Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 14 June 2010 (46th General Assembly, 3rd Session, Vol. XLVI No. 37)
2010-06-14
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
June
14, 2010 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVI No. 37
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
Today, the Speaker would like to welcome three members of Skills Canada Team
- Newfoundland and Labrador: Mr. Marc Burton, bronze award winner; Mr. Ryan
Skanes, silver award; and Mr. Stephen Rogers, gold medalist. The members are
accompanied by their executive director, Carole Anne Ryan.
Welcome to the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would also like to welcome a delegation of
Newfoundland and Labrador Girl Guide leaders.
Welcome to the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard: the hon.
Member for the District of St. John's East; the hon. Member for the District of
Bonavista North; the hon. Member for the District of Bellevue; the hon. Member
for the District of Labrador West.
The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUCKINGHAM: Mr. Speaker, certainly one of the drawbacks of being a
minister of government is the limited opportunity to stand and recognize many of
the things that go on in your district.
This past weekend sorry, the weekend before that, the Newfoundland and
Labrador Athletics Association held a provincial junior high championship in
track and field. A number of schools from all over the Island converged on
Pearlgate Field in Mount Pearl to jump, run, and throw to achieve victory.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that G.C. Rowe Junior High School from
the District of Humber East, represented by the Minister of Finance, accumulated
the most points in being named overall boys champions. In the girls category,
Stephenville Middle School, from the District of St. George's-Stephenville East,
which is represented by the Government House Leader, emerged victorious and
received the girls championship banner.
Mr. Speaker, track and field is a great sport for our young people. It is low
cost, active, social, and provides great opportunities for travel.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity today and ask all my
colleagues to join me in congratulating G.C. Rowe Junior High and Stephenville
Middle School on being the provincial junior high champions for 2010.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the fifty-fifth
anniversary of the Wing's Point Pentecostal Assembly in Bonavista North.
The Wing's Point Pentecostal Assembly started in modest fashion in the 1950s
when residents first opened their homes to a series of initial cottage meetings.
The pioneer pastors of the day were sustained by their faith and goodwill
offerings from supportive members of the community. From these humble
beginnings, the church has seen its congregation grow from a few individuals
scattered throughout Gander Bay South, Clarke's Head, Wing's Point, and Rodger's
Cove to now 109 dedicated families throughout the Gander Bay area.
The strength and growing impact of the church in the area is evidenced by the
development of a vibrant women's ministries group, a children's outreach
program, and an active youth group.
The faith, dedication, and determination of one woman, Mary Lillian
(Peckford) LeDrew, a former resident of Change Islands, played an integral role
in the establishment of the church at Wing's Point. In the early, formative
years of the Assembly, she set out to share her faith and support her fellow man
and in doing so she became an integral part of advancing the Pentecostal
movement in the region.
H. Paul Foster, the General Superintendent of the Pentecostal Assemblies of
Newfoundland and Labrador, when asked about the Wing's Point Pentecostal
Assembly, stated that "the foundations through the Word of God were laid and
established by the finest pastors who are, or have been, within our ranks."
Today the work of the church is carried on by Pastor Roy Hillier.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in
congratulating the Wing's Point Pentecostal Assembly on celebrating fifty-five
years of faith and service in the Bonavista North region.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the Girl Guides of
Canada in celebrating 100 years of guiding in Canada this year on May 15, 2010.
Rallies were held all across Canada to celebrate their momentous occasion.
There were fourteen rally site locations throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.
By all accounts, participants had a wonderful time. There were approximately
2,500 people involved in the rally day celebrations.
Activities included sleepovers, sunrise ceremonies, use of stations for
active games and crafts, face painting and of course, finishing up with a
campfire for most of the locations. Three locations had a parade through their
towns. At one location, the rally held in Blaketown, there was a presentation of
a Oneise to the first baby girl born in that guiding area.
Special guests attended several of the rally sites. Four locations had their
local MHAs attend, also councillors and mayors of the community, and two of the
locations had their MPs attend. One of their National Deputy Chief
Commissioners, Ms Sharron Callahan she is a Newfoundlander, Mr. Speaker
along with their Provincial Commissioner, Ms Judy Shannahan, and her two Deputy
Provincial Commissioners, Ms Rosalind Pratt and Ms Germaine Fisher, attended
four rally sites, including the rally in Blaketown. As well, the Provincial
Membership, Marketing and Public Affairs adviser, Ms Karen Dinn participated.
Mrs. Mary Smith, the area commissioner for the coastal area, led the events for
the girls at the Blaketown rally. This rally, Mr. Speaker, is the rally I had
the privilege of attending.
There is lots of interest in guiding events this year as they continue to
celebrate their achievements. Pathfinder age girls will be travelling to Ontario
for GM 2010 camp in July, and over the summer girls will participate in local
community festivities. Girls continue to work on challenges to commemorate 100
years of guiding and encouraging to participate. As a unit, they can donate 100
items to a local food bank, as an example, and receive a 100 years of caring
button.
I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating guiding
across Canada on their 100 years and thanking the leaders for their dedicated
time and leadership to the guiding movement throughout the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Labrador West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Labrador West seventh annual Relay for Life was held this past weekend
over a twelve-hour period from 6:00 o'clock Saturday evening until 6:00 o'clock
Sunday morning. I was proud to take
part in the opening ceremonies and to bring
greetings on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Relay for Life slogan is: Celebrate, Remember, Fight Back.
It was quite an emotional spectacle as a hundred or more cancer survivors
clad in yellow tee-shirts kicked off the event with a victory lap around the
track in celebration of their winning the battle against cancer.
It was also a time of remembrance. The hundreds of luminaries placed around
the track glowed throughout the night as a memorial to those who lost their
battle with cancer.
The generosity of the people of Labrador West is well-known and this was
evidenced once again by the tremendous financial success of this event.
Twenty-nine teams from Labrador City and Wabush including seven teams from our
neighbouring Town of Fermont, Quebec raised a total of $117,000.
In the past four years, the Labrador West Relay for Life has contributed over
$510,000 towards the fight back against cancer.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the hon. House to join me in congratulating
the event chair, Thelma Ricketts, her team of volunteers and the twenty-nine
teams who made this year's Relay for Life another phenomenal success.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KING: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to congratulate Team Newfoundland and Labrador
2010 on being awarded ten medals from the sixteenth annual Canadian Skills
Competition, which was held recently in Waterloo, Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, over 600 high school, post-secondary and apprenticeship students
from every province and territory competed in forty competitions for the honour
of being named the best in the country.
The Canadian Skills Competition is organized by Skills Canada to profile
technology and trade careers.
Mr. Speaker, a number of award winners from our Province include: Marc
Burton, Stephanie House and Alexandria Matthews, bronze award medal winners;
silver awards were for Emma Power and Ryan Skanes. I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to
share that Kyle Kearsey, Timothy McDavid, Andrew Power, Stephen Rogers and Jamie
Warren were all recipients of a gold medal award. College of the North Atlantic
student, Stephen Rogers, was named the Best of the Region Award, which goes to
the competitor with the highest marks in our Province.
As well, Andrew Power, also of the College of the North Atlantic, earned a
spot on Team Canada and will go on to represent the country at the forty-first
World Skills Competition in London, England in the fall of 2011.
Mr. Speaker, the provincial government is a proud supporter of Skills Canada
Newfoundland and Labrador and of the Canadian Skills Competition.
In 2009-2010, the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, the
Department of Education, and the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development provided $100,000 in funding to Skills Canada.
Mr. Speaker, in November of last year, our government officially launched
Creating a Province of Choice: A Youth Retention and Attraction Strategy for
Newfoundland and Labrador. The strategy was developed in collaboration with
youth with the intent of countering the impacts of out-migration, of
strengthening the labour market and supporting the economic development of our
Province. Our partnership, Mr. Speaker, with Skills Canada and the interest they
have created in skilled trades shows that our strategy is indeed working.
I know I speak for all members of the hon. House, Mr. Speaker, when I offer
each award winner congratulations on a job well done.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White
Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to first of all thank the minister for an advance copy of his
presentation.
Certainly, to see our youth participating in the annual Canadian Skills
Competition is great and especially to see that ten of the participants were
awarded medals of bronze, silver and gold. It is certainly nice to especially
acknowledge Andrew Power, as mentioned by the minister, who will be competing
internationally in 2011.
It is a good competition. It is a healthy environment for our young people. I
would encourage the government to continue to provide the funding that is
mentioned through the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment and
that we can see more of our young people getting this opportunity.
We have a strategy that the minister refers to that has been developed as
working in terms of our youth, in terms of countering the impacts of
out-migration and so on. I would certainly encourage that perhaps that strategy
can be used across other departments and other challenges within our Province
today.
So it is good, and thank you for this privilege to speak to it.
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 his statement. I am
delighted to stand here today in solidarity with him and the speaker from the
Official Opposition to congratulate everyone from the Province who had the
opportunity to compete in Waterloo, and especially congratulations to those who
won the medals. It is great to know that people from our Province our young
people continue to go on showing themselves very strongly in the Canadian
Skills Competition. I also wish Andrew Power a lot of luck when Team Canada
competes in London next fall.
There is no doubt that Skills Canada, especially through the Canadian Skills
Competition, does provide excellent exposure for young people in the skilled
trades, but it is not just co-operation and partnership with Skills Canada that
is going to show that the Youth Retention and Attraction Strategy is working,
Mr. Speaker. Our young people still need jobs in this Province, and we
definitely need better internship and apprenticeship programs to help them make
the transition into the workforce, which is the final step. We still have too
many having to leave the Province.
I particularly note, Mr. Speaker, that it is still difficult for women who
are in trades and technology to move right through the whole process to a
journeyperson. So, I encourage the minister to keep looking at these issues in
his department.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, following this government's logic on the Lower Churchill file is
quite difficult. A couple of weeks ago, the Premier stated that he is going to
pursue the Maritime route to transmit power and bypass Quebec. This weekend we
learned that Nalcor is supporting a proposal from a private company to develop a
2,000 megawatt line from the Quebec-US border to New York City. If this company
is successful, they plan to pre-sell access to this line.
