April

15, 2008

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 11

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the Chair takes great pleasure in welcoming the hon. Paul Okalik, the

Premier of Nunavut.

Welcome to Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Welcome to Newfoundland and Labrador, and welcome to our

House of Assembly.

The Chair is going to change the proceedings of the House a little bit, right

from the get-go here today.

By leave, the Chair is going to recognize the hon. the Premier.

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the hon.

members of the House for leave to speak at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House to report on a very important meeting

that I had today with the Premier of Nunavut, the hon. Paul Okalik. I am pleased

to announce that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government

the use of the hakapik as part of the annual Canadian seal harvest.

We have also written a letter to the Prime Minister on this issue today.

Our two governments recently participated in a sealing industry advocacy

mission to Europe that was led by the federal government. Of course, our

representative was our Minister of Natural Resources.

I am advised, Mr. Speaker, that within each country the use of the hakapik

was a dominant issue and continues to be viewed in an extremely negative manner.

These are the very countries that are in the process of deciding whether or not

to ban the importation of seal products from Canada. That vote is set to take

place in June, so immediate and decisive action is necessary and time if of the

essence. Premier Okalik and I are prepared to move quickly and decisively, as

are our governments.

Mr. Speaker, the Canada delegation was told repeatedly that a ban of this

tool may prove to dispel some of the negative opinions regarding the Canadian

seal harvest. Clearly, this is a core issue in Europe and is used as part of the

anti-sealing rhetoric that is being put forward to their policy and decision

makers. This is an opportunity to disarm them of something that is used

negatively against our sealers.

A ban on the importation of seal products is a very serious issue that

impacts Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people alike. It affects people in coastal

communities across Canada who depend on the seal harvest for income. Indeed, the

1983 European Economic Community ban on the importation of whitecoats and

bluebacks reduced the total Inuit income in Labrador alone by one-third, and it

had a tremendous negative impact on Aboriginal communities.

There are approximately 16,000 sealers across this country, many of them

living in rural areas with limited employment opportunities during the winter.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, we are joining with our colleagues in Nunavut to fight

back on this serious issue.

In reality, the hakapik is only used by 5 per cent of the sealers in our

Province. Anti-sealing groups have been clear and consistent in using the image

of the hakapik as a means to advance their cause. Our governments are saying

that we should no longer tolerate this as a country by putting those who oppose

our way of life in a position to depict us as inhumane.

The seal harvest is carried out by people who are earning a living in a

humane and sustainable manner. Both independent veterinarians and the European

Food and Safety Authority have recognized the Canadian seal harvest as one of

the most humane harvests of marine mammals in the world.

Our hunt is sustainable and humane, and that should continue to be the focus

of our message.

To that end, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have had the opportunity to meet

with Premier Okalik and I look forward to our respective governments working

together on this very important issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to thank the Premier for an advance copy of his statement,

and to rise today to support the efforts of both him and the Premier of Nunavut

Mr. Speaker, I think it needs to be recognized that the humane practices of

our seal hunters in this country has been nothing short of total commitment and

total respect in regard for this industry over the last three to four decades.

When you look at what they have done over the years, such as the banning of the

hunt for whitecoats and bluebacks which goes back to the early 1980s, this was

all done in the name of humanity and in sustaining a very humane hunt throughout

this country.

Mr. Speaker, right now we know that most of the mammals that are being taken

are hunted - I think over 95 per cent of them - with rifles, which is the most

humane hunt that you can launch anywhere, I think, in terms of a seal hunt or

any other kind of hunt.

Mr. Speaker, I hope this banning is accepted or this petition is accepted by

has been done in the past but on a go-forward basis, will be accommodated by the

people in our Province and I am sure by the Aboriginal peoples around the

country. There is no doubt that there has been real effect upon many people. Mr.

Speaker, these anti-sealing groups will only be curbed when you see the real cut

off of financial resources that accrue to their organizations.

