: Is this another instance where the poor state of

federal-provincial relations is costing the people of this Province new money

and investment from the federal government?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: This is a situation, Mr. Speaker, whereby we were

promised $10 billion from the federal government. They refused to provide that

to us, so we took issue with it and we stood up on behalf of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador; because with that kind of money we could have paid

off our entire debt. They subsequently turned around during the last Budget and

basically took away $1 billion to $1.5 billion from us.

On that basis, we are not prepared to turn around and kiss the backsides of

the federal government under any circumstances. If that means that we have bad

federal-provincial relations, then so be it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Nobody is talking about kissing backsides. We are talking about doing your

job, whether you are a Premier or a minister.

I say to the Premier: You alluded to the fact that you have had several

conversations with Mr. McKay in the last six weeks. Has there been any

discussions between you or any of your ministers with regard to the Atlantic

Gateway that we could look forward to seeing some money coming here, or are the

state of affairs, in fact, so bad that there is no conversation even ongoing in

that regard?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can only tell you that I have had

several discussions with the minister. I have had meetings with the minister. My

ministers have had meetings with counterparts and that minister. We have done

everything appropriate from our perspective to ensure that we have basically

covered ourselves to make sure that we represented on behalf of the people of

the Province.

Now I come back to the other principle. We can only go so far. If these

people are going to abuse the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, if they are

going to slap us in the face, there is nothing we can do about that. What we did

do is we conducted a very successful ABC campaign, which ensured that these

clowns did not end up with a majority government across this country. As a

result of that, they do not have a majority government. Hopefully, there will be

an election and they will be kicked out of office. That is our goal. Then we

will see where it goes there, and we will see what Mr. Ignatieff or Mr. Layton

can do for us at the end of the day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we went through the Cameron Inquiry which promised improvements

in cancer care data bases and communication protocols. After going through all

of that in February we were astounded when we learned of a case of a lady who

went seven months without the results of a positive cancer testing. In the past

few days, we have learned of two more cases where people are not receiving

timely information regarding their cancer diagnosis. It is very clear that

people are still falling through the cracks.

Minister, with all of your promises for improvements in the system, why are

patients experiencing these communications problems still?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I cannot defend the story in the paper today, for example,

about the test results that were not communicated to patients. That is totally

unacceptable. That is something that we as a government will ever condone; not

something we condone of our employees, not something we condone of each of our

health authorities.

The investments we have made in health care in the last three to four years

particularly have been significant. The recommendations that came out of Cameron

and the taskforce on adverse health events, we have made a commitment to, in

fact, implement those recommendations. I made a commitment to this House during

this session. I tabled the action plan that maps out our process to ensure that

we have all of those recommendations implemented, all with the view of

commitment to implement the recommendations, the investments we have made, the

energies we have put into improving our health system are all with the view of

making some improvements to ensure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

have a quality health system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, despite all the investments that the minister talks about having

made and the activities and relationships talked back and forth between his

department and Eastern Health, the most recent cases of diagnosis delays should

have been picked up if the appropriate oversight measures were in place.

I ask the minister: When are these oversight procedures - which you have

known for some time obviously cannot be working because these things keep

happening. When are the oversight procedures finally going to be implemented to

protect patients?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: The recommendations to deal with oversights coming out of

those two reports, some of them have been implemented, some are in process.

One of the things that is very difficult to do, Mr. Speaker, is to have full

control over the actions of individual employees on a day-to-day basis. Those

recent examples that have hit the media, and there has been some discussion

about it in the public domain. If you trace it back, to tie it back to the

individual performance of individuals who work within the authorities, one of

the things that is very difficult to do with processes and procedures is to

actually monitor and govern the day-to-day actions and the individual actions

and functions of each individual employee on a day-to-day basis.

In a broad way, oversight processes are in place to detect trends, problems

in process to ensure that there are improvements made, but the day-to-day

actions of individual employees are extremely difficult to police. I want to

make sure though, Mr. Speaker

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

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

My next question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Mr. Speaker, there is a growing concern in the fishing industry that a

dispute regarding prices for lobsters and crab could threaten both industries

this coming season. The minister, in fact, was supposed to speak on The

Fisheries Broadcast yesterday to address this issue, but apparently he says he

was in the House until 5:00 p.m.

I ask the minister: Is the crab and lobster fishing industry in jeopardy, and

what is government, particularly your department, doing to assist in finding

some solutions?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: He was not here at 5:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, I take a little bit exception. I was

here until 4:45 p.m., by the time I got back to my office it was well past 5:00

p.m., plus I had a personal thing that I had to address after the House

yesterday, which is of no business to him. So I will bring it up. Like I said,

if you are going to go there, I will go there as well. My business is my

business and when I can share it I will, but I am telling you right now is that

you have gone over the line on that one. Absolutely! I say too, not the first

time, and I am getting kind of tired of it. I am getting a little bit tired of

it.

Mr. Speaker, all I can say is, we are doing, again, the due diligence we

should be doing, supporting the fishing industry and making sure that all the

intelligence is done so that the price setting board can make the decision that

is absolutely necessary at this particular time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I struck a nerve that time.

Mr. Speaker, we have spoken with harvesters, crew members, and plant workers

who are concerned that the pricing impasse could impact their livelihoods,

obviously.

I ask the minister: What contingency plans, if any, are in place to help

protect the workers who might get caught in the middle of this controversy?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, Mr. Speaker, we are into a situation right now

where there is no doubt the world economy is having a traumatic impact on the

markets with regard to fish. We are in the middle of this and we are working as

hard as we can, as a government.

I also say, Mr. Speaker, that on the harvesting side, on the processing side,

and with regard to the price setting board, we are all working diligently to try

to find our way out of this. Again, we are not going to leave anyone high and

dry. We are going to do what we can in order to assist, whether it is plant

workers, whether it is harvesters, or whether it is processors, to make sure

that this industry, which is most important to this Province, is the industry

that it should be.

Again, there are factors that we are dealing with right now that are far

beyond our control, but we are trying to deal with them as best we can, and we

will find a way, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Minister of Environment responded to our concerns about the

drastic decline of the woodland caribou by stating, our questions were making

her hungry, and I hope I can get through my questions today without causing that

to happen again.

In 1996, the habitat study on woodland caribou in Jasper National Park stated

that the use of radio collars weakened caribou and caused mortality rates, and

groups such as the Sierra Club and the Canadian Wildlife Federation have

fashioned this practice.

Given the fact that your department is spending many dollars of the $15

million budgeted on those radio collars, has your department looked at these

studies and considered the effect of the collar use on the caribou?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: Mr. Speaker, you can guess what I am having for supper

tonight.

Anyway, there is a five-year strategy on the go to study the woodland

caribou, to study the predators of those caribou. We are using the scientific

information that is coming back from that to move forward, I say, Mr. Speaker.

Until we get that information and we have had a very successful year; we are

only into our second year we will use that scientific information to make

our next moves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, in response to a question yesterday, the

Minister of Environment and Conservation said she has been in steady

consultation with the stakeholders, but we know the outfitters in the Province

are not satisfied and they staged a Save the Resource rally outside the office

of the Wildlife Division over the weekend.