I ask the Premier today: Is this Province willing to pre-buy space on this
line without the transmission infrastructure in place to get our power to the
Quebec-US border?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this Province is not prepared to enter
into commitments unless it has actually something to go on. I think this is just
the opposite of the question that the hon. member asked last week as to why we
had not entered into certain contracts. We had not entered into them because at
that point we did not have any power to sell. Now, it is Monday and she is now
coming from the other side asking if we are prepared to enter into contracts
even though we do not have space allocated.
This government is not going to put the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
in a precarious position. What we are going to do is proceed and we are going to
look at all our options. We have not ruled out any of the options. The
article
that appeared on Nalcor over the weekend is an accurate article. We could look
at actually buying space at some point in time when there are approvals in place
to take power from the Quebec border. We could still even look at the
possibility of building our own transmission line through Quebec. That is
something which could have to be done. As well, of course, our preferred option
is the Maritime route and we have stated that previously.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The whole purpose of the question is because during the weekend, Mr. Ed
Martin of Nalcor was quoted as saying that: "If it was a relationship where we
were one of the players on the line and we had guaranteed access for a
particular price, that would suit us fine." A few months ago in the House of
Assembly the Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Speaker, indicated that they
were not prepared to make any commitment because they did not know which route
that they would take and which way they would wheel their capacity. So, Mr.
Speaker, the purpose of the question today was to look for clarification.
Mr. Speaker, Hydro-Quebec has just signed a twenty-six year contract with the
state of Vermont to supply power. The Premier referenced last week the MOU that
he signed with Rhode Island in 2007 and his attempt to find a customer for Lower
Churchill power. We now know that the MOU is dead, as Rhode Island has backed
away from signing any agreements with the Province.
I ask the Premier: While everyone else is signing long-term agreements, what
meaningful actions is this Province taking to secure potential customers?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, when we took over the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador, we found ourselves in a position where the previous
government had not marketed our power properly in the rest of Canada and even
the United States. When we first went to the governors meetings in the United
States, it was Quebec power the power that was coming out of the Upper
Churchill was considered to be Quebec's power. They were marketing it, they were
selling it, they had generated it, and they had produced it. Newfoundland and
Labrador did not even exist in the power markets in the Northeastern United
States.
So, what we have done over the course of the last five years is nurture the
relationship with the New England governors as well as with other provinces,
Ontario and the Maritime provinces, to show that we will be a significant
exporter. This government does not have a short-term vision of where it is
going; it has a long-term vision. Our Energy Plan goes out to 2041 to the point
when we repatriate the Upper Churchill power and we are working back from that.
So, we have a long-term perspective, we are building relationships, we are
promoting the Province. As I said last week, I have spoken in New York, I have
spoken in Calgary, I have spoken in Toronto, I have spoken in Ottawa. I will
continue to promote this Province to the best of my ability anywhere in the
world.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What we have is a minister who claims that we should not be buying capacity
on a line. We have a corporation, Mr. Speaker, who is looking to invest with the
private sector to buy capacity on a line that we have no route to get to at this
stage, and, Mr. Speaker, in addition to that we have no secure customers while
others are signing deals to provide power.
I ask the Premier this question. He stated that his preference was the
Maritime option when questioned a couple of weeks ago. While that may be his
preference, the work that remains to be done shows that this route is at least a
decade or more away. One of the major challenges when using underwater cables to
transmit electricity is that a significant quantity of power is lost. So using
the Maritime route, there will be two instances that will require underwater
transmission, across the Strait of Belle Isle and the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
I ask the Premier: How much power will be lost using underwater transmission
and what impact will that have on the feasibility of the project?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can undertake to provide that
information. I am not an engineer. I would not be able to give you an accurate
number as to what the power loss is but I can tell you, obviously the Leader of
Opposition is listening to her counterpart, the Liberal Premier of New Brunswick
and/or his energy minister who has indicated that technical problems are the
reasons why we would not do the underwater route. Well, since they made that
statement, or since that statement was taken out of context, as they have
indicated to us, they have since changed that and they have indicated that there
are not significant technical problems with regard to underwater transmission.
As a matter of fact, it is happening all over the world. There are lots of
jurisdictions. We could cite all kinds of examples. I will provide the examples
to the Leader of the Opposition, or any members of the Opposition, with respect
to where this is taking place. There is some loss, some power loss but it is
insignificant in the big scheme of things. This is the best, clean, green
renewable energy project in North America and it will happen eventually.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We know that the government has not completed the necessary work to move
forward with the Maritime route. There are no environmental impact studies that
have been filed to cross the Gulf of St. Lawrence and we know that process will
take years.
I tell the Premier what I did talk to the Government of New Brunswick about,
however, was the capacity on their lines to accept Lower Churchill power. They
have confirmed, Mr. Speaker, that there is no capacity. They say that
Newfoundland and Labrador, if approved, would be responsible for constructing
new transmission lines across that province and paying a tariff to the people of
New Brunswick.
I ask the Premier today: What will be the extra cost of constructing these
transmission lines and what impact will that have on the feasibility of the
Lower Churchill project?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Well, now we understand completely why the Leader of
the Opposition is so completely misinformed. She just indicated who she is
relying on for information. She is relying on the Government of New Brunswick,
who just recently backed away from a deal with Quebec whereby they would have
given away their future. So that is where she is getting her information. So
let's start from that premise.
The Leader of the Opposition in New Brunswick was in last week to talk to me
about the potential power projects, to talk about the use of New Brunswick as an
energy hub for Atlantic Canada, for the Maritimes, for the Northeastern United
States. It is interesting how a Conservative thinks as opposed to a Liberal, who
decides they will just give it all away.
Having said that, we have also spoken to the Premier of New Brunswick, to the
other premiers of the Atlantic Provinces who are looking at Atlantic
co-operation to build a Maritime route, to build an energy hub throughout
Atlantic Canada whereby the Province of New Brunswick would work with us. Now,
we have already said whether it is in Quebec or whether it is in New Brunswick,
whether it is in Nova Scotia, we have to upgrade. We will pay for upgrade. If we
have to pay for rental, we will pay for rental. If we have to pay for new
transmission -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: - we will pay for new transmission. There is a
co-operative attitude. Your divide and conquer attitude, whether it happens to
be Quebec or New Brunswick, simply does not work.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to inform the Premier that you have to talk to someone in order
to smoke the answers out of the government opposite because every day it is a
different message. One week we are going the Maritime route, the next week we
are going through Quebec. One week we are trying to buy capacity on a line to
the United States, the next week we have no way to transport power. So, Mr.
Speaker, there are more questions than there are ever answers, I would say to
the Premier, and it is all right to talk to some people to find out what the
real lay of the land is.
Mr. Speaker, once power is transmitted through Labrador and across The Strait
of Belle Isle, down the Northern Peninsula, through the Long Range Mountains,
across Western Newfoundland, across the Gulf of St. Lawrence, through Nova
Scotia, through New Brunswick, we then have to go through the State of Maine.
I ask the Premier today: What discussions have you or Nalcor had with the
State of Maine regarding transmission capacity? Will we have to build new
transmission lines there as well?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite talks about
taking power and taking it across Labrador and across the Gulf and down through
Newfoundland, across the Gulf and through the Maritimes and down into the State
of Maine. As if: Look, you know, this is just too much trouble. We really should
not bother with this. What we should do is - she should go back to her previous
position. We should just give this all away to Quebec. Which is exactly what her
government and her Premier and previous governments have been prepared to do is
give it to Quebec.
An
article appeared in the Montreal Gazette just this weekend. Do you
know what it is entitled? Let it go, Newfoundland. Let it go. That is what we
should do. We should listen to the hon. member opposite and we should listen to
the members of the Opposition. We should just let it go. We should give it all
way.
In that particular
article they also say, "Williams isn't wrong on the
facts." So everything that we laid out in Ottawa last week, every single fact is
correct. They acknowledge that, but instead Quebec has this patronizingly
colonial attitude: Let it go, Newfoundland and Labrador, give it all to us and
we will take care of it. Well, over my dead body that is going to happen, I can
tell you right now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
No one is talking about giving it to Quebec, but if you want to talk about
giving it away, I would say that is your motto today. That is the government's
motto. Certainly, that is what we have seen with Abitibi, and we have seen it
with a lot of contracts going to Quebec companies in recent days. The giveaway
to Quebec is starting with government opposite, Mr. Speaker.
Let me ask the Premier what the plan is at this stage for the development of
the Lower Churchill because we are no closer today than we were seven years ago,
when he walked into office, on knowing what route that this project will take
and what transmission ability that we have in order to develop.
So I ask the Premier today: What route is it going to be, and when is it that
you are going to get down to work on that file?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Give it all away, so she talks about Abitibi. So, she
is not in favour of what we did for the people of Central Newfoundland. She is
not in favour of the fact that we took back and we saved their timber rights and
their land rights, and their power assets their very, very important power
assets which happen to be related to this. She is not in favour of the fact that
we then took that opportunity then to pay severance, which is unprecedented
right across the country.
I have in front of me a letter which was written to me by, or written
actually to yes, it is to myself, and basically on behalf of the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador. March 16, 2010, from Joseph Kruger, the head of
Kruger Paper in Corner Brook. Last line, last sentence: Again, I want to thank
you and your government for saving the mill. That is what we do. We saved the
mill and we saved the future for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The giveaway on Abitibi, Mr. Speaker, is letting Abitibi off the hook with
hundreds of millions of dollars, and that is what this government did.
Mr. Speaker, on Thursday of last week, a three-year-old child was nearly
struck when a three-foot copper pipe fell from the ceiling in the blood
collection area of the Janeway. It could have resulted in a very serious injury
for that child, but fortunately and thankfully, it was not the case. Eastern
Health stated that they had given very clear direction that the construction
work was only supposed to be done at night when the area was unoccupied.