Mr. Speaker, they have used false propaganda for many years to instrument

their cause and to raise money, talking about things like the hunt for the

whitecoat, which has not occurred in this Province for many, many decades. I

think only with the cut off of the flow of money going into these organizations

will you curb the extreme and obstructive behaviour that we have seen from

anti-sealing groups and their fight towards the poor, hardworking fisherpeople

and Aboriginal people that are in our country. It is absolutely sickening, it is

deplorable, and all efforts to promote the sustainable hunt that we have in this

country and in our Province needs to be done so that the real, true message can

be felt in the European Union as they make this decision. Please do not make

decisions based on false truths and propaganda.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I, too, thank the Premier for his advanced copy of the statement and for the

opportunity to welcome Premier Paul Okalik here with us today. It is a real

honour and a real pleasure and I am very proud of what our government is doing

with the Government of Nunavut.

I would like to speak directly to the Premier of Nunavut, if I may, to

congratulate you and your government on the very attractive and useful Web site

that you have on this sealing industry. I was very pleased to see it. It is an

excellent educational Web site for all ages and if people who are opposed to

sealing, based on anti-sealing propaganda, would only look at this with their

eyes open, they would really learn something about the sealing industry. Of

course, the secret is, will they have their eyes open, will they have their

minds open if they look at it. I think it would impact them if they would

because there you talk about the importance of seals and other wildlife as a

food source, especially in this time of transition in the Arctic. I do not think

these people even think about that.

You talk about the contribution of seal to the clothing traditions and

economies of Inuit people, the importance of the commercial hunt in supporting

rural communities. Sealing here in Newfoundland and Labrador, though they do not

want to believe it, also sustains the same way as in Nunavut, sustains

Aboriginal and settler traditional lifestyles here as well. This is the message

that we have to keep pounding on and I know that our two governments are going

to do that.

I applaud the efforts of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and of

Nunavut, to spread the correct information about the sealing industry and I

encourage you to continue working with the Canadian government to get them to do

the same thing in order to protect our sealers here in this country. They need

to know - the sealers I mean - that they have our support and the protection of

the Canadian government.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The House will now revert to the regular proceedings.

Today we have members' statements from the hon. the Member for the District

of Burgeo & LaPoile; the hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue; the

hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the

Member for the District of Lewisporte; the hon. the Member for the District of

Port au Port; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand

Falls-Windsor-Buchans.

The hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize and congratulate The Plot on being chosen the best

band in the Province.

The Plot is a Port aux Basques rock and alternative band who won the

provincial Battle of the Bands competition at the Gander Arts and Culture Centre

in March. Along with the title of best in the Province, they also brought home a

$1,000 cash prize for themselves. They plan to invest their winnings in new

musical equipment.

The band consists of lead singer Nicholas Billard, bass player Shannon

Strickland, lead guitarist Bradley LeRiche and drummer Ryan Taylor. They are all

students of St. James' Regional High School at Port aux Basques.

The band members have been playing together for over a year and they have

also won the Idol competition for the past two succeeding years in that area.

Ryan Taylor writes most of the band's songs and the group performed four of

their original songs at the battle competition. Their concentration is now on

making a demo.

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

congratulations to The Plot on receiving this prestigious award.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to extend

congratulations to April Drake, the daughter of Donald and Roxanne Drake of Long

Cove, for being the winner of the Classic Achiever Scholarship from Wendy's

Restaurant of Canada. The scholarship is in the monetary amount of $5,000.

Ms Drake is a seventeen-year-old who contributes a great deal to her

community. She plays hockey, basketball, soccer and softball. She is a member of

the Allied Youth

Chapter at Crescent Collegiate, a volunteer with Canadian Blood

Services, and a minor hockey coach and mentor. She is also a member of the

Reserves, where she trains and works part time.

Mr. Speaker, to top this all off, Ms Drake is a top student in her academics

program at Crescent Collegiate, which includes French Immersion, advanced math,

physics and advanced placement psychology as an independent study course - the

latter course being a university credited course.

The Classic Achiever Scholarship from Wendy's Restaurant is offered to

well-rounded Canadian high school students who intend to attend post-secondary

education, who excel in scholastic achievement, extracurricular activity and

community involvement.