The hunting and fishing guide for 2009-2010 states that the department has a

future plan to include stakeholders in their work, through a caribou management

committee. I ask the minister: What is the status of this committee at this

time?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: Mr. Speaker, like I said, the strategy is involving scientific

information. We have had great success in the last year, and part of that were

hunter education workshops. We reached all the various regions of the Province

that are being studied, and we have had great participation there so we know the

word is getting out, and we know that they appreciate that government is doing

due diligence here and going to use the scientific information to move forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions with the Outfitters

Association, the president, Mr. Cyril Pelley, who expressed concerns to us that

members of his association were originally asked to participate in the caribou

management committee, but that this committee quickly fell by the wayside.

I ask the minister: Why did this committee disband, and what will it be

replaced by and when?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: My apologies, Mr. Speaker, I do not have that information but

I will bring it back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: I thank the minister for that, Mr. Speaker.

The outfitters feel that the committee was shut down due to outfitter demands

that action be taken on the coyote, and more protection given to caribou calving

grounds.

I ask the minister: Why is your department dismissing the observations and

concerns of the outfitters?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: Mr. Speaker, we are only into the second year of this strategy

that is gathering scientific information, and we are releasing it to the public

as we get it. We are consulting with stakeholders, with the various people

interested in this problem we have with woodland caribou on the Island. We are

going to make our informed decision with the information that we gather from the

scientific information. We have very good people on this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the government was caught by surprise yesterday with

the extent and the kinds of letters and information that were being sent out to

the widows of former Abitibi workers and to pensioners. Mr. Speaker, we were all

aghast at the coldness of AbitibiBowater which left many seniors in a state of

confusion and worry for their future yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier today: Would he give this House more

correspondence about the cancellation of the unfunded pensions?

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as we know in this House, there have been a number of decisions

that AbitibiBowater, as a corporate entity, has made over the last little while

which have certainly been against what we would consider to be fair and

reasonable to the former employees of the mill in Central Newfoundland and

Labrador.

In terms of the situation as it currently exists, as I indicated yesterday,

there are court proceedings happening today, as I understand it. The company is

petitioning the court for a certain suspension of payments, and the union is

petitioning against the company's petition to ensure that those payments

continue.

After today's court proceedings, Mr. Speaker, due to the court-induced

creditor protection that AbitibiBowater is under, we will have a better

understanding of where all of that lies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the workers and the families left in the wake of the shutdown of

AbitibiBowater are in a state of anger, confusion, and worry for their future.

Many people are saying to me how worried they are about the situation out in

Grand Falls-Windsor and the whole Central area.

Mr. Speaker, will the government set up an emergency office to offer all

those affected, with needed advice and consultation about the services that they

may access as needed, and help in navigating the bureaucracy?

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have an office set up in Grand Falls-Windsor to assist with

that, as a matter of fact, the kinds of services that the former employees of

AbitibiBowater have been looking for, whether it be services in terms of looking

for retraining, whether it be services in terms of looking for information about

pensions, about severance, whether it is about employee assistance programs,

medical issues. All kinds of questions have come forward, Mr. Speaker. We have a

team of people that happen to be in the Grand Falls-Windsor region. As well, we

have put people in some of the other field offices that we have.

We have been in touch with many hundreds of those employees who have

contacted us. We have not waited in our offices for those people to come to us,

Mr. Speaker. We have actually been on the phone contacting them, to see what

kind of assistance we as a government can provide. That has been a very, very

productive exercise and we think we are doing good work there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have stories of men in particular who have never walked into

an office before, having to deal with people in HRLE or in Service Canada, not

understanding what is being said to them, coming out, having to get friends to

try to explain to them what the process is and what they are going through.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think those services are being offered. Could the

minister speak more clearly to those special needs?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, let me make it perfectly clear: The people who

are out there requiring assistance from this government, or looking for

assistance from this government, will get it. Whether they get it in an office,

whether they get it in their home, whether they get it in a union hall, wherever

we need to go to provide service to the employees and the former employees, we

will go and do that. We are doing that, as I said already.

There are a multitude of issues that have arisen here, that a number of these

employees have come to us asking for assistance on. Some of these people have

come in and have needed twenty minutes or half an hour of our time. Some of

these people who we have interacted with, we have been with them for hours, and

we have been with them for hours over many, many days, and we are still with

them, Mr. Speaker, but the assistance is being provided. We are being told by

the people we are providing the assistance to that they benefit from that, and

we will continue to do that until the need is met.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The phone calls we are getting in our office are telling me that you are not

reaching everybody, Mr. Minister, so I think you had better check on that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, the people affected by the mill closure need to

know for their own peace of mind what plan government is bringing to the table

to negotiate for the severance and unfunded pensions of the workers as well as

the other assets.

I ask the Premier: When is government going to be back at the table

negotiating with AbitibiBowater?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, as recently as yesterday we were in

contact with the CEO of Abitibi. At that point in time we had a discussion which

was a reflection of previous discussions, whereby any negotiation or any

discussion or any passing of a cheque over to Abitibi would have to look out for

and safeguard the interests of the workers from a severance perspective, so that

severance issue is clearly on the table. It has been acknowledged by Abitibi.

Now, as to whether they will dispute payment, that is a whole other issue, but

from our perspective, fortunately we are in the driver's seat.

As a result of taking the action that we have taken, we hold the assets. If

we had done absolutely nothing and this company had gone into an arrangement or

receivership and ultimately into a bankruptcy, there would be no right to

recover severance; there would be no holding of assets; there would be no cheque

to be passed over, so we would not be in a position to do what we are doing.

Fortunately, we did what we did.

We have already said, and the minister has already stated - both ministers

have already stated - that we will be there to support the workers on severance,

but we have to go through a process. We have to go through a process now whereby

we have the negotiation with the company. As well, there is now a court

arrangement. So anything that we do will have to be sanctioned by the court. We

are going through all the proper procedures, but at the same time, we are

safeguarding the interests of the workers when it comes to severance. So, I can

give you that assurance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The time allotted for questions and answers have expired.

I refer hon. members to Question Period. The hon. Opposition House Leader

referenced the presence of a member in the House of Assembly. I say to the hon.

the Opposition House Leader that he knows full well that it is unparliamentarily

to refer a member's presence or absence in the House of Assembly and I ask

that he be guided by that in the future.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

For the record, the point that I made was that the member we are referring to

is the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. The comment that I made, Mr.

Speaker, was that he was not in the House, and the reason he was not in the

House was because the House was not in session. It is out of order as I

understand it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The Chair has made a ruling here. I say to the hon. the Opposition House

Leader -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The Chair has made a ruling here. The Chair distinctly heard the hon. the

Opposition House Leader refer to the member's absence. The House of Assembly

hours are clearly shown. The House of Assembly is broadcasted on television and

there is no need for anybody to reference somebody else being absent or being

present in this House of Assembly, and it is certainly unparliamentarily.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motions.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

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

I would like to take this opportunity to present a petition on behalf of the

residents of Southwestern Newfoundland, particularly the area from South Branch

to Rose Blanche, but also down of course to LaPoile and Grand Bruit as well, and

that is in regard to the dialysis, or lack of dialysis in that particular area.

As we have indicated, we cover off in that area about 12,000 to 15,000 people

who live in the region. All of them who need dialysis services have to go to

Corner Brook to get the service. Now that usually involves about three times a

week. I believe there is some in Stephenville as well, I say to the hon.

Government House Leader. I believe there is in Stephenville as well. Mr.

Speaker, that involves at least 400 to 500 round trip kilometres for anybody who

has to make that service. By the way, it is not through your usual, regular

travel. It, of course, has to take you through the well-known famous Wreckhouse

area.