I ask the minister: Why were the work directives given by Eastern Health to
this construction company not followed?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This was obviously a very serious incident and one that deserved and received
immediate attention. The company was dealt with. The occupational health and
safety issues are being investigated, and this kind of conduct on behalf of any
company will not be tolerated.
Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding, again from a review of the matter, that
this matter is still be looking at. Thankfully, no one was hurt, but these are
not the kind of situations that can be tolerated.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Health Science complex is one of the busiest buildings in our Province.
Thousands of people go through that building every day and Eastern Health has a
responsibility to ensure the safety of its patients, the public, and its
employees in instances were work is being done in public intuitions.
I ask the minister: Who decides what protection barriers need to be used and
why was no protection barriers used in this case?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
In regard to the Health Sciences or any other such facility in Newfoundland
and Labrador there is extra precaution taken each and every day in regard to
work being conducted within those facilities. In this case there, there was an
oversight, as I understand it, from the manager who actually knew, or was
supposed to have known, that the work was supposed to happen after hours, or at
a time when that blood collection or whatever other procedures were not supposed
to be happening.
Anyways, that did not happen and then company itself took corrective action
very quickly in regard to that site, closed it down very, very quickly.
Occupational Health and Safety did an investigative review on that. They always
do in regard to any of those. Extra precautions are always put in place in
regard to any facility in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the directives given to these companies need to be followed to
ensure the health and safety of the public, patients and employees are
protected. Had Eastern Health been monitoring the work that was being carried
out by this company, they would have known that the contractor was not working
as per the requirements for safety in the contract.
I ask the minister: When directives are given to these construction
companies, who are responsible for ensuring that they are followed and who are
responsible to ensure that the monitoring is done?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the directive itself and the work
that is being done, it is the responsibility of both parties to make sure that
all occupational health and safety standards and regulations are being adhered
to. In this case, it just so happened that the company, on an oversight, started
the work - that should not have happened. The company acted very, very fast.
Occupational, Health and Safety acted very, very fast in regard to closing down
that site.
In most cases - as a matter of fact, I have been the Minister of Government
Services now for three years just about and the Minister Responsible for
Occupational Health and Safety, there has been a lot of work in our facilities
across Newfoundland and Labrador. Really, to my knowledge, this is the first
incident in regard to any hospital in Newfoundland and Labrador of this sort.
So, the oversight is good, it is working well, but in this case it just so
happened that it happened within the company and the company acted on it very,
very quickly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Justice.
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has adopted a distinct law and order
approach. More activities are being criminalized and those convicted are more
likely to go to prison and for longer period of times.
This past weekend, the minister participated in meetings with his Atlantic
counterparts where this matter and others were discussed.
I ask the minister: Can you report on what this new federal approach to crime
will mean for corrections services in this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice, I think, concurs
generally with the actions taken by the federal government in terms of its tough
on crime legislation, but at the same time we are cognizant of the fact that it
is going to have an impact on the Province and all provinces. At our meetings on
the weekend, that was certainly an issue of concern.
There was an action group established some time ago that did up some figures,
that I do not have at my fingertips, on what the possible cost might be to the
Atlantic Provinces in general. We are concerned with the fact that it will have
a financial impact. We have made representations to the federal government and
we will continue to do so but at the Atlantic ministers' level and at the
federal territorial ministers' level when it occurs in the fall.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Despite the inevitable increase in the number of persons who will go to
prison following these federal government changes in their policy, this
government has taken no steps to accommodate or prepare for this increase in
prisoners. Specifically, the Province has shelved the replacement for the
existing penitentiary that is already widely acknowledged to be insufficient and
decrepit.
In light of the minister's meetings and in light of this clear, hard-lined
federal policy, will the minister take steps to ensure now that the proper
replacement facility is put in place here in this Province in terms of a
penitentiary?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, in response to the constant criticism from
the Opposition in regard to the delay of the pre-trial detention centre in
Labrador, this department has constantly said that we are already engaged in
that activity. We have started an internal review as to how to best get the best
configuration out of correctional systems.
We have a number of correctional facilities in the Province. They all have
difficulties. We are all well-aware of the problems with the HMP down by the
lake. We are also, I think, acceptable to the fact by this time, because the
federal government is not coming on board with respect to building a federal
prison. We are looking at all the options we can, including any expansions or
modifications or reconfigurations of our system so to get the best bang for our
buck, so to speak, as to how we can deal with corrections in the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We know that the feds have absolutely stated they are not building any new
prisons in Canada in the foreseeable future. We know that this government
committed and announced twice that they were going to build a pre-trial
detention centre in Goose Bay, and have now scrapped it. So I will move on,
minister, to another question because it is pretty obvious you have not done
anything to pursue a new HMP.
Mr. Speaker, government has been quick to take credit for their report of two
years ago called: Decades of Darkness. Yet, many of the recommendations in that
report are still awaiting action after two years. One of those recommendations
and this ties in with my earlier questions about the prison here. One of the
recommendations was that there would be a new Prisons Act to replace the
existing one. However, we have seen absolutely no indication of any kind
regarding consultations with either stakeholders or the general public.
I ask the minister: When can we expect to see these consultations take place
and a new Prisons Act actually be introduced here in the House?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member is quite right in that that was one of the recommendations of
Decades of Darkness. Mr. Speaker, the focus of the government after the Decades
of Darkness report was on training and programming. To that end, Mr. Speaker, it
has invested upwards of $6 million in terms of training of personnel, training
of staff, developing of programs for inmates, so to make our correctional
facilities a better place both for our inmates and our staff. Mr. Speaker, we
have, as I said, invested $6 million in that.
With respect to the Prisons Act; the Prisons Act needs to be done. There is a
lot of work going on as we speak in my department, in doing jurisdictional
scans, getting best practices and so on. That act is being developed, and when
it is ready, Mr. Speaker, it will be brought forward in due course.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, in September of 2008 the Department of Business announced an $8
million interest-free loan for the expansion of Terra Nova Shoes in the
community of Harbour Grace. This past April the company announced that it was
laying off sixty workers. Last week we see that the displaced workers were
invited to attend sessions with the Department of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment and Service Canada to explore options, including EI, Canada Pensions
and so on.
Can the minister confirm that this layoff now is indeed permanent and not
temporary, as originally thought?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Business.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: I do not think anyone ever indicated those layoffs that were
announced a short while ago were going to be a temporary nature. I think what
was announced, the company indicated that they had changed their method of
operation, they had developed a new plan forward and that those layoffs were
going to be, in fact, permanent, and they reflected their new operation as they
move forward.
So there was no mistaken notion, Mr. Speaker, that these layoffs were going
to be of a temporary nature. Obviously, as the company continues to operate, as
new business opportunities come forward, they will respond to those. If that
creates an opportunity for expansion and growth, no doubt the workforce will
reflect that growth.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, government's response to this announcement was to ask Terra Nova
Shoes for a revised business plan so that the department might review the terms
of the loan.
Can the minister confirm that the plan was indeed reviewed? If a new plan was
received from that particular company, if the terms of the loan were revised,
and if so, what are the new terms?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Business.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: The member opposite is right, Mr. Speaker. We did indicate
that we would be reviewing a new business plan and as a result of that
outlined in the agreement we had in place when we advanced the money to them in
the beginning and that process is still underway. We hope to have that concluded
in a matter of weeks, I say, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This $8 million to Terra Nova Shoes represents the largest single amount of
money provided by the Department of Business to any one company, and is the
major money, in fact, ever spent from the Business Attraction Fund since it was
founded.
I ask the minister: What changes to the internal application and approval
processes have been made within your department to ensure a greater level of
certainty of business survival? Because it is quite obvious that the due
diligence done here did not pan out and it looks like we could be on the hook
for $8 million. So what, if any, changes have your government made and your
department made in a terms of doing due diligence on companies who apply for
business attraction funds in this Province, and subsidies?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Business.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the member opposite, I think it is
important to understand - and to take the member back to the time when that
announcement was made.
You may recall, Mr. Speaker, the minister of the day indicated very clearly
that that company that currently operates in Harbour Grace was looking at they
had an operation in Ontario and an operation in Harbour Grace. When government
considered the request before them, it had a circumstance where there were 150,
160 employees working in Harbour Grade at that time. The company was considering
whether they would consolidate in Harbour Grace or consolidate in Ontario.
We looked at the business plan that they presented. Obviously, it is a
long-standing viable company that we had a long-standing relationship with. They
have been in the Province for a long time, very sound financially, and we
created an opportunity for them to consolidate their operation in Harbour Grace
rather than losing all 150 employees at that time, Mr. Speaker. So, the business
case they had at that time looked at a consolidation. The international economy
changed and market conditions changed, so we ended up seeing what we saw last
year, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this morning we had a technical briefing from Chevron and we
were delighted to have that briefing. They informed us that from their
perspective they are doing everything they can to prevent a blow out from
occurring in the Orphan Basin as happened in the Gulf of Mexico. However, Mr.
Speaker, at this moment we do not know what the reasons are for the disaster in
the Gulf. Potentially, there could have been technical issues that contributed
to the blow out.
If such were the case, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: If this government
would be willing to put a halt to the drilling in the Orphan Basin until an
assessment could be made of the relevancy of any identified technical issues to
the Lona-O55 drilling program?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy
Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we were pleased also that Chevron provided briefings to our
caucus this morning, to the Opposition caucuses, and to the media. Mr. Speaker,
we are pleased with the plans and the extra regulation that Chevron has put in
place with regard to drilling in the Orphan Basin, as well as the extra scrutiny
that has been overlaid now by the C-NLOPB.