To attain this scholarship, Ms Drake had to meet with all these criteria and

defeated 10,000 other applicants, a challenge she completed very well.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all members of this House join me in extending

congratulations to April Drake in winning the Classic Achiever Scholarship from

Wendy's Restaurant of Canada, and wish her the very best in continuing her

academic career.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse

au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Christy Groves, a sixteen-year-old

native of Forteau, Labrador, on her recent outstanding accomplishments, the

People's Choice Award for her artwork in the 2007 Canada Day Poster Challenge

and the 2008 Canada Day Poster Challenge for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, Ms Groves' People's Choice Award was the result of her

poster being selected as one of thirty by a panel of judges from more than 1,500

entries. Posters were showcased at the Fairmont Hotel during the Challenges

events last April and through the summer at the Department of Canadian Heritage.

A ballot box was available to viewers, and the majority of votes cast were in

favour of Ms Groves.

Mr. Speaker, her most recent award was for the 2008 Canada Day Poster

Challenge for Newfoundland and Labrador. Her winning entry depicted Canada's

rich culture and historical roots and was selected from 890 entries from across

the Province.

This is the third time Ms Groves has won since 2005, and she will go on to

represent the Province at the National Canada Day celebrations in Ottawa on July

1, and will then continue on to Quebec on July 3 to take

part in the city's

400 anniversary celebration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Christy Groves

on receiving both the People's Choice Award and the Canada Day Poster

Challenge in 2008 for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the

significant accomplishments of a great music teacher in my district, Mr. Lindy

Whitt.

Mr. Whitt has been teaching music to students in Central Newfoundland since

1984. This year, a typical year, he instructs: a Grade 6 Beginner Band of forty

members; a Grade 7 and 8 Junior Band of fifty members; a Grade 7, 8 and 9 Wind

Ensemble of sixty members; a Junior Jazz Band of twenty-four members; a Senior

Concert Band of sixty members; a Senior Concert Choir of fifty; and a Senior

Jazz Band of twenty-three.

The accomplishments and awards that have taken place under the direction of

Mr. Whitt - by him and his students - are too numerous to mention in a one

minute member's statement; but, just to give you a flavour, in recent years

his awards include: in excess of twenty Gold Standards at Kiwanis Festivals,

winner of the Alphonsus Hennessey Award for best performance by jazz and concert

bands, many times, and numerous first place awards. That only scratches the

surface, Mr. Speaker.

In addition, this teacher, this music teacher, has expended countless hours

preparing students for and planning many details related to out-of-Province

excursions. Early morning practices, late night fund-raising contacts - he has

done it all. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Whitt has done a great service to our students and

to this Province.

Members of the House, please join with me and his current principal, Mr.

Burt, his students and parents, in recognizing the huge contribution this

gentleman has made to hundreds of music students in Central Newfoundland for the

past twenty-three years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in this hon. House to congratulate Cadet Brandon Skinner, one of

two cadets from the Province to complete the Outward Bound Scotland Exchange.

Also Cadet Kelsey Collier, again one of two cadets from the Province who

participated in the Outward Bound Wales Exchange.

The Outward Bound program is an annual International Cadet Exchange allowing

senior cadets from Canada to spend six weeks with cadets from other nations in a

cultural and advanced training environment where they learn one another's

customs and training standards.

Also, Cadet Blake Benoit participated along with eleven others from across

Canada, the only one from Newfoundland and Labrador, in an international

expedition which consisted of an eight day, 200 kilometre hike through the Alps

in the three countries of France, Italy and Switzerland.

These three young men, Mr. Speaker, are cadets enrolled with the 3012 Lynx

Army Cadet Corps from the Port au Port Peninsula.

I ask all hon. members of this hon. House of Assembly to join with me in

congratulating these individuals for their participation and to thank them for

being great ambassadors of the great Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and,

indeed, our country Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Falls-Windsor-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This afternoon it is my pleasure to offer congratulations to one of

Newfoundland and Labrador's finest ambassadors and one of Grand Falls-Windsor's

favourite native sons. On March 3, 2008, Gordon Pinsent added to his very

impressive list of accomplishments by winning a coveted Genie Award for the Best

Performance by a leading actor in Sarah Polly's acclaimed "Away with

Her".