Now we have been after the minister for ten years trying to get him to pay

some attention to that particular area. The minister did in fact meet with the

town council and representatives of that concern last year in Corner Brook. He

told them they would get a letter from him, still waiting for the letter by the

way. I talked to the minister about this some months ago. He indicated to me

that he would be following up on it. I was asked as recently as yesterday, again

by people who are involved with this issue, saying when are we going to get

something back from the minister? We have not had a response even since last

fall, six months ago.

The people in that area, as I indicated, they are prepared to raise the funds

to buy the equipment. That is not an issue. There are staff in the area who are

prepared to train to operate the equipment, staff who are long-term lifetime

working nursing people in that particular area. They cannot understand why the

government would not permit the dialysis to be done at the Charles L. LeGrow

Centre in Port aux Basques if the people in that region who need it and the

community are prepared to support it, are prepared to raise the funds to put the

equipment there, are prepared to train the staff to operate the equipment.

We have nine or ten people at any given time who use these machines, and to

do so every week of their life, it is just an onerous, onerous situation to

place these people in. Not only the patients themselves, of course, but many of

these people have to have people who would accompany them. So you are causing

stress not only for the patients themselves but also for the parents who are

involved, the children of these people who are involved. In fact, we had a

situation, many situations where over the years, in ten years many people have

had to leave town to move to other places simply because they could not

physically, emotionally handle it any more. Not to say anything about

financially, because obviously, albeit there might be some aids and supports

from government to these people, it never offsets totally the cost of having to

do this.

Now anybody who has had a family member affected by this type of disease, of

course, knows just how dreaded it is. We look with some hope - in fact, when I

heard the minister last week talking about the possibility of using home

dialysis that was very positive. That was the first time that the minister

indicated and the spokesperson for the association said we might be able to use

that more often for more people. I thought that was very positive, felt very

encouraged by that, but when we go back and check it out with the people who are

currently using it, apparently these people cannot avail of that home service.

There becomes a point when you cannot use the home dialysis treatment facility

and equipment. Albeit, anyone who could, of course, would love to do it at home.

It gets rid of the travel, it gets rid of the cost associated with the travel,

and you can live a much more normal life in that situation. The home dialysis is

not possible for these people at the present time. They have been waiting ten

years for the minister to give some kind of answer. He has not even given an

answer that is defensible, or Western Health has not given an answer that is

defensible.

I realize, Mr. Speaker, my time has come to an end on this particular

petition, so thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to present a petition today on behalf of the residents of Long Island

with regards to a petition that they sent in pertaining to the Long Island

causeway.

We know back in August of 2003 the Department of Transportation announced

that they would build a causeway to Long Island. Then in January of 2004, the

then minister of the time, the transport minister, announced that the Long

Island causeway would be deferred until the Province became in a better

financial position. I guess that is when the government took over. We have heard

it said time and time again that our Province was on the verge of bankruptcy.

Well, we have advanced past that stage from all the news that we have heard over

the last several months.

The people on Long Island have concerns with regards to the ferry service

that they have there, which they had for some twenty-five years, and they are

very appreciative of the service that they had for the twenty-five years.

However, they claim, and they have had the facts and figures and the research

done, saying that a causeway is more feasible than even to consider any changes

to the present ferry service or any new ferry or what have you. They have many

issues when they talk about the concerns that they have for this causeway. Many

times, in the winter in particular, when the ice comes into the area they have

concerns about their children getting back and forth to school. If they had a

causeway there, that would not be an issue.

We also hear talk about the issue with regards to product from the fish plant

being transported to market or to other areas within the Province, and that has

been an ongoing concern for the people there.

I know recently the residents of the committee have written the member for

the area, the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South, and asked him to

keep fighting on their behalf for a causeway, not upgraded services. They are

asking that he would bring forward their concerns for a new causeway for that

area.

Mr. Speaker, the petitions that we have received - we have received numerous

petitions - I will be bringing them forward as time goes by, and hopefully what

we are doing, we are asking this hon. House and the government to reconsider

their decision, where they are saying that we will not build a causeway, and

really look into the facts and figures. Over the long haul, the people of that

particular area are saying that a fixed link between Long Island and Pilley's

Island is the way to go in the Green Bay area.

Mr. Speaker, I present this petition on behalf of the residents.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile, and Opposition

House Leader.

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

I take this opportunity to present a petition on behalf of the residents of

Ramea, Grey River and Francois with respect to the lack of medical facilities,

services, being offered at the Ramea clinic.

The Ramea clinic, of course, services not only the community of Ramea but

they also are responsible for doing clinics down the coast to Grey River and

Francois. The site in Ramea calls for two nurse practitioners, but for some

months - I believe in excess of a year or more now - we have a situation where

there has only been one nurse practitioner and she had, for most of that time,

absolutely no other support staff. Of course, it makes it really cumbersome

because when you are down to one - that is 50 per cent of your capacity shot -

it puts coastal clinics off by as much as seven or eight weeks sometimes that

people cannot get to see the nurse practitioner, simply because of the lack of

manpower or womanpower in having the services provided.

The health committee in Ramea have constantly been in contact in trying to

deal with the officials at the Calder Health Centre in Burgeo as well as in

Western, of course, because it all comes under the Western Region, to deal with

this issue and the situation has not been resolved.

Now, in fairness to the people in Western, and particularly the site manager,

Ms Porter, who lives in Burgeo, they have tried their darnedest to get the

additional nurse practitioner, but one of the problems they are encountering is,

when it comes to the attraction process, the government does have an attraction

incentive whereby anybody who is from outside this Province who is a nurse

practitioner would get a bonus if they come here to take up employment, but the

same attraction does not apply to anyone within the Province who might, for

example, leave Corner Brook to go to practice in Ramea.

What we have asked Western - and they, of course, have to go back to the

minister's office to get this assurance - is, would they permit that the

attraction bonus would be extended so that it is not only limited to anyone

outside who might go to these rural areas, where it is difficult to attract

people, but would the attraction bonus also be extended so that anyone inside

the Province who is prepared for the attraction bonus it is not a great sum

of money; I think it is about $15,000 a year - would go to a place like Ramea to

provide these services. Surely it is worth the additional $15,000 attraction

that would be involved here.

I believe the other piece was that it was only available to new graduates,

which again is very limiting when you consider that obviously a lot of new

graduates today - we are doing our best, as I understand it, to try to keep them

in the Province - many of these young people prefer to go to bigger centres, to

stay in the capital region, to stay in Central, to stay in Corner Brook and

places like that.

We understand, as well, that it is not only Ramea that is impacted by this.

We understand that there is one in Stephenville, as well, that is needed. We

understand that there is one needed in Corner Brook.

Now, obviously if you are missing one nurse practitioner from the complement

in Corner Brook it is not as heavily felt, nor in Stephenville, for example. I

believe the other one that they are one down is in Port aux Basques. There are

four in the region. If you are missing one of a hundred, it is not as bad as

when you are missing one of two, obviously; you are 50 per cent down in your

capacity.

So, albeit they are difficult to attract, we must keep our shoulder to the

wheel in trying to do this, and that is one option that we would suggest to the

minister, that it might be possible to attract these people to these rural

communities.