Mr. Speaker, also, in addition that Chevron has representation on the team in
the Gulf of Mexico who are dealing with the oil spill there. As well, they have
representation on the Obama Administration's response team to the Gulf of
Mexico. Lessons being learned are being applied here, Mr. Speaker. All of that
gives us a great sense of comfort with regard to drilling in the Orphan Basin.
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.
Yes, I heard those things as well in the briefing this morning, but we still
have people expressing their concern about the risk of a blow out in the deep
water and what would happen if there were a blow out. Many have concerns that
the government would not put a stop to drilling in the Orphan Basin without full
knowledge of why the blow out happened.
So, I ask the government: What would it take for the government to consider
stopping action in the Orphan Basin? Would it be another blow out or are there
technical difficulties that would force them to do it?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy
Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, there are quite a number of regulations governing operations in
our offshore. Mr. Speaker, if all of the safety measures and regulations were
not being observed, were not available, requirements for safety were not
available, then we would certainly agree to shutting down drilling in our
offshore.
Mr. Speaker, as far as the C-NLOPB is concerned, all regulations are in
force, being met. In terms of Chevron's own code of practice, all the
regulations are being met, Mr. Speaker, and if there were information that was
starting to come out of the Gulf of Mexico to say that there was a systemic
problem that had not been identified up to this point then that would be a
reason for shutting it down as well, Mr. Speaker. None of those things have
happened to date.
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, on Monday the Premier offered to provide a list of the
additional safety measures that were being employed by Chevron as a result of
the incident in the Gulf of Mexico, and such a list was provided to us by the
Department of Natural Resources two days after that. In this morning's briefing
with Chevron we were told that one of the measures noted as an additional one on
the list from the Department of Natural Resources, a measure that states that
Chevron will not use expandable liners as a part of their well casing design,
was always a part of Chevron's plan, that this was not an additional measure. As
a matter of fact, they were quite emphatic in saying that the use of expandable
liners was never a part of their plan.
So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Could we receive clarification about what
else in the list of additional measures provided to us by the government is
inaccurate and actually not an additional measure?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the worst accusation that could be made from the remarks now
coming from the Leader of the NDP is that in my department sometimes we tend to
be overzealous in terms of making sure that people got the correct information.
Mr. Speaker, we spend a lot of time on this file. We recognize the concern that
is being felt by the people of this Province, by the people of the country and
of the world, Mr. Speaker. We, too, are horrified when we look at pictures of
what is happening in the Gulf, and we will do everything we can to ensure that
does not happen here, Mr. Speaker. The environment is important to every one of
us. The sea is very important to us; it is a part of who we are.
Mr. Speaker, we take this situation very, very seriously and would not be
offering comfort if we were not sincerely sure that is the case.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of Documents
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to table the Credit
Union Deposit Guarantee Corporation Annual Business Report for the year 2009.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Topsail.
MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move the following private member's
resolution:
WHEREAS archaeologist Bill Gilbert and his team from the Baccalieu Trail
Heritage Corporation in 1995 discovered the original site of John Guy's 1610
Cupers Cove Plantation and, since that time, more than 145,000 artifacts have
been catalogued and important 17 th century structures have been
identified; and
celebrating its 400 th anniversary this year; and
WHEREAS in November, Their Royal Highnesses The Prince of Wales and The
Duchess of Cornwall visited our Province to launch the year-long Cupids400
celebration; and
WHEREAS the provincial government last June announced an additional $1.8
million to help fund the construction of the Cupids400 Legacy Centre, bringing
the Province's total commitment to the Cupids celebration and related
infrastructure to over $3.8 million; and
WHEREAS this legacy centre will house more than 110,000 artifacts uncovered
since the discovery of the original site, and will also include a
history/genealogical resource centre, a multi-purpose hall and an archaeology
lab where visitors will learn about the processes of archaeology; and
WHEREAS events throughout the year, culminating in the week of August 17-22,
will inject an estimated $15 million into the provincial economy while providing
important and enduring tourism benefits to Cupids and the entire region;
BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly congratulates Cupids on its 400 th
anniversary and invites the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and tourists
from across Canada and around the world to join the people of Cupids in
celebrating this important historic occasion, strengthening our tourism industry
and providing lasting benefits to many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the
process.
Mr. Speaker, that is moved by myself and seconded by the hon. Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that, under Standing Order 11, I
shall move that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 15, 2010.
I further give notice, under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House
not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 15, 2010.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?
Answer to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition again, on behalf of residents in my
district, with regard to the road conditions in that particular area. Mr.
Speaker, I will read into Hansard the prayer of the petition.
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS the residents of Red Bay to Goose Bay use a
section of the
Trans-Labrador Highway that is unpaved and in poor condition; and
WHEREAS this road is no longer suitable for the traffic volumes that travel
this route; and
WHEREAS government will not commit to provide funding to even begin paving
for Phase II and Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway; and
WHEREAS the residents of this region deserve a similar standard of road as
the Island portion of the Province;
WHEREUPON the petitioners call upon the House of Assembly to ask the
government to provide funding, to pave the road from Red Bay to Goose Bay.
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, these petitions, as I said, are circulating around Labrador, and
as they come in I will be presenting them to the House of Assembly. The petition
today is signed by people in the Labrador Straits area. Mr. Speaker, this
highway is the main highway through Labrador. Right now, that
section of
highway, in places, at least fifty kilometres in the area from the middle depot
at Red Bay, going toward Mary's Harbour, is in very, very bad condition. It is
so bad, Mr. Speaker, that even over the weekend I had calls from tractor-trailer
operators, companies that are running freight in and out of the area, bus tour
operators that made the first trip up over the road, who said that it was the
worst piece of road they have ever travelled over in their entire lives.
If you read the paper today, Mr. Speaker, the local paper, the Northern
Pen , I believe it was, carried an
article which quoted all kinds of people
who use that road for delivering goods, for traffic, for work, and they have all
said the same thing: they have never seen that
section of road as bad in the
years that the road has been there.
Mr. Speaker, last week the minister committed to put some crushed stone on
that
section of road, but to date there has been no crushed stone on the road
between the middle camp and Lodge Bay. There was a little bit of stone put on
the road between Mary's Harbour and Lodge Bay over the weekend, where kids were
being bused to school, Mr. Speaker, and parents had refused to send their
children over that
section of road any longer. There was some crushed stone put
on there, and it is continuing to be done today, from what I understand, but
still nothing to address the other
section of road.
Mr. Speaker, it is because of the state of the roads, and because of the
dependency upon these roads, that people feel that government needs to take it
more seriously and maintain a certain standard on that road, and to start
putting together a proposal to ensure that this
section of highway gets paved as
well.
Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for Labrador was quoted on CBC Radio
back some time ago as saying that until the
section of road between Labrador
West and Goose Bay is paved, there would be nothing coming forward to pave the
section from Goose Bay to Red Bay. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough,
and it is unacceptable. Government should take their responsibilities to the
people in this area more seriously and they should be looking at a long-term
solution to dealing with this and that would be paving the roads.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 9, pursuant to Standing Order 11,
that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today on Monday, June 14, 2010.
Further, Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 10, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that
this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today on Monday, 14, 2010.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 of the
clock today, being Monday.
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
Motion carried.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do not adjourn at 10:00
o'clock today, being Monday.
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
Motion carried.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Government Services for leave to
introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, Bill 27, and
I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the
Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To
Amend The Highway Traffic Act, Bill 27, and that Bill 27 be now read a first
time.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 27 be now read a
first time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An
Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act", carried. (Bill 27)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 27)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 27 has now been read a first time.
When shall Bill 27 be read a second time?
MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 27 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of
Government Services for leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 3 ,
Bill 28, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the
Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To
Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 3, Bill 28, and that Bill 28 be now read a
first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 28 be now read a first time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An
Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 3", carried. (Bill 28)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 3. (Bill
28)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 28 has now been read a first time.
When shall Bill 28 be read a second time?
MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 28 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of
Government Services for leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The
Prepaid Funeral Services Act, Bill 29, and I further move that the said bill be
now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House
Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The
Prepaid Funeral Services Act, Bill 29, and that Bill 29 be now read a first
time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the said minister shall have leave to
introduce Bill 29 and that the said bill be now read a first time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An
Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act", carried. (Bill 29)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act. (Bill
29)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 29 has now been read a first time.
When shall Bill 29 be read a second time?
MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 29 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources for leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act Respecting The
Health And Protection Of Animals, Bill 30, and I further move that the said bill
be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved by the Government House Leader that the
House shall ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act Respecting The Health
And Protection Of Animals, Bill 30, and that Bill 30 be now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 30 be now read a first time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill, "An
Act Respecting The Health And Protection Of Animals", carried. (Bill 30).
CLERK: A bill,
An Act Respecting The Health And Protection Of Animals.
(Bill 30)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 30 has now been read a first time.
When shall Bill 30 be read a second time?
MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 30 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice
and Attorney General for leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act Respecting
Human Rights, Bill 31, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first
time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and second that the hon. the Government
House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act Respecting
Human Rights, Bill 31, and that Bill 31 be now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the said minister shall have leave to
introduce Bill 31 and that this bill be now read a first time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a
bill, "An Act Respecting Human Rights", carried. (Bill 31).
CLERK: A bill,
An Act Respecting Human Rights. (Bill 31)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 31 has now been read a first time.
When shall Bill 31 be read a second time?
MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 31 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We will go to the Order Paper under second reading of bills and we will go to
Order 13. This was the debate adjourned on June 3, second reading of a bill, An
Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 2, Bill 19.
MR. SPEAKER: The House is ready to hear a continued debate on Bill 19, An
Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 2.
The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
Has the hon. member already spoken on this particular piece of legislation?
MR. O'BRIEN: I have, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. minister speaks now, he will close the debate on
second reading of Bill 19,
An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 2.
The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
MR. O'BRIEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, it has been a few days now in regard to the debate the ongoing debate
in regard to Bill 19. Just to refresh some of the people's minds, not only in
this House but also in Newfoundland and Labrador via our telecast, this bill is
about the regulation of insurance companies. It is specifically about the
different types of classes of insurance that will be sold.