For those of us who are fortunate enough to know Gordon, we cannot help but

be inspired by his tenacity, his boundless energy and his love for this

Province, and in particular, for his hometown of Grand Falls-Windsor. His film,

The Rowdyman was the first feature film ever shot in Newfoundland and Labrador

and through that film Gordon certainly told the world of his pride for this

Province, its people and its heritage. It is therefore not surprising that a

couple of years ago on the occasion of Gordon's seventy-fifth birthday,

Premier Williams quipped that following in Gordon's footsteps he would be

proud to earn the recognition as Newfoundland and Labrador's Rowdyman Junior.

Though he resides in Toronto, Gordon still calls Grand Falls-Windsor home and

regularly returns. In 2005, as part of the Centennial Celebrations of Grand

Falls-Windsor, this government proudly conferred on Gordon the honour of

renaming the Arts and Culture Centre to The Gordon Pinsent Centre for the Arts -

an honour befitting Newfoundland's best known Canadian actor and a privilege

that Gordon accepted with the utmost of humility.

I would like to ask the members of this House to join me and my constituents

in offering our heartfelt congratulations to Gordon Pinsent on achieving this

prestigious Genie Award. At seventy-seven, Gordon inspires us all as he

continues to craft a most distinguished career.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to acknowledge April 13-18 as National Victims of

Crime Awareness Week. The theme this year is: Finding the Way Together which

demonstrates the importance for both the community and government to collaborate

on this important topic.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice administers the Victim Services

Program, which is a dedicated service for victims of crime. There are twenty-two

Victim Services Coordinators which operate from eleven regional offices

throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. The program is based on the principles

that victims should be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect, and that

victims should suffer a minimum inconvenience from their involvement with the

criminal justice system.

Victim Services offers a number of services such as providing general

information about the criminal justice system, case updates, pre-court

preparation and counselling. These support services have proven invaluable for

those who unfortunately have used them.

Mr. Speaker, we can all take some comfort in the fact that the incidence of

most violent crimes is declining in Canada. However, we have to be aware that

crime still occurs and has a real and immediate impact upon its victims. By

providing the necessary resources to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and

Royal Canadian Mounted Police to combat crime, and through supporting the Victim

Services program, our government has made real steps to mitigate the effect of

criminal activities.

Mr. Speaker, we have invested over $6 million for Victim Services over the

past four years coupled with a commitment of $9.2 million over six years for the

Violence Prevention Initiative, of which I am proud to be a member of the

Ministers Committee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to advise the House and the general

public that further information about the National Victims of Crime Awareness

Week can be found at www.victimsweek.gc.ca. This Web site highlights our

government's Family Violence Protection Act as a leading piece of legislation

in the field. Just as this legislation was a collaborative effort, we will

continue to work, Mr. Speaker, with our community partners and ensure those who

find themselves before the court as victims of crime have the necessary

supports.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement.

For many years of course, we are all familiar with the rights of the accused

and the rights of those who have been charged, and there has been lots of those

protections and supports in the system, the Charter of Rights and the legal aid

systems and so on. Of course, for many, many years the rights of the victim did

not get the treatment and the respect and be dealt with as they ought to be. In

fact, many victims of crime felt they were victimized by the system. Of course,

it is good to see that over the years we have made some advances now into

bringing some balance to that, not only the rights of the accused person but

also the rights of the victim.

Everyone, of course, in this Province is familiar with Nellie Nippard from

Central Newfoundland who became a national symbol, an advocate for victim's

rights, particularly when it came - she herself was a victim of a very violent

crime. Of course, she is well known in the area of the parole board, when a

person who was convicted and had been incarcerated applied for parole, she put

up a valiant fight because she thought, as a victim, she had a right to be at

the parole board hearings and to speak out and she should be assisted by the

government in getting to those hearings. She has become a national symbol for

her perseverance in seeing that victim's rights were in fact improved.

I had personal experience in the legal system myself for a number of years,

of course, on the defence side, but probably more so as a prosecutor for

eighteen years you get a true appreciation and a closer dealing with victims.

You see then how they do need supports and how they need to be assisted,

particularly when it comes to pre-trial preparations and so on.

So, it is great to see that we have it. We have not gone far enough but it is

good to see that we at least recognize we had to put that balance in the system

and we have taken a lot of strides in the past few years to see that we are

going on the right track. I would encourage the minister and the department to

continue in making improvements for victim services in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Thanks to the minister for his advanced copy.