Thank you, 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, from the Order Paper, I would like to call Order

4, to conclude the second reading of a bill,

An Act To Consolidate The Law

Respecting Revenue Administration. (Bill 4)

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 4,

An Act To

Consolidate The Law Respecting Revenue Administration, 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 Consolidate The Law Respecting Revenue

Administration. (Bill 4)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 4 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.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Consolidate The Law Respecting Revenue

Administration," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the

Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 4)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance,

that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 4.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do now resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

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!

The Committee is now prepared to debate Bill 4.

A bill, "An Act To Consolidate The Law Respecting Revenue

Administration." (Bill 4)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1.

Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Last Monday, I do believe, Monday of this week, when we discussed this

particular bill in second reading, I posed some specific questions to the

minister at that time. I do not know how he would prefer to, or was going to,

respond or not, because some of them, given the duration - we both spoke, I

believe, for an hour, and we were long-winded, both of us, I guess - we were all

over the place in some cases. I do not know how the minister would prefer to

respond: to do it generically, or as we come across each

section again for me to

raise the issues. Because, if he has the responses I would not need to be

cutting in all the time and we could move on sort of thing.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of the questions noted that I

will address, but if there are any other questions I would prefer to address

them at one time.

CHAIR: The Chair reminds the House that the speaking time in Committee is

ten minutes. If there are questions to be raised with regard to any one clause,

they are to be raised during that speaking period as we go clause by clause.

Clause 1.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Chairman, I know I have a couple of questions noted in

consultation. Are there any other questions? I am going to address some of the

more what I refer to as generic questions. Without reference to a specific

question, are there any other questions that need to be answered?

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Not from here, Mr. Chairman.

I outlined particularly

section 9 and the interaction with

section 34 as one

of the concerns I raised the last day. I will get to that now or when you get to

section 9, whatever you prefer.

I also made mention of

section 46, about the telewarrants and so on.

I also had questions about

section 87, in particular about the mining act

regulations and the interplay between 80 and 87, and how they might or might now

impact the Voisey's Bay Statement of Principles and subsequent legislation

that was passed in regard to that.

Those were basically, shall we say, the particular sections that I raised

questions about.

CHAIR: The Chair suggests, then, that if the minister has some opening

remarks to make that he be allowed to make them, and then any individual

questions that you propose do it as we introduce that particular clause.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Chair, just to make sure I have the sections I didn't

get the sections that the Opposition House Leader referred to; if he could just

refer them to me again.

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

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

There is a question related to

section 9 which deals with books and records,

9(1) in particular, and

section 9(5) which talked about subsequent production of

records, and how that interplays with

section 34, which deals with the Statute

of Limitations. That was that question.

The other one was

section 46, dealing with telewarrants.

The third area was dealing with

section there is an interplay between

section 80 and

section 87.

I particularly wanted to know, what, if any, impact there would be as a

result of these amendments and the earlier legislation plus contractual, plus

legislative agreements that were done, i.e. the Statement of Principles in the

Voisey's Bay deal.

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

Board.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, the first point I would like to make is that when we look at the

explanatory note attached to Bill 4, it says, "The bill would consolidate

the law with respect to the administration of various taxation schemes within

the Province." Essentially, what this bill is meant to do is simply

coordinate various bills under one act, and hopefully, as I indicated the other

day, make it easier for the public, for lawyers, for accountants, to reference

the various acts.

One concrete example I used, Mr. Chair, was the reference to the search or

the inspection sections. Each act would normally have an inspection

section but

in this particular case we have all of the acts, and I outlined the ones the

other day, and then we have the sections that would outline inspection and

compliance.

Now, Mr. Chair, as I have indicated, this act is essentially to consolidate

and to bring under one roof. One of the issues I had noted the other day, from

the Opposition House Leader, was the issue of consultation. Had we consulted

with various groups in terms of bringing this act together? The answer is that

consultation is something that as a government we do all the time, but this is

not - and I will use the example, I know that in poverty reduction there were

consultations on a regular basis. I know that in some of the labour market

issues, like minimum wage, there were consultations during the pre-budget

consultations. Consultations are something that when required this government is

certainly willing to engage in. I think right now the Human Rights Commission

that there are human rights consultations ongoing in relation to possible

amendments to the act.

In this particular case, Mr. Chair, what happened was Finance officials

looked at the act in terms of bringing them up to date and then justice lawyers

would have looked at the act to ensure, for example, that the inspection and

compliance sections complied with the charter, the requirements of the Charter

of Rights and Freedoms. So, essentially, that is the answer to that. Is that the

consultations necessary took place.

In relation to

section 9, books and records: a person required to collect,

withhold or remit tax shall keep and maintain books. Well, that has to be read

in conjunction with

section 3 of the act.

Section 3 of the act is really one of

the main statements of principle in the act.

Section 3.(1) says: "A taxpayer's liability for tax arises when the

tax is due and continues until it is paid." Subsection (2), and this is

something the Opposition House Leader would certainly be aware of: "A

person who collects money by way of tax under this Act holds that money in trust

for the Crown and shall pay over the money in the manner and at the time

prescribed" So, if you are going to - then subsection (3) outlines:

"A person who withholds tax is liable for the tax when it is required to be

withheld and that liability continues until the tax is paid over to the

minister."

In order to be able to determine, Mr. Chair, whether or not the taxpayer's

liability arises, well one has to be able to examine books and records.

Obviously, most of us in this House, or anyone who has been involved in the

running of a business, or I guess all of us in terms of running our constituency

office, we have to have impeccable bookkeeping in this day and age in terms of

the payment for constituency expenses, for example.

So someone has to be able to check, Mr. Chair. There has to be a way to audit

to ensure compliance. In order for

section 3 to have its full effect than

section 9 obviously has to be read in conjunction with it, and the books and

records have to be maintained.

My colleagues, the Minister of Justice and the Opposition House Leader, would

know that probably the key words in all of this is in trust, because as lawyers

there are two immutable principals that have to apply to us, and one of them

involves trust. The first would be that of solicitor client privilege, but the

second is that when monies are paid to us we hold them in trust until such time

as work is completed.

I am trying to remember, I know the Minister of Justice has been in here

longer than I have, but I know that the law society requires audits of trust

accounts. The words: in trust, essentially mean that it is not your money. You

have collected that money as you are aware yourself from your days as a

lawyer - that you collect this money on behalf of someone else. Sections 3 and 9

have to be read together.

The Opposition House Leader does raise an interesting point, Mr. Chair, and

it is one of the reasons that these debates are helpful and it is one that

allows us, as I went through the process the other day of how we bring in a

piece of legislation. It gives the Opposition an opportunity to scrutinize the

proposed legislation, to look at it and see if there are any difficulties there.

I will say, when I look at

section 9.(5) of the act, which says: "A

person required under this

section to keep records shall keep those records

until authorized by the minister to destroy them but in no case shall the

records be destroyed before the expiration of 7 years..."

We have a seven year limitation there in terms of you cannot destroy without

permission of the minister. That is somewhat incongruous and somewhat of an

anomaly when you look at

section 34, and this is something that I will talk to

my officials about this afternoon, but when you look at

section 34: "A

complaint may be made and proceedings may be taken on it in respect of an

offence under this Act without limitation of time."

Again, there may be an explanation, but at first glance there does appear to

be an issue raised here. You are holding the monies in trust. In order to

determine if you comply with the trust, then you have to be able to examine the

books and records. Yet, you only have to keep the books and records for seven

years. Meanwhile, under

section 34, theoretically, ten to twelve years down the

road a charge could be laid.