There has been an ongoing process in regard to the Canadian Council of
Insurance Regulators. They carried out a review in regard to defining the
classes of insurance all across Canada and the different jurisdictions. In the
premise of streamlining those classes of insurance and harmonizing them to be
much the same in each of the provinces and territories within Canada, the
amendments that we are making here are certainly a result of that review.
In the meantime, the last speaker in regard to the Opposition was the
Opposition House Leader. He spoke at length on the particular bill. He brought
up a number of points that he wanted clarification on. He brought up a number of
points that I did not think he would need any clarification in regard to his
profession and the classes, the difference in regard to the legislation itself,
and then in turn the policies that come out of that legislation and come out of
the classes of insurance that are here in Canada and also in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
First, to clarify, I think he asked a question in regard to the harmonization
piece, if all jurisdictions would be included. Yes, they will. All the
jurisdictions in Canada are harmonizing as we speak in regard to that review,
including the federal insurance legislation too will be harmonized over the next
period of time in regard to the sittings of their House. So, it is the intention
of each and every jurisdiction and the federal government to harmonize to the
actual recommendations coming out of the Canadian Council of Insurance
Regulators review that happened over the past number of years.
Also, I want to clarify in regard to the hon. member brought up, in regard
to the harmonization not being exactly the same. Well, sometimes the wording in
the legislation is often different in various jurisdictions due to drafting
style but the meaning of that particular legislation is the same. It is just in
the drafting style of the particular province or territory that you might find
yourself in or the federal government. Also, in regard to Quebec, there were
translating issues, which sometimes result in different wording but the end
result is the same as well.
The hon. member brought up in regard to difference of classes of insurance in
Quebec. He referenced a couple of occasions I believe, if you look at Hansard,
if my memory serves me right, he referred to the difference - I referenced that
there would be two issues in regard to this harmonization that we would probably
have to come back to the House to re-amend the piece of legislation. One
pertaining to Quebec and one pertaining actually to our fire and emergency act
here in Newfoundland and Labrador. That we had to let each one of them catch up
to each other before we actually could amend and harmonize in that respect. The
one - he confused it actually, in regard to that harmonization. He kept
referring to fire insurance in regard to Quebec, but that did not pertain to
that particular issue at all. It had to do with the credit insurance, in regard
to Quebec, the class of insurance in Quebec. The purpose of this piece is to
protect the lender from loss where the person or company who received the loan
defaults on a payment of a loan or becomes insolvent.
In Quebec, this type of insurance is included in their mortgage insurance
class because of how the Quebec Civil Code defines mortgage. For example, in
Quebec a loan on a car is considered to be a mortgage but in all other provinces
it is considered a loan. So to clarify that, that is the reason why there will
be a difference between this Province and the other jurisdictions, I suspect
as well, have the same issue that they have to - there will be a difference
between those two words in regard to mortgage and loan. That is the reason why,
it has all to do with the Quebec Civil Code, and defines that.
He also asked that the Canadian Council of Insurance Regulators, he was
asking how long this took, who participated and what not, and everything. This
has been a long process, over several years of work, in consultation with the
insurance industry itself. My Superintendent of Insurance was also a part of
that process as well. There have been people who have been in that particular
industry, either on the regulatory side or on the business side itself, who have
been involved in that process over the last several years. All the provinces and
territories and the federal government are all members of the Canadian Council
of Insurance Regulators and they were all involved in the discussions.
There is a lot of input in regard to that process and getting us to this
point that we are able to make the amendments. We are able to streamline and
harmonize the actual classes of insurance across Canada, which is really a
benefit not only to the industry but also a benefit to the buyer as well, that
they can move from province to province. They might have a certain class of
insurance in Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, that class of insurance will be
the same in Alberta, B.C., Manitoba, Saskatchewan, or wherever they find
themselves in.
So I hope that clarifies that we had various people. As a minister, I did not
sit because that is a council that is made up of the superintendents and various
other people who are experts in regard to the regulatory side of the actual
insurance industry. They sit at that table over a number of years.
He also referenced a number of occasions in regard to the different classes
of insurance and also went down through a number of them. Now there are going to
be seventeen classes of insurance that are going to be listed in Appendix 1.
Then there is also an area there where there are other approved products as
well. The other approved products enable the industry to develop other classes
that would come forward to the Canadian Council of Insurance Regulators for
their review. So you might see another class of insurance added to the list and
that appendix at some time in the future.
In regard to the different classes of insurance, one in particular, he
mentioned the accident and sickness insurance is certainly a class of insurance.
As I said, there are many types of insurance policies that fall under the class
of accident and sickness insurance. For example, you may have insurance to cover
you for an injury or a death while travelling on an airplane. You could have
insurance to cover medical costs while on a trip. You could have insurance to
cover you if you died or were injured in a type of accident. You could have
insurance to cover dental bills, et cetera.
So to clarify for the hon. member, legislation does not dictate what has to
be covered in each of the insurance policies. That is dictated by the policy
itself. Legislation will say that these policies are under a certain class of
insurance, such as accidental and sickness insurance and the insurance companies
wishing to sell these policies will need a licence to sell that class of
insurance.
Also, under the insurance policies there is detail to the coverage that is
insured. Agents and brokers selling these policies need a licence to do so and
must complete educational courses so they can understand what is in the policies
they are selling and can explain really to the consumers, they can explain it
all out in regard to exactly what they are buying. Consumers should read their
policies and make sure that the specific item they want to be insured for is
actually covered under that particular policy.
Just to list out for the hon. member in regard to the different classes of
insurance that has come forward by the Canadian Council of Insurance Regulators.
The first one is accident and sickness. Then there is a definition of accident
and sickness under the legislation, but again, the policy would dictate exactly
what type of insurance under that class of insurance they are actually buying.
Then there is another class called aircraft insurance, that speaks for itself in
regard to planes and such that would be covered under that type of insurance.
Again, the policy would dictate all the various aspects that would be covered
under that policy. Then you have automobile insurance which is, again, we are
all familiar with because most of us, I would say, have automobiles and in
Newfoundland and Labrador you have to have insurance on your automobile. So you
certainly have insurance there.
There is another class called boiler and machinery, which means you are
protected against liability arising out of bodily injury to or death of a person
or the loss or damage of property against any kind of an accident or anything
that happens within pressure vessels of any kind of pipes, engines and machinery
connected to or operated by these pressure vessels. That is the type of
insurance. You have credit insurance, you have credit protection insurance, you
have fidelity insurance, and you have hail. Well really, that is needed in
Canada. It might not be needed - well it could be needed in Newfoundland and
Labrador too, because we have an agricultural industry as well and hail
insurance means insurance against the loss of or damage of crops in the field
caused by hail. You have legal expenses as a class of insurance. Liability
insurance, you have life insurance, you have maritime insurance. That lists them
all, Mr. Speaker, that is under this legislation.
Just to give the hon. member a flavour, because he wanted a definition of
what was actually defined, what would be the definition of sickness or what
would be the definition of certain things pertaining to the accident and
sickness class of insurance, I pulled out a policy that would be written for a
Mr. John Doe and prepared by a certain company just to give a flavour.
Under health care services under this particular policy, ambulance services
are covered; in-home nursing care and in-home health aid care are covered; drugs
are covered, that would be defined that, by law, require a prescription by the
doctor or dentist to be dispensed; medical services and supplies. Under that,
you have breathing equipment, orthopaedic equipment, prosthetic equipment,
mobility aids, hearing aids, diabetic equipment and other medical supplies.
I might say, and I could read this policy word for word, if I had time, in
this hon. House just to clarify, but just say, for instance, under medical
supplies, it is also defined exactly what is covered under medical supplies such
as canes, walkers, crutches, hospital beds, bed rails, head halters, all of
these kind of things that a person made need if they were into a serious
accident and needing those kind of apparatuses to help them come back to health.
All of these kinds of things, routine dental services and supplies, diagnostic
services, preventive services, those kinds of things are all mentioned.
To clarify for the hon. member, there is a huge difference between the
legislation itself and the policy that might be written under that particular
class of insurance. In the legislation it is not defined exactly what would be
in the policy that is pertaining to the industry itself, that is pertaining to
the consumer, that is pertaining to the broker or the insurance agent who is
going to write the policy. Then, before signing, the particular consumer would
review that policy to make sure that each and every item that particular person
wanted covered would be covered under that particular insurance. That pertains
to each and every one of the classes of insurance that are under this particular
act that are now being harmonized into seventeen different classes of insurance
and, as I referenced in my comments, there is a yet to be approved area. In
other words, the insurance industry itself will not be boxed in, in regard to
developing new types of insurance that consumers may need in the future. God
only knows what is going to come in the future in regard to what needs to be
covered under insurance from a consumer aspect and from an industry aspect.
Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, I have clarified some of the questions and some of
the items that the hon. member referenced a number of days ago in his comments
on this piece of legislation. I really think that this is very, very important
to the consumer in regard to harmonizing right across Canada and all the
provinces and territories. It bodes very well for the industry as well because
they have to provide a product. They have to provide a very clear product. The
consumer has to understand exactly too what they are buying. So, this bodes well
for both sides of that in regard to the consumer and the industry itself.
Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, this is second reading and if there are any other
questions that might be asked in regard to this piece of legislation, I would be
ever so happy to try to clarify any of those in the Committee stage of this
particular bill.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat in the House and I will wait for
any other comments in Committee stage.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 19,
An Act To
Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 2, be now read a second time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 2. (Bill
19)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 19 has now been read a second time.