I am very pleased that we are recognizing National Victims Awareness Week. I

think it is quite important. I am glad the minister ended his statement in

talking about the Family Violence Protection Act because in our society we still

have people who do not see abuse in the family as a crime. They do not realize

that violence inside family is a crime and that women and children who are

victims of abuse in family are victims of crime. So, I am very glad he

highlighted that.

I would point out to the minister, and I know he knows it but it is an

opportunity to say it to all of us, that in order to work with those victims,

especially women and children, we have to make sure that they have equal access

to the court system and have what they need. Very often they do not have the

resources to pay for legal services, so making sure that in our Province we have

equal access to Legal Aid. I would like to point out that this is a really big

need for people in Labrador West, especially for women in that area.

I know that we do put money into Women's Centers and into shelters, but we

have a real increased need for core funding for shelters and safe houses for

women and children who are being abused throughout our Province. We are not

covering the needs of all women and children in our Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude her response.

MS MICHAEL: I shall, Mr. Speaker.

I will just say I am glad, with this kind of week, Awareness Week, that it

gives us the opportunity to raise these issues again in the House.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier.

I preface my questions by saying the patients and the families affected by

the HR issue, of course, should have minimal stress and anguish as this matter

proceeds, but there are some questions of clarification I would like to ask the

Premier given his comments of yesterday outside the House.

Mr. Speaker, it has been difficult to follow the Premier's statements on

this issue concerning the Cameron inquiry and the HR issue. Last week, both the

Premier and the Minister of Justice did not want to answer any questions in this

House because it might prejudge the process before all the testimony was given;

however, yesterday the Premier stated that Eastern Health was liable and should

settle out of court.

I ask the Premier: What has happened to make you change your mind in terms of

speaking out on this issue?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the hon. member opposite can well understand, my concerns last week were

based on acting within the protocols of the inquiry, acting properly within the

terms of reference of the inquiry, making sure we did nothing to interfere with

the inquiry, and making sure that we allowed the inquiry to proceed in a proper

manner.

I wanted to make sure that, when I spoke in this House, I was not infringing

upon their right to conduct the inquiry. I wanted to make sure it was not having

any undue influence on the outcomes in the inquiry from the perspective of what

was transpiring at that time; and, on that basis, I asked the Minister of

Justice, through his officials, to make inquiries of legal counsel at the

inquiry to make sure that we were quite legitimately answering questions in the

House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

After reviewing the statement of defence that has been filed in the

class-action lawsuit on this HR issue, it appears that Eastern Health is the

only named defendant. I understand there is an application before the courts by

Eastern Health to have permission granted that they might, if they wish, join

third parties at a later time.

I am just wondering if the Premier could confirm that as of now the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is indeed not a third party and not been

named as a defendant in this lawsuit by the persons involved in this issue.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As of this point I am not aware of the Government of Newfoundland being named

as a party; however, Mr. Speaker, in relation to the Opposition House Leader's

comments, I would like to point out that the Commission of Inquiry, the terms of

reference do not allow for the commissioner to express any conclusion or

recommendation in relation to civil liability.

What was expressed yesterday - the Premier made it clear - he expressed his

personal opinion and essentially, I would suggest, stated the obvious.

I would say to the Opposition House Leader, the concern we had was dealing

with the evidence that was before the inquiry. So, to say that we would not

answer any questions yesterday, I would suggest, is incorrect.

Essentially, I would point out again that the Premier's opinion is his

opinion - one that I happen to share in, but one that is not binding on the

inquiry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

I appreciate the minister's answer. I guess I can take from that answer

that, no, we have not, as a Province, been joined as a defendant or a third

party in this particular action.