What I will undertake to do, Mr. Chair, when we have a little break here, is

I will talk to my officials to see if there is a difficulty with that, because

as I indicated the other day, one of the benefits of the debates, it allows us

to look at all of this and to determine whether or not there are difficulties

with the legislation. As much as I praised our legislative counsel the other

day, we have seen in the past that no matter how many sets of eyes are looking

at something, sometimes things can be overlooked or there can be inconsistencies

or incongruencies. My preference would be, and that is the purpose of these

debates, is that if there is a difficulty here I will find the answer.

Mr. Chair, the next question then was in relation to

section 46, and that

dealt with the telewarrant. Now, a telewarrant is, as I know you are aware and

other colleagues in this House will be aware. Telewarrants are something that is

a rather recent mechanism used in law to obtain search warrants, but they are

quite regularly used now. They are used for for example, they are used in

breathalyser cases, if I remember correctly. They are used in cases where if a

police officer pulls in a vehicle on the side of the road and has reason to

suspect that there are drugs in the vehicle. There are some times when he can

move ahead without a warrant, obviously, as you are aware, but there are other

times where he or she may deem it more prudent to obtain a warrant.

This section, Mr. Chair, where you are again, we are dealing with

inspectors. When you are looking at gasoline tax, you are looking at the various

types of taxes that we have here. This is simply a matter of coming into the

twenty-first century with law enforcement and if it is not practical to appear

before a judge well, then, you can make the application by telephone, facsimile

or other means of communication.

The main issue always to remember, as you are aware and I am sure the

Opposition House Leader would be aware, is that searches cannot be arbitrary and

capricious in law. There has to be some basis. As I went through the other day,

because this deals with regulatory or strict liability offences, the onus upon

the officers, inspection or compliance would be lower. In this particular case,

though, there always has to be some reasonable suspicion, is a term that is used

in law, reasonable grounds is a term that is used in law.

Mr. Chairman, if you look, then, the sections or the requirements of a

written warrant are the same as outlined in

section 2. It has to be given under

oath or affirmation; may be administered by telephone, facsimile or other means

of telecommunication.

Mr. Chairman, then it outlines what has to be contained in the telephone

communication, and it is simply a statement of the circumstances that makes it

impractical - if you are out on the highway, or if you are in a town that may

not have a Provincial Court judge. Then the grounds for believing that a person

is contravening the act.

Mr. Chairman, again there is a regulatory pattern here, or a regulatory

regime in place, which allows the inspectors to do their job but ensures

compliance.

Mr. Chairman, those will be my answers in relation to sections

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: No, sections 9 and 34, because I need to go and look at

getting an answer for the Opposition House Leader, the answer on the apparent

incongruity between the time limitation on the maintenance of books, and also,

Mr. Chairman, I will check on the issue of

section 86, the Mineral Rights Tax

Act, and whether or not that affects anything with Voisey's Bay. My initial

reaction would be that it would not supersede or affect a contractual

relationship, but I will make sure.

Those are still the two points that I will have to go, if we

MS BURKE: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: Okay. The House Leader is telling me to sit down and go find

my answers.

Anyway, thank you Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: A very efficient Government House Leader.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I appreciate the predicament of the Minister of Finance, because the

Government House Leader often tells me where to go, as well, and what to do.

Just a couple of comments there, again in a generic vein, with respect to

this issue. First of all, the minister referenced today the Explanatory Note

which is to be found on the inside page of Bill 4. As I pointed out on Monday,

as well, that causes some concern, because we have an eighty-page bill and I

raised this question the last time in the House we have an eighty-page bill

which is, no doubt, without question, the most complex, detailed bill that I

have seen in this House in the last three years when it comes to intricate

detail.

There are people who are chartered accountants who are not going to be able

to figure this out, there are lawyers who certainly are not going to be able to

figure this out, and tax consultants who are not going to figure this out, and

all of these complexities are put into an eighty-page bill. Anyone in this

House, or in the public, can go on line and access this - which you can - and

see this.

My concern is that we had an eighty-page complex document involving taxes;

they try to come up with an Explanatory Note and it is a one-liner. The

one-liner says, "This Bill would consolidate the law with respect to the

administration of various taxation schemes within the province."

Mr. Chairman, you have a legal background yourself. To the best of us, that

is not very enlightening; that is not very helpful. It certainly does nothing to

assist in the preparation for this, the dismantling of this bill, the

examination and analysis of this bill. It makes it very, very difficult.

That is the comment I would make with regard to the Explanatory Note, what

the minister says. Yes, it is a one-liner. Yes, it tells us the treetops - this

does not even cover the treetops. This is giving us the cloud view of what this

is about, let alone the branches of the tree.

I brought it to the attention of the Government House Leader the last time we

were dealing with some complex pieces of legislation. I asked if the people who

were preparing this - not so much the draftsman; he just drafts the particular

clauses, but in terms of summaries that could be helpful to us, as

parliamentarians, to try to dissect what is here and to make the debate fuller

and a more informed debate, it would be most helpful.

For example, that is all it said in the Explanatory Note in Bill 4. Yet, when

we called over from our office to the Department of Finance and said, can you

give us a little heads-up here and give us some guidance as to where we ought to

go? In a conversation that lasted probably ten minutes, between one of our

staffers and one of the employees over at the Department of Finance, we managed

to extract some very helpful, concise, explanatory information of what this bill

is about. I referred to that information, most of it, on Monday when we were in

second reading.

The point is, if we can call over to the Department of Finance, and someone

over there is capable of giving us the Reader's Digest version of what this

complex bill is about, I would suggest that the Reader's Digest version should

be put in the Explanatory Note more so than we are seeing now, which is just a

one-liner.

It is all or nothing it seems. We have a one-liner. I have seen other pieces

of legislation - we will be dealing with them in this sitting - which have very

nice, concise, helpful guidelines and explanations as to what the piece of

legislation is about. We do not see that here.

I will not belabour that point any more, but the consultation piece the

minister mentioned again today, I am absolutely shocked that is the only

word I can use, shocked - that the minister says there was no consultation

needed here, or none done. For example, in everything else that we have in this

Province, including this one, we have stakeholders. Wherever there are

stakeholders - this government prides itself, its mantra was openness and

accountability and transparency. That has been preached since 2003. They even

brought in

an act, I do believe, called the openness and transparency act. Yet,

when we have probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that ever

comes in front of this House, for example, that impacts people and, by the

way, we have 500,000-plus stakeholders in this Province that this bill impacts;

500,000-plus. Every one of us in this Province who pays a tax is impacted by

this one, in their pocket potentially.

I asked: Did you talk to the Law Society? Because there might be some

ramification to this. Shouldn't we at least run it by them confidentially and

say: We would like to do this; what do you think? Do you see anything here that

might cause you any concerns from a legal point of view?

I would have thought that the Department of Finance would have given it to

the Chartered Accountants' Association and said: Anything you have any

problems with here? What about the Tax Consultants' Associations? What about

the Certified General Accountants' Association? What about different business

associations? What about the Boards of Trade? What about the Chambers of

Commerce?