When shall Bill 19 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MS BURKE: Presently, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Presently.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 2", read
a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by
leave. (Bill 19)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We call from the Order Paper, Order 12, second reading of a bill,
An Act To
Amend The Accident And Sickness Insurance Act, The Automobile Insurance Act, The
Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act, The Insurance Contracts Act And The
Life Insurance Act, Bill 18.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 18,
An Act To Amend The
Accident And Sickness Insurance Act, The Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance
Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act, The Insurance Contracts Act And The Life
Insurance Act, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Accident And Sickness
Insurance Act, The Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And
Brokers Act, The Insurance Contracts Act And The Life Insurance Act". (Bill 18)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of
Transportation and Works, that Bill 18,
An Act To Amend The Accident And
Sickness Insurance Act, The Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance Adjusters,
Agents And Brokers Act, The Insurance Contracts Act And The Life Insurance Act,
now be read a second time.
Mr. Speaker, this is really a coincidental, I guess, piece that we have to do
in this House. It all falls out of Bill 19 in regard to the classes of
insurance, and certainly I just spoke to that and it was a very good piece of
work done by the Canadian Council of Insurance Regulators over a several year
period, but with that it actually kind of has a domino effect in regard to the
various classes of insurance that have been identified, seventeen of them, and
then also the
definitions thereof.
So, what we have done, basically, is that all of the
definitions of the
classes of insurance are removed from all of the acts that I just mentioned with
reference to those
definitions being made in the
schedule of the Insurance
Companies Act, which was the subject matter of Bill 19 itself. So, in
clarification, all of the
definitions of the classes of insurance will now be in
one place, that is in the
schedule to the Insurance Companies Act and that will
make it really much easier for everyone to find. In other words, in regard to
getting a definition, in regard to a particular class of insurance, you will not
have to be going through each piece of legislation. You will not have to be
going down through it trying to extract that definition. It will be all
contained in the
schedule in the Insurance Companies Act.
Also, Mr. Speaker, to clarify those particular classes of insurance, we have
the Accident and Sickness Insurance Act. We have the Automobile Insurance Act.
We have the Insurance Adjusters, Agents and Brokers Act. We have the Insurance
Contracts Act. We have the Life Insurance Act, and that is it, Mr. Speaker.
So, just to be clear, the Accident and Sickness Insurance Act deals with
contracts which provide insurance to cover losses with respect to accident and
sickness. Some of the areas that are covered by that act are the contents
required in a group insurance policy, requirements in the event of termination
of a group insurance policy, the contents required to be a certificate of a
group insurance policy. The certificate is what each member of a group insurance
policy receives. It summarizes the benefits of the group insurance policy.
In other words, in saying that, Mr. Speaker, the legislation defines it, but
then the policy actually gives a summarization of all the benefits, which I have
referenced in my last speaking on Bill 19. I could certainly go down through
them again if it is the wish of the House and give a flavour of exactly what is
in a policy, but to be very, very clear to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador and my hon. colleagues here in the House, you will not find the
benefits defined in legislation. You would find the benefits defined in the
policy itself.
Statutory conditions, which must be included in the contract, such as the
provision of a copy of the contract, application, termination by the insured or
insurer, notice of proof of claims, when money is payable after proof of claims,
when a contract can be terminated for non payment of premium. There must be an
insurable interest in order for someone to take out an insurance contract,
capacity of minors, disclosure required by the applicant when applying for
insurance, pre-existing conditions which must be disclosed when applying for
insurance, designation of beneficiaries which is very important, Mr. Speaker, in
making sure that they are defined well. In case of an accident or sickness, they
become very, very important in regard the execution of your affairs, if you are
incapacitated and cannot execute them yourself. All of those kinds of things are
covered.
You have the Automobile Insurance Act. Certainly, this act covers the
regulation of automotive insurance, which is mandatory in order to drive a motor
vehicle on our public highways. Some of the areas covered under that act or
forms to be approved by the Superintendent of Insurance, a copy of the
application is to be included in the policy. A person placed in a facility in an
association must be given the reason why, which is very, very important. I
believe I referenced that in regard to some of the other legislation that I
spoke on previously in this session of the House, how important that was.
Facility insurer association is the insurer of the last resort of a driver who
cannot obtain insurance in the regular marketplace. Certainly, they should know
why, because more often than not that type of insurance is going to be more
expensive on the consumer. So they should understand and have a clear view as to
exactly what they are buying.
An agent, broker or representative must advise clients upon request of the
names of insurance companies they represent. In other words, you could go into a
broker here in Newfoundland and Labrador, they might very well only represent
one company, I doubt it very much, but they might represent several companies.
They have to be named to the particular client to make sure they understand that
as a broker they are actually using several insurance companies to make sure
that the consumer gets the best price in regard to what they are insuring, the
requirement to buy the monthly premium payment plan. In other words, when you
come into a broker they do not demand the full cost of the premium that you are
buying, that they are given a monthly plan option. It is then up to the consumer
if they will just pay it in full or they will pay it by the monthly plan. So
that has to be there as well.
Then the consequences of the insured making misrepresentations when applying
for insurance, this is very important, too, from the insurance industry and the
brokers that we have in Newfoundland and Labrador, that the client, too, has to
be very clear and have no misrepresentations in regard to the insurance that
they are trying to obtain. The agent must know exactly what the history is of
the consumer in order to provide the best possible insurance, the best possible
price that they can actually obtain or get for the actual consumer. That is
very, very important in regard to that. So the insured person must be very, very
clear and very open to the actual agent too.
So, these are just a few things. The minimum liability insurance is $200,000.
That is listed there too. The insurer is not liable respecting on an excluded
driver is there. The insurance must give notice of claim by a third party;
reduction in award for a claim of up to 25 per cent for failure to wear a
seatbelt. That is very, very important too, because if most of our consumers
knew that, then they would be more inclined to wear a seatbelt at all times.
Because if they have an accident and it is proven they did not have a seatbelt
on at the time, in regard to the payout of that claim, whatever damages to the
automobile itself, whatever it may be could be reduced by 25 per cent if the
person did not have a seatbelt on. So that is very, very important too. That is
spelled out in regard to some of the
definitions you will find in that schedule.
The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act, this act deals with the
licensing and regulation of the insurance adjusters, agents and brokers that we
have in our Province. It lists out - adjusters negotiate the settlements of a
claim. They actually look at the particular issue at hand, be it an accident
with an automobile or a home burnt down or been damaged by fire, or whatever it
would be. He will go in, or she will go in and actually assess the damage. Then
they would negotiate a settlement of that claim in regard to the client and the
insurance company itself. The insurance agents and brokers sell insurance to the
public, and some of the areas covered in that act are qualifications and
requirements for obtaining a licence. Transferring from one employer to another,
what that would mean in regard to your insurance travelling with you or if you
have to buy another insurance with that particular company; rules for student
training, corporate licensing requirements, power of the Superintendent of
Insurance to revoke a licence, the record of licence, special licences, things
pertaining to unlicensed insurers, payment of premiums, requirement to keep
trust funds et cetera.
Then, Mr. Speaker, you have the Insurance Contracts Act itself. This act
deals with items that must be included in insurance contracts. Some of the areas
covered in that act or contracts are considered to be made in this Province and
policy itself. In other words, they have to be very clear and clearly defined in
regard to the policy, not in the legislation itself but the legislation dictates
that they have to be clearly defined in the insurance policy itself. The insured
is to receive a copy of the application. They receive that so everything is
transparent and accountable. They receive it, they can read it, and they can
understand it. They can ask questions pertaining to it, whatever it may be.
Delivery of the policy binds the insurers. In other words, as soon as that
insurance policy is delivered then there is a binding contract between the two
parties itself. The insurer is required to provide proof of loss of forms, et
cetera and that kind of stuff.
Then you have life insurance itself, the Life Insurance Act itself. The act
is self explanatory. The act governs life and life insurance contracts. Some of
the areas covered under that act are documents are to be provided by the
insurer, including the application of the insurance policy, contents of an
individual policy, contents of a group policy, contents of a group certificate.
There must be an insurable interest in order to have the actual policy itself.
When the contract takes effect will be clearly defined in the policy itself.
Payment of premiums, default on payment of premiums; all those kinds of good
things are all listed out. Designation of beneficiaries, all that kind of stuff
is in that particular class of insurance as well.
All those kind of
definitions, and like I said, this one here is kind of a
coincidental type of work that we have to do in this House and it is all falling
out of the subject matter of Bill 19. Then also harmonizing and streamlining all
the
definitions that pertain to the different classes of insurance in one area,
which will be in the Insurance Companies Act, under that Schedule. Then, each
and every one of them is defined under that act, which I have a copy of, too,
Mr. Speaker. I do not know them all off by heart, so to speak, but certainly
they are all there to be viewed by the hon. members in the House and also
anybody that would be interested out in Newfoundland and Labrador or elsewhere
in Canada.
Certainly, I think I have gone over most of what I can actually say in regard
to Bill 18 just a small piece of work that has to happen. It is very important
that we put the
definitions - as a matter of fact, I am glad they are going in
one area now, that people do not have to search through all of the various acts
looking for various
definitions. Everything is clear, everything is transparent,
both to the consumer and to the insurer themselves, the insurance industry.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I will probably take my seat in the House. I welcome
any comments from my hon. members across the House, and certainly I think they
will see it as I: as a good piece of work that has to happen for both the
insurance industry and the consumer, Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I will say it is a pleasure to be able to stand today and make a few comments
with regard to Bill 18. As the minister already stated, really, Bill 18 and Bill
19 you have put it in common language almost go hand in hand together. When
I had my briefing by officials within the department that is the way it was
explained. I know they cannot be in the one act, but more or less they really
could be when you size up the information and the way both of them are laid out.
As noted, Mr. Speaker, Bill 18 is
An Act To Amend The Accident And Sickness
Insurance Act, The Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance Adjusters, Agents and
Brokers Act, The Insurance Contracts Act And The Life Insurance Act. Mr.
Speaker, according to the Explanatory Notes, Bill 18 would amend the acts
contained in it to harmonize the
definitions of the various types of insurance.