Now I will get to the piece about the Premier's opinion, which he spoke

yesterday outside. Given that, on many occasions, this Premier and this

government have said that we do not get involved in the operational issues of

Eastern Health, given the fact that government is not named in this lawsuit, and

it is a class-action suit against Eastern Health only, does the Premier feel

that it is appropriate, as the Premier - I realize you also wear a hat as a

lawyer, but you also wear the hat as the leader of this Province - is it

appropriate, given that we are not a party to that action, for you, in your

influential position, to be making these comments? Are they appropriate?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: If the hon. member opposite is suggesting that I should

not do anything to alleviate the pain and the hardship and the misery and the

suffering and the trauma of having these problems revisited again during an

inquiry, and also having the danger and the possibility of having them revisited

again during a class-action trial, or several trials or discoveries or legal

proceedings that may go on, then I make no apologies whatsoever for trying to

alleviate some of that hardship, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why I am asking these questions; because, rather

than just making statements, everyone is concerned and wants to mitigate and

alleviate any amount of stress that the victims or their families are suffering

in this case. Anyone is. If you are not, you are not human in the first place.

That goes without saying.

My question is: In light of the comments that he made yesterday, that you

would like to see it settled, given the fact that government does ultimately

control the Eastern Health Authority, have you had, or do you intend to have,

any discussions with Eastern Health to pursue this issue of your wish that it

would settle?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member opposite had looked at

the newscast or the reporting of that particular matter very carefully and

closely last night, he would have seen that I indicated that I expressed my

opinion as a lawyer. It was a question that came out of left field. I felt it

was a very good question. I felt it was a very fair question and, based on the

fact that I probably initiated thousands of lawsuits against insurance companies

on behalf of victims and people who have been harmed and aggrieved, I think I

would be in a good position to express an opinion as a lawyer, which is exactly

what I did, and which is exactly what I said. I did express that opinion as a

lawyer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With all due respect, I say to the Premier, we have only heard from three

people in the Cameron inquiry. Government has not been made a party to this

action, so I do not know why the Premier would feel he is in control or has

knowledge of certain information to make a determination of liability.

Regardless, if you are a lawyer, we still need to hear the facts. I say to the

Premier that you did not have, and you do not have, all of the facts in order to

make that decision, but the decision is done.

The comment was made now about settling, so I ask the Premier - albeit

Eastern Health is the only defendant in this lawsuit, government has control of

Eastern Health through the legislative process, including budgetary funding

decisions.

I ask the Premier: When you say you want the class-action lawsuit settled out

of court, is this based on your hope that the parties would settle it, the

insurance companies themselves, or are you prepared to bring the government

resources to the table to see that this is, in fact, done?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I am amazed, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member opposite

would not want me to express an opinion that helps the victims of these

problems. I am at a loss to understand why you would say: How could I form an

opinion after three witnesses have testified, or how can I form an opinion?

Well, I formed an opinion based on what I have seen. I formed my opinion on

the basis of thirty years practicing as a lawyer. I formed my opinion on the

basis that I have tried and participated and seen thousands of these cases. I

have not tried thousands of them because a lot of them were settled out of

court. I happen to know the way insurance companies operate. I happen to know

how settlements get precipitated and that is exactly why I tabled the document,

the letter from Dr. Ejeckam whereby he said that patient care was being

jeopardized while you were a member of Cabinet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Again, I say to the Premier, everybody I do believe in this Province, unless

you are not humane, wants to see this thing settled and resolved for the benefit

of the victims and their families.

My question to the Premier is, now that you have expressed your opinion that

it should be settled, you also wear the hat as Premier of this Province, are you

prepared to put on your Premier's hat, because we know what your opinion is as

a lawyer, and bring the resources of government to bear, talk to Eastern Health

so that we can get to a settlement phase? Rather than just leaving expectations

out there for these victims and their families, what are you prepared to do now

that you have expressed your opinion to see that that expectation can be made a

reality?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I have told Eastern Health and I have told the

insurance companies and I have told the 500,000 plus people in this Province

through every possible media that was available to me yesterday that this matter

should be settled. I cannot do much more than that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday I raised in the House of Assembly an issue regarding a breast

cancer patient who had to consent to being released from hospital the same day

after her surgery or to have her surgical procedure rescheduled. I contacted

Eastern Health yesterday and shortly before I came to the House of Assembly

today I did receive confirmation from them that this is indeed an unwritten

policy that is followed in the Health Care Corporation in situations where beds

are not available to those patients to be admitted after this particular

surgery.

So, I ask the