I mean, we are going to amend - albeit another very important act, the Human

Rights piece we are looking at, the Human Rights legislation, the Minister of

Justice sends out around the Province. I believe we have had public hearings on

the Human Rights piece. It was placed on a Web Site, and told everybody it was

happening. We have gone out and done consultations in the major centres around

the Province. The Opposition were invited to attend these sessions and make

suggestions as to what could happen. We made a suggestion, written submissions,

to the Department of Justice. People were invited to make written submissions if

they wanted.

Now I realize you cannot possibly, probably, deal with a piece of financial

legislation in the same way when it comes to sending it out and having public

hearings and that stuff, but surely there is some basic level of consultation

that should have taken place here to ensure that when we pass this thing in this

House and the Lieutenant Governor signs it off and it has its Royal Proclamation

and it is law, right then and there, where do we stand the next day if these

problems crop up then?

That is the only purpose, of course, of consultation. The biggest purpose of

consultation is to see, a lot of times, if you have roadblocks or you have

potholes, or whatever, in your legislation. Sometimes when you do these

consultations people pick up on them, and they give you a little bit of advice.

You might need to tweak it. At least, if for no other reason, it gives you a

comfort level in knowing that you have done it right.

If somebody says after, well you didn't do this, if you get people like me

standing up in the House of Assembly saying, you didn't do this, you didn't

do that, you should have done this, you should have done that, instead of people

saying, I told you say, you could stand up in the House and say, yes, we talked

to this one, we talked to that group, we got their input, and we think this is

the best piece of work that we could culminate at this point to put it into this

piece of legislation. We think we have done it right.

Now, nobody is foolish enough to believe that any piece of legislation we

pass is carved in stone. It is written on paper, it is passed by law, made a

law, and it is implemented and acted upon and applies to people, but nobody is

foolish enough to think that you cannot change it. All I am saying is, yes,

there will be changes, obviously, time will change things, circumstances will

change things, but you may end up changing more than you want or more than you

anticipated or more than you need to simply because you didn't consult in the

first place.

I do believe this Minister of Finance he was the Minister of Justice and

we dealt with a bill here in this House last fall that had a piece to do, I do

believe, with the Law Society and some of the regulations surrounding the court

systems and the operations and so on. I was impressed, because when I got up and

asked a question of the minister, was their any consultation, yes, there was.

They had consulted, I do believe, at that time, the minister told me, with the

Chief Provincial Court Judge, Judge Reid, he had consulted with members of the

law society, because they were the stakeholders in that particular piece of

legislation. It was good to see that. Right here, on probably one of the more

complex pieces of legislation, we don't see the similar type of treatment. I

think that is sad. I think we should have had that.

Minister, with regard to

section 9, the reason I asked that on Monday, and I

will concisely state it again, was it looks like my ten minutes is up, I

might not get the opportunity in this ten-minute sitting anyway without leave.

My purpose of asking about

section 9, and the tie-in to the Statute of

Limitations, was, we have a definition of books and records. We have that in

subsection (2). In subsection (5) of

section 9, it says, "A person required

under this act to keep records" and that is a requirement of the act,

that if you are in business and you pay taxes, for example

CHAIR: Order please!

The hon. member's speaking time has lapsed.

Does the member have leave to finish his question, this particular question?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

CHAIR: Leave to finish this particular question.

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

Mr. Chair, in subsection (5) and I will read it it says, "A

person required under this

section to keep records which is defined - shall

keep those records until authorized by the minister to destroy them".

The second part of it says, "but in no case shall the records be

destroyed before the expiration of 7 years after the year to which the records

relate."

That clause does not say that after seven years, if you have business records

you can get rid of them. It just says, no way can you get rid of them for the

first seven years. If you want to get rid of them after the seven years you have

to go get approval from the minister. The words that were used are, "until

authorized by the minister to destroy them"

I gave an example on Monday of a person who is in business. How many people,

particularly in rural Newfoundland, do not have access to the minister,

certainly, and don't have access readily to the Department of Finance? I used

the example of a person in Isle aux Morts who runs a business for twenty-five

years and keeps every single one of the records, and they are pretty complex,

when I read it out in

section 2, what records and books includes. He has all of

this built up and he has to keep it built up, not only while he is in business

but he has to keep it stored somewhere even after he goes out of business. There

is nothing that says, because he ceased the business he can get rid of it. So,

here you are with a warehouse full of records.

Go back to the point again where you are required by law to keep them. That

is a law. They told you what it was, what a book and a record was. They said,

you have to keep all of your books and records and you cannot get rid of them

unless the minister tells you. All of a sudden, this person who had his business

for twenty-five years, who has kept all of this in storage for another thirty

years, these fifty years, he has his two warehouses jammed, and then somebody

says: he did not get authority to destroy those records.

Is it reasonable to leave it that way? Surely, if Revenue Canada uses a

seven-year guideline, if every other reporting agency that I know of uses a

seven-year guideline for keeping records and books, why don't we have a

similar guideline? What is the problem? That is not what it says right now in

subsection (5).

In fact, the reason for the tie-in with the other section,

section 34, is

because under

section 34 there is no limit. It goes in perpetuity as to when you

can charge someone for not doing what they were supposed to do under the act.

That person who conducted business, who paid all of the taxes, went out of

business after twenty-five years, retired, was retired for ten or twenty years

and had to keep all of these records, all of a sudden someone charges him

because he never kept the records. Now, he kept them all beyond the seven years.

I am just saying: Why would we leave that loophole here and put that stress and

put that requirement on people beyond the seven years?

I suppose we could look at and say, well, he only has to get authority, come

to the minister, after seven years. He runs his business for twenty-five years,

he retires for seven years, and at any time he can come to the minister and say:

we want the authority to destroy them. That might be fair for the minister to

say in rebuttal. The minister might say: yes, just come back after seven years.

How is that process intended to work now? The minister is going to send somebody

out to Joe's shed or basement. How does the department decide to give the

authority?

I do not disagree that there should be some connection with keeping your

records for seven years, but surely the point here is there should be some time

limit on this eventually. If the time limit that we normally use I mean,

even in the Criminal Law system, under our wildlife Statutes, we have Statutes

of Limitation.

You might even want to keep a wide-open Statute of Limitation on the tax

piece. I have no problem with that. I can even go so far as to say, yes, I agree

with that. You would not give anybody relief from non-payment of the taxes, but

there is a difference when we are talking about some other requirements under

this act. If it is an administrative requirement of keeping records and stuff

like that, I think there has to be a distinction and we should not just have a

broad

section 34 which says no limitation on anything. That is all I am saying

here, that I think there needs to be a bit of thought. If there is a tax

involved, fine, it should be outstanding in perpetuity. Like I the gentleman, I

said, who ripped off the funeral home and never paid it. If you are after him

until the last day of his life getting the tax back, so be it, but that is

different from the record keeping piece.

That is where I think we have a little glitch here. I just throw that out,

that we should not put that onerous situation. If you are an individual in our

society in Canada, my understanding is you pay your taxes, and after seven

years, when you are in business, that is it. If you throw them out, you do not

have to go to any national revenue minister to get authority. I could be wrong,

but that is my understanding. After seven years, your record keeping is over. If

the tax department has not come back and got you by that time for something, it

is out the window, you are not required to keep them.

I am just wondering why we would not have the same kind of reasonableness

when it comes to record keeping in this particular case.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair is prepared to give some latitude in the debate of specifics in

committee, as it did to the minister in his original presentation, but does the

hon. Opposition House Leader have his question framed that we have given leave

for?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I will outline a couple of points, Mr. Chair, to address the concerns

of the Opposition House Leader.