We know that during debate on Bill 19 we went through, I think, sixteen or
seventeen various types of insurance that were outlined and were given the
definitions. We do this so that they are regulated with the
definitions of those
various types of insurance found in the Insurance Companies Act. This act has
been amended in conjunction with the amendments proposed in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, generally, harmonization of Newfoundland's various pieces of
insurance legislation is positive both from the perspective of the insurer and
the insured. We all know that from time to time, as we bring forward
legislation, it is the consumer that is first and foremost involved with the
legislation. Those proposed amendments, Mr. Speaker, appear to do little more
than add greater clarity to the legislation by ensuring that the
definitions in
each correspond with one another. As the minister stated, we went through quite
a few of them the other day in great detail. This allows for the act to properly
relate to the others, and makes for easy
interpretation of the collection of
insurance legislation as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, under this proposed amendment it affects, as I stated, six
different acts. Under the Accident and Sickness Insurance Act, under that
particular act, it involved the accident and sickness insurance, fraternal
insurance, insurance with regard to life insurance. Under the Automobile
Insurance Act, basically it is just straightforward; it is the automobile
insurance. We went into great detail the other day with regard to automobile
insurance, and how important it is. I know the department now are more or less
doing some work to make sure that we know how many people are not insured with
automobile insurance in this Province. That is good for the consumer overall,
because all too often those with no insurance, when accidents occur, it is a
tremendous cost that someone else has to pay.
Mr. Speaker, under the Insurance Adjusters, Agents and Brokers Act, that is
another bill. We hear that mentioned today, but we are also going to hear that
one when Bill 21 comes up. The act is listed as the same. That includes accident
and sickness insurance, life insurance and surety insurance. So each of them
have their own various breakdowns.
The Life Insurance Contract Act, that deals with accident and sickness, auto,
fire, life and surety insurance. The life insurance act itself looks after
fraternal and life insurance. So, Mr. Speaker, each of those six acts, within
themselves, have their various components. We consider this to be nothing more
than necessary housekeeping in relation to a collection of acts, which each has
been amended in recent years. We know that the Automobile Insurance Act was
amended in 2004-2005. The Insurance Adjusters, Agents and Brokers Act was
amended in 2004-2005, and the Insurance Contracts Act in 2009. So, really, what
we are doing here today, we are bringing in this act, Bill 18, to make sure that
there is harmonization.
It is expected that ordinarily, from time to time, collections of legislation
relating to a general subject matter should be reviewed and adjusted to provide
harmonization. I guess the minister has explained that fairly well, that each of
those acts within themselves are defined, but collectively the six of them come
under Bill 18 and this makes for greater clarification. This is an example of
government shoring up a collection of legislation to ensure consistency. Not
only that, Mr. Speaker, it also brings harmonization, not only here in our
Province but with other jurisdictions right across the country, so that we would
have the same jurisdiction in each of our provinces.
We know, Mr. Speaker, we went into great detail with the clauses under the
accident and sickness insurance, how it affects various people in different
ways. We also touched on the aircraft insurance, Mr. Speaker, and we all know
that there are different components when the consumer has to purchase various
types of insurance.
I just touched on the automobile insurance, but we know there was another
important part of this legislation that was the boiler and machinery insurance
where various accidents happen from time to time, whether it is on construction
sites, whether ships or with various carriers. One of the most important ones, I
think, Mr. Speaker, is the credit protection insurance. That piece of
legislation covers insurance when someone has a loan or an outstanding debt with
various institutions and, because of sickness, there is an insurance policy that
they have protection that will help them continue with their payments rather
than lose the item, whether it is a vehicle or whether it is their home or what
have you, Mr. Speaker.
Another component was the fraternal society insurance where individuals
belonging to various societies can have they are usually not large policies,
but probably something in the vicinity of $5,000 or $10,000. That is only made
available to those within that particular society.
Also under this policy and involved in Bill 18, which stems from Bill 19, was
the hail insurance, and we know that can fall into different categories. Many of
the farmers in our Province, I know many of them in my area, have insurance on
their crops, and many times, whether we have hail or bad weather, this insurance
looks after them.
We also touched on life insurance, and there are so many different
components. You can have the regular life insurance; you can have a life
insurance policy that is tied to the education program.
Mr. Speaker, as has been stated with regard to Bill 18, really what it is - I
am not going to take much more time - it is the coming together of all the
various types of insurances. The explanations that we have received and debated
under Bill 19, they come together now to form Bill 18 so that there is more
clarity, greater harmonization, so that the policies that we have here in the
Province with our insurance companies are on par with what we have across the
country.
Mr. Speaker, with that, I will take my place with regard to Bill 18.
MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Member for the District of Signal
Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am happy to just take a moment to speak to Bill 18. I think it is important
that even when we agree with a bill, and it is a housekeeping bill and it is not
complicated, that we put on the record that we are in favour of the bill, which
is what I am doing this afternoon.
As has been pointed out both by the minister and by the member from the
Official Opposition, Bill 18 is a bill that is also connected to Bill 19, which
we have already discussed here in this House and, as we have said, is a
housekeeping bill. Language needs to be changed because of changes to Bill 19,
and there does need to be harmonization with regard to those two bills, as well
as with regard to the fact that we have so many insurance bills in this
Province.
I understand that the Canadian Council of Insurance Regulators is quite
pleased to see this harmonization take place. It is bringing us more in line
with what is happening in the rest of the county. Nowhere else have they had as
many insurance bills as we have here in the Province. They are certainly really
glad to see that the changes that we have already discussed for Bill 19 are now
going to be reflected in all of the other insurance pieces that we have, which
is essential, of course; you cannot make changes in one place without going to
other references in other bills to make the changes there.
We recognize that we are unique in having multiple insurance acts, and I
think anything that we can do to bring us more in line with other jurisdictions,
and also to cut down on too many documents, we should make life as simple as
possible for people. I know the ordinary person does not have to refer to acts
all the time, but the industries do. I think bringing the various insurances
into harmonization with one another and cutting down on legislation is always
commendable and a way to go.
The bottom line, of course, is that we want insurance that is going to work
for people, as the minister pointed out. Some insurances are optional but other
insurances, like automobile insurance, is not optional. People have to have
automobile insurance, and if they were found not to have it if they had an
accident, for example, and were found not to have it - then they would be
charged for not having their automobile insurance.
So, insurance is a fact of life. Sometimes we question why we have it. You
can go on paying insurance for a long, long time and then all of a sudden
something happens your house gets broken into or you have a fire or whatever
and it turns out that in actual fact you are then very, very happy that you have
it. So it is one of those in some ways, it is a bit of a curse. You have to
have it; you put the money out. Unfortunately, there are some people who cannot
afford what we would consider to be optional insurances like home insurance.
Some people just cannot afford to have it, but for those who can it is very
important that we make sure we have all of our rules and regulations in order to
make things secure for the people who do choose to have insurance, and to make
sure that they do not suffer in any way because of our legislation not being in
place.
That is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker, just to point out that yes, of
course, I will be voting for the bill. It is an important piece of
administration that needs to take place.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Government Services speaks now,
he will close debate.
The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to just speak a little bit
more in regard to this bill, Bill 18, falling out, actually, of Bill 19, which
is a very, very important piece of work done by the Canadian Council of
Insurance Regulators.
Certainly I welcome the comments in regard to my hon. colleagues across the
House. They obviously understand, really, it might be sometimes a little bit of
housekeeping that we have to do, but some of this is very, very important to the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador who avail of different types of insurance
policies; because, as I spoke previously, there are currently seventeen classes
of insurance now in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Once we pass this bill in this House, and proclaim it, there will be
seventeen classes with a provision there that if any of the other classes, or
any type of a class might be developed over the years, whatever time it may be,
that it can actually be added to that particular seventeen not only here in
Newfoundland and Labrador but, nine chances out of ten, if that class of
insurance is to be added, it will be added right across all the other
jurisdictions and territories. Certainly, if it is needed in Newfoundland and
Labrador, I would think that ten chances out of ten it will be needed in any of
the other provinces or jurisdictions in Canada.
Also, in regard to one of the comments made by the hon. member, the Leader of
the NDP, in regard to the various classes of insurance, and having to have
insurance, certainly, for each and every one of us, it is mandatory to have
automobile insurance. It is not mandatory to have home insurance, but it is
certainly important to have home insurance. As a government, we are very, very
aware that some people cannot afford, or whichever way they budget their monies
they cannot afford a particular policy on their home. It is very, very
concerning to this government and to me as a minister, in regard to not being
able to afford that particular insurance policy, because I think it is very,
very important that you have that. The very day that you do not have it, well
that is the day that you need it. So, I would like to communicate here to any of
the public listening out there, that it is very, very important that you
certainly have a look at the various aspects of your life, be it home insurance,
life insurance, accident and sickness insurance, if you do not have that, that
all those types of insurance are very, very important, because certainly, as
life proceeds, you will run into various difficulties and you could very well
need that particular type of insurance any time in the future.
We, as a government, certainly try, through the Poverty Reduction Strategy,
through other various programs within this government, within the various
departments, be it Human Resources, Labour and Employment, the Department of
Health and Community Services, or whatever it may be, we try our best to make
sure that the people who need that type of service from government certainly
have every opportunity to be able to budget themselves and have the particular
insurance that they may need. Hopefully, as we go along in life, in regard to
Newfoundland and Labrador, they will be able to avail of that type of insurance,
and certainly how important it is to have it, because I would not want them to
have some type of an incident happen that they would be probably homeless if
they actually lose that type of insurance.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, Bill 18 is a bill that certainly is coincidental from
Bill 19, and to be very, very clear, Bill 19 actually defines the classes of
insurance, harmonizes the classes of insurance, and what Bill 18 does is take
the
definitions out of all those classes of insurance in the various acts that I
have mentioned in regard to my opening remarks, and puts all the
definitions in
one area under the Insurance Companies Act, where it will be easier for everyone
to find. It will be clearer, it will be accountable, and certainly it will be
easier for all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to have a look at it and
make sure that they understand exactly what something in the legislation or
policy may mean. So, all of those
definitions will be included in that Schedule.