I do not disagree with the Opposition House Leader when it comes to a degree

of consultation but, Mr. Chair, a different type or degree of consultation may

depend on the nature of the legislation that is being brought in. If you are

bringing in a new act or radically changing

an act or, for example, if you are

going to reform human rights, well, that is a situation where a lot of

consultation might be required.

In this particular case, what we are dealing with, though, is consolidating a

number of acts. Mr. Chair, as I am sure my colleague, the Opposition House

Leader, is aware, the explanatory note is exactly that. It is not part of the

Statute, so it does not form

part it is my understanding now, Mr. Chair, and

you may be able to correct me on this yourself, but it is my understanding the

explanatory note is exactly that. It does not form part of the legislation. In

fact, you will see, Mr. Chair, in some legislation there will be a

preamble

outlining the purpose of the act:

whereas it is expedient or that kind of thing.

In this particular case, Mr. Chair, this act, even though it is law, is no

more complicated than it was six months ago. It is no more complicated than it

was before Easter, when I understand the Opposition House Leader was provided

with a copy of the act. The length of it, by itself, does not mean much. If you

have five acts that are ten pages long and you put them together and form

an act

that is fifty pages long, well that does not make the act more complicated. All

we have done here is modernize

an act and essentially try to reduce red tape.

That is really what this is about; bringing these acts under one roof, as I

indicated earlier.

I feel more than confident that the degree of consultation and the type of

consultation required here was necessary. I see no need, Mr. Chair, when we are

dealing with consolidation of acts, to go and consult extensively with any

particular group.

I do have, Mr. Chair, a concern as outlined by the Opposition House Leader

into this apparent anomaly between

section 9. I am going to have to come back to

this, but the question I have is that if you have a limitation on the keeping of

books, and come back to

section 3 where you are holding the monies in trust,

well the only way is that if there is an audit or an investigation conducted,

then the examiner, the inspector, the accountant has to be able to look at the

books and records.

I agree with the Opposition House Leader, that the obligation on the average

citizen, who complies with his tax requirements and his legal requirements to

have to maintain books and records in perpetuity, on space, is or could be

unreasonable. Now, however, it seems then to me difficult to reconcile the

requirement or the non-requirement of keeping books and records and say: well,

we will have to have taxes paid in perpetuity. I assume, and I am sure the

Opposition House Leader will help me out if I am wrong on this, is that if you

owe a tax and it is determined that you owe a tax, then that tax would - there

is no limitation on the collection of that tax that is determined to be owned.

In this particular case, if the books and records are gone then there is no way,

I would think, to determine if a tax is owed. So that is something that we

certainly will have to look at, Mr. Chair.

It is my understanding, Mr. Chair, that the rationale for this particular

section is that again, it is something that can be looked at, but the

rationale is that sometimes records are required even after seven years because

of disputed assessments.

Audit periods are normally three to four years. So, you would not normally

look beyond that time frame. It would seem to me that if you have had a seven

year period that the chances of a charge being laid are not that great because

the audit will normally be conducted in that three to four years. As I indicated

- and again, Mr. Chair, you might remember this yourself - I know that because

of the importance of thrust conditions in law firms that audits have to be

performed on an annual basis. Now, there is authority to destroy the records. I

agree with the Opposition House Leader, that it does put an obligation on a

person to come forward and ask, as opposed to there being a it places an

onus, or to a certain extent, a requirement on the individual.

Mr. Chair, I do not know if the Opposition House Leader would agree with this

concept, but it would seem to me that if a person has a bunch or records and

people do changes businesses in this day and age. The person who may have a

retail store at one point could move into another area later in life. There has

to be a balance here between the requirement of the state being able to

investigate to ensure compliance, to ensure that taxes are collected, to ensure

that people are doing what they have to do without placing an enormous onus on

the individual. It would seem that the seven year tax requirement could be

appropriate here.

Mr. Chair, I would suggest that I will look a little bit further and discuss

with my officials the issue of - I am concerned, not about the tax being owed

forever, if it is determined you owe a tax that there be no limitation period. I

am a bit concerned about the complaint made and proceedings taken without a

limitation of time. Again, that is something that I will, perhaps in a few

minutes I will go - if there is a break or if we move on to something else, I

will go and check those couple of points.

Those will be my comments at this stage, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, at this time I move that the Committee rise, report

progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

All those in favour of the motion, please say aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contra minded, nay'.

The motion is 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 Assistant Deputy Speaker and 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 progress and ask leave

to sit again.

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 progress and ask leave to sit again.

When shall this report be received?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again on

tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, from the Order Paper I call Order 7, second

reading of bill,

An Act To amend The

Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act . (Bill 7)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 7,

An Act To Amend The

Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workplace Health,

Safety And Compensation Act." (Bill 7)

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to introduce at this time Bill 7, as it relates to

the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act. This is a bill which we

believe will certainly improve the Province's Workers' Compensation

legislation, and it will improve it, we believe, to the benefit of employers,

workers and injured workers.

In April, 2008, Mr. Speaker, government announced its action plan in response

to the 2006 report of the Statutory Review Committee on Workplace Health, Safety

and Compensation Commission. I am sure that many members of this House will

recall that the Statutory Review Committee's report contained numerous

recommendations calling for a number of different improvements to Workers'

Compensation system. In response, of course, we released our action plan in

April, 2008. It included many measures that addressed things such as the

accountability and the long-term sustainability of the Workplace Health, Safety

and Compensation Commission. It addressed issues around claim duration, which we

are very concerned about in this Province. It addressed issues as well around

the early and safe return to work. Again, something that we are very concerned

about in this Province and an issue that we intend and want to make some

progress on. In fact, we have in the last couple of years.

The action plan also included measures that addressed enhancements to client

services. I am pleased to say that there are many enhancements that have

happened there. Although we still recognize that there may be a ways to go,

there are certainly many, many improvements in client services and many that we

are happy to speak about and report upon.

Finally, the action plan included measures to improve the capacity to deal

with occupational disease, something that has come up in this House many times

and something that we believe, as a government, is an action area that we need

to address and we will be addressing very soon.

The action plan provides for an accountable and sustainable compensation

system, Mr. Speaker, and it includes measures that will, for the most part,

balance the interests of employers and workers. That is, overall, what this

particular act is about. It is about balancing those interests.

While the main focus of the plan was on various operational improvements, as

I said when we talked about client services within the commission, there are a

number of legislative change as well that were announced. Bill 7, therefore, is

going to address a number of those legislative changes, a number of those

amendments.

Included, particularly important, I believe, in the proposed legislation,

will be changes that will enhance the governance within the commission. The

board of directors and the composition of the board of directors, was a piece

that we felt needed to be looked at, and so specifically we are making

alterations to the composition of the commission's board of directors, that

will allow for, in the future, representation that will include a minimum of one

representative recommended by the Newfoundland and Labrador Employers'

Council, a minimum of one representative that will be recommended by the

Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour, and one board member, as well,

representative of injured workers. We believe this to be a substantive change

and one that will be applauded by the community at large.

While the total number of board members will remain the same, these

improvements will enhance the level of employer and worker and public

representation on the board, and will further recognize the important role, Mr.

Speaker, that stakeholders play in the governing of the Workplace, Health and

Safety Compensation Commission.

As well, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that, for the first time, the board of

directors will now include a person from the general public who represents

injured workers. There has long been a call to have a representative of injured

workers there, and we are very happy to be able to respond to this and change

the composition of that board to ensure that that representation does, indeed,

happen.

I am confident, as well, that this presence will help to enhance that

perspective of injured workers, the perspective that will strengthen the voice

of the injured worker in the workplace. That is something that we feel strongly

about and we are very happy to do, when it comes to the inclusion in the

composition of this particular board.

There were other issues that were addressed, Mr. Speaker, around the

reemployment obligation of employers. In addition, this legislation will provide

a clearer application of an employer's reemployment obligation. We believe

that this, too, will be applauded. In fact, we have been told by labour, we have

been told by employers, and particularly by injured workers, that they are very

happy with this particular amendment that will ensure that workers who get hurt

on the job are provided with access to the full two years of employment

protection, should they manage to work beyond their original date of injury. Mr.

Speaker, we know that to be true in many cases.

Oftentimes, there could be a workplace accident, but the exact injury does

not show up until a month or two months or six months down the road, before you

realize that that particular injury is the result of the particular accident

that you would have had. To ensure the full two years of employment protection,

we will be introducing, in this piece of legislation, an amendment that will

see, not the date of injury, but the date of the departure from work, initiated

in terms of the reemployment obligation of the employer. We have heard from many

that that will be something that will be applauded and their will be accolades

for that, for sure.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, to those substantive amendments, there are a number

of administrative changes that we felt we needed to make at this time as well,

and these amendments will help to bring the act into sync with other pieces of

legislation, such as the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

In addition, the bill provides clarity around a piece concerning the annual

reporting and the strategic planning standards of the Workplace Health, Safety

and Compensation review division, and removes an antiquated, or what we felt was

a very antiquated, reporting requirement, in favour of those contained under the

Transparency and Accountability Act.

Now we will simply require one report only per year, and that will be based

on a performance-based report, as well, but it certainly will state the

indicators and the success of the particular return to work. There will not be a

need to look at two reports now, one of them having been a calendar-based report

and the other being a report, I think, at the end of March. We will simplify

that process and there will be only one report that will be required.

Other out-of-date provisions, Mr. Speaker, and sections that we propose

repeal of will be looked at in this particular piece of legislation.

Overall, I feel that these are very positive amendments that will respond to

the interests of employer groups, labour, organizations such as labour

organizations and injured workers and their representatives as well. These

changes are proactive. They are very positive measures and they will demonstrate

progress in relation to government's action plan, the action plan that was

released in April of 2008.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I am requesting support of this House in approving

these amendments.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

It is a pleasure to be able to stand today and make a few comments with

regard to Bill 7,

An Act To Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation

Act.

To begin with, I want to thank the minister because there were some points of

the legislation that I needed a bit of a clarification on, so I met with her one

day and she did go through the process. It was very helpful for me to get some

information and to more or less make the way a bit clearer on some of the issues

that I was not all that familiar with.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation

Act and the commission itself - it is good to see this legislation coming in

because, as the minister said, some of the information that is being provided

here or some of the clauses are in a housekeeping role and more of it are some

major changes that will benefit the injured workers of this Province.

However, I will go through each of those clauses within the act and then I

would like to add some comments, because I thought I might have seen more in the

act than is actually there, that came back from the report that was submitted to

the commission and eventually to government.

Mr. Speaker, first I want to go through Clause 1, the amended

section 4(2) of

the act to adjust the composition of the board.

The minister has stated very clearly that really the composition of the board

will remain fairly consistent with what it is today with regards to the numbers.

I know now that the Newfoundland and Labrador Employers' Council will have a

representative there from the employers. The Newfoundland and Labrador

Federation of Labour will have a representative there from the workers. I guess,

one of the most important and key members on the board, one of the board members

representing the injured workers, will be representing the general public. I

know the Newfoundland Labrador Injured Workers Association, and others, have

been asking for this particular issue to be brought forward, someone from the

general public and someone representing the injured workers. Where better to get

someone to take

part in that particular legislation than someone from the

Newfoundland Labrador Injured Workers Association itself.

Mr. Speaker, one of the other issues that is brought forward there is to

amend

section 20(2) of the act, to extend the duties of the commission to

provide services to Occupational Health and Safety designates. We know, right

now, that the service provided by Occupational Health and Safety committees and

Workplace Health and Safety representatives, that this would be an addition to

this piece of legislation.

Then, I guess, we look at clause 3 which amends

section 30 of the act to

align the reporting of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Review

Division. We all know that the review division plays a very important part when

it comes to dealing with issues that have been rejected by the Workers'

Compensation Commission. It is an avenue after an internal review has been done.

Once an injured worker has their case put by the wayside, they then have the

opportunity to have an internal review done, and if it is not successful at that

point in time, when all the documentation is looked at and the medical

consultants at the commission do their review, we know then there is this other

avenue where they can go to an appeal, and it is the Compensation Review

Division.

On behalf of the injured workers in my area, I have attended there quite

often. It is a wonderful practice where you can go with your constituent, the

injured worker. Also, there will be people there representing the employers, as

well as people representing WHSCC. They have to report the end result back to

the commission. Like the minister said, before there were two different reports

they had to put in, and now they are streamlining this so that they would only

report once a year. As stated, that goes along with the recommendations we see

now with regards to the transparency and accountability act. I think it was in

2006 that this was more or less put in line with the Labour Relations Board and

probably other avenues as well.

Mr. Speaker, then we go to clause 4, which amends

section 45(3) to eliminate

unnecessary service requirements. Under

section 45 I think this was introduced

in the act back in 1992 to require a worker who was injured in a work-related

accident to elect compensation or take an action. Really, this has been changed

now; because my understanding is that if a worker should take action the other

issue becomes null and void anyway. Once you take that action, regardless of

what the outcome is, you just cannot go back to workers' compensation and

apply for benefits again.

Under clause 5, which repeals

section 53(4), it is just eliminating an

unnecessary requirement at this time, and that is with regard to where an

injured worker - I think that piece of legislation, subsection 53(4), required a

worker that they had to give notification by registered mail. We know in this

day and age now that we have various pieces of technology. I know injured

workers who can fax it in, even though they have mailed in the original, but we

have other avenues today that those issues can be dealt with.

I guess one of the most important clauses that I saw here, and a major change

for the injured workers of our Province, is under clause 7, which amends

section

89.1(8)(

a) to revise the commencement of an employer's two-year re-employment

obligation period from the date of injury to the date of disability.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure each and every one of us has incidents where people

within our districts, working in whatever profession they work in, from time to

time encounter an injury. Maybe at the time it is only a minor injury, a slight

injury, but they do report it and maybe only take a few days off work. Maybe

some of them do not even take any time off work because they feel that they can

continue on, to take

part in their employment in the workplace. Maybe three

months or six months or eighteen months down the road they find out that this

injury, as minor as it was, has come back now to put them in a position where

they are unable to work. Really, this amendment here, this clause 7, is

adjusting it now so that the employer has an obligation not only two years from

the point that the initial information was put forward that they were injured,

but now will take place two years from the period when they had to actually give

up working due to that injury.

I have to say that this is a very positive piece of information to this

legislation, and I am sure injured workers and all those who deal with injured

workers in our Province will have nothing but good praises for that.

Like I said when I started, the items that are in this piece of legislation,

in Bill 7, I believe each and every one of them are a step in the right

direction, eli