So, Mr. Speaker, with that, I do not think we need to speak any further in
regard to Bill 18 or Bill 19 for that matter, which we did just previous to. I
think everybody, especially the hon. members across the House who spoke I
would not want to speak for them but I believe they understand how important it
is, both for the consumer and for the industry that we move forward. A lot of
work went into the harmonization of the various classes of insurance by the
Insurance Brokers of Canada and I thank them for all the work they did over the
past several years. It is a good piece of work done and very beneficial to the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and certainly very, very beneficial to the
people of Canada.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat in the House and I close debate
on Bill 18 at second reading and certainly welcome any other comments or
questions that any of the hon. members in this House may have in regard to
committee stage.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 18,
An Act To
Amend The Accident And Sickness Insurance Act, The Automobile Insurance Act, The
Insurance Adjusters, Agents and Brokers Act, The Insurance Contracts Act And The
Life Insurance Act, be now read a second time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Accident And Sickness Insurance Act,
The Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance Adjusters, Agents and Brokers Act,
The Insurance Contracts Act And The Life Insurance Act. (Bill 18)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall the
bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MS BURKE: Presently, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Presently.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Accident And Sickness Insurance Act,
The Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance Adjusters, Agents and Brokers Act,
The Insurance Contracts Act And The Life Insurance Act", read a second time,
ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill
18)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, Order
14, second reading of a bill,
An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents
And Brokers Act. (Bill 21)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development,
that Bill 21,
An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act,
be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 21, entitled
An Act To
Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act, be now read a second
time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters,
Agents And Brokers Act". (Bill 21)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
This bill, I consider to be a very important bill as well in regard to the
amendments that are being placed before this House. It provides greater
enforcement ability to the Department of Government Services that will certainly
help protect the consumers from insurance fraud. Many of the provisions are
similar to those in other acts that my department governs and this ensures
harmonization of all those acts across my department, Mr. Speaker.
This act deals with the licensing and regulating of insurance adjusters,
agents and brokers. As I stated earlier in the House, adjusters negotiate the
settlements of claims such as in the automobile insurance claims, homeowner
insurance claims, and commercial insurance claims. Insurance agents sell
insurance to the public and represent only the insurance company that employs
them.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, to be clear on that, an insurance agent is a
person who represents one insurance company and one insurance company only.
Insurance brokers also sell insurance to the public but they are independent
brokers. They usually represent three or four companies and could represent
fewer or more companies. Usually they represent three or four but they could
represent ten or they could represent one and still be a broker. I want to clear
on that. Agents and brokers operate in the life insurance business and also in
the property and casualty insurance business as well.
Products sold in the life insurance business include various forms of life
insurance, annuities, pension plans, segregated funds, disability insurance,
health insurance, and accident and sickness insurance. Products sold in the
property and casualty insurance business include your automobile insurance,
homeowner insurance, commercial property insurance and liability insurance. In
order for adjusters, agents and brokers to obtain a licence they have to
complete certain educational requirements and have a certain amount of
experience for various categories of insurance. That too protects the consumer
in regard to you do not have a person selling insurance to a consumer who is not
well versed and well educated in the various categories of insurance that that
person may be selling to the consumer.
There is a measure of consumer protection in that the Superintendent of
Insurance has the authority to take actions against licensed agents and brokers
who engage in certain inappropriate activity. These actions can include placing
conditions on a licence or taking away a licence. In other words, if the
Superintendent of Insurance finds that a person who is licensed under the act is
doing things that is inappropriate, he or she can place certain conditions on
the licence or take away that licence from that particular person altogether.
These decisions have an appeal process through an independent financial services
appeal board and if the issue cannot be dealt with at that level, well then
ultimately, it could go to the courts.
In order for the superintendent to effectively carry out investigations as to
the activities of adjusters, agents and brokers, he or she must be given certain
investigative powers. Certainly, under the act now, the superintendent has
certain investigative powers. Such as, he or she can enter a place of business
and demand the producing of records. They can also request a judge to issue a
search warrant to inspect to make copies of records. In order to enable the
superintendent to be better able to carry out investigations and to provide
enhanced consumer protection, my department, myself as the minister responsible,
believe that the following additional investigative powers should be provided in
the act.
Such as, in regard to this act and the amendments that I am tabling here in
the House of Assembly today, search warrants currently does not include a
private dwelling. The act provides for a judge to issue a search warrant,
providing there are sufficient grounds to issue one. However, it does not
specifically provide that a search warrant may be issued for a private dwelling.
This authority is necessary, since some of the adjusters, agents and brokers may
very well operate out of their house. So that limits the superintendent, in
regard to doing the work that needs to be done. This authority is already being
provided in the Prepaid Funeral Services Act, and in other legislation in five
other jurisdictions. I believe that we will be the sixth, and I would think the
rest of the jurisdictions and territories would be doing the same in regard to
that as well, because they are all reviewing their particular acts pertaining to
the issuing of insurance.
The current act states that a person acting under a search warrant may
inspect and copy documents. So this process can take some time, so the authority
is being expanded under the amendment to include the seizure of documents. In
other words, we are proposing another amendment under the act that does not
actually address this issue. Now they can actually go in and investigate. They
can make copies of documents, which take a long time, but now they will be able
to go in and seize the documents for up to three months, unless a judge orders
that they can be retained for a longer period of time. Certainly, there are
similar provisions in legislation in five other jurisdictions. Again, us being
the sixth, I would think that the other jurisdictions, provinces and territories
are considering doing the same.
Also, under the act we propose that it provide an investigator or an examiner
to be able to summon and enforce the attendance of a person and to compel the
person to testify under oath or otherwise, and to compel a personal company to
produce documents and other things as is vested in a judge of the Trial
Division. This authority may be used to gather evidence from the person who may
be carrying out the inappropriate business practices or from a person really not
directly involved in what is happening, but who has documents that evidence the
inappropriate activity. The evidence collected in this manner could be used to
determine whether the superintendent needs to place conditions on the person's
licence or cancel the licence altogether. We are adding this authority to the
Insurance Adjusters, Agents and Brokers Act, and again, similar provisions are
in insurance legislation in twelve other jurisdictions in Canada already. We are
certainly not leading the way here, but I think it is needed. I saw it when I
had the legislation reviewed.
Also, we are proposing a
section in regard to production orders. What that
means is where a company or a financial institution has records that could be
relevant to providing that a person has violated the act, the superintendent is
currently required to attain a warrant to enter the premises and search for
evidence. This search, again, can be very, very time consuming and really
disruptive for the business itself, because you must remember the investigators
are in, they are searching through the various documents that need to be
searched to find the particular one. So, we thought that was counterproductive,
not only to the superintendent and the investigators work but also to the
business itself. This amendment will allow a judge to issue what is called a
production order, which will order the company to provide the relevant
information to the superintendent. Certainly, this process is much more
efficient for the company and the superintendent. It will protect
confidentiality of unnecessary information that the superintendent may come
across when conducting a search warrant.
In other words, when they go in to search a particular business they have to
search through everything. They search through and see things that have nothing
to do with the issue at hand or the fraudulent activity at hand, or suspected
fraudulent activity at hand. I correct myself in that it has to be proven that
the fraudulent activity exists but that is why the investigation is happening.
This would prevent the violation of confidentiality in regard to the
superintendent and their particular investigators seeing unnecessary information
that they may come across during the search and conducting a search warrant.
The production order is not, to be clear, issued on the person that is being
investigated. It is actually to a third party who could hold information that is
pertaining to the investigation and very important. Three other jurisdictions
have similar mechanisms in place to apply to a judge for a production order. It
is my understanding from my officials and also from my counterparts in other
jurisdictions that the other jurisdictions are having a look at that too because
it just makes complete sense, not only from the investigative point of view but
also from the business point of view in regard to the disruption of the business
that is being searched.
This act will now also make it an offence to obstruct an investigator or
examiner. The act as it sits today does not specifically make it an offence or
provide any penalties for persons who obstruct or interfere with investigators
or examiners carrying out their duties. I think this is very, very important
because you cannot have investigators going in to do an investigation and have
their work disrupted, be abused or anything of that sort. They need to be able
to do their work. They are there to do a piece of work. So that has to happen
and they have to be protected in regard to doing that piece of work. I think
this is very, very important amendment too.
There are similar provisions in insurance law in six other jurisdictions as
well. We will be the seventh. Again, I will say that each and every one of the
jurisdiction are having a look in regard to the investigative obstruction of
investigators or examiners.
The last piece of this act, which I think pertains to the amendments that we
are tabling in the House today, deals with penalties. Maximum fines in the
current act are $100,000 for the first offence and $200,000 for subsequent
offences or six months imprisonment. We believe - government believes - that
this is too low to act as a deterrent. The Insurance Companies Act currently
contains a penalty of up to $1 million where an insurance company fails to
notify government six months in advance that they will be seeking to write
automobile insurance in the Province, just to make an example.
So, we are proposing that we increase the maximum fines in the Insurance
Adjusters, Agents and Brokers Act to $1 million or to a maximum of two years
imprisonment or both. The fine or imprisonment given by a judge will depend on
the seriousness of the offence. So this is the maximum fine $1 million is the
maximum fine. The judge, depending on the offence itself, can certainly have a
levy, a penalty, pertaining to the offence. The offence may not be very
detrimental, I guess, to the consumer and it might warrant a penalty of $20,000,
$50,000, or if it is a very, very serious offence then certainly the judge can
go to the maximum of $1 million. So to be clear, that maximum is a maximum
amount, not an amount that the judge has to issue or levy each and every time
that he might have something before the bench in regard to this act.
Also before I finish speaking, to give you a flavour in regard to that $1
million and the reasons why it is needed, total trust accounts maintained in
this Province are at $32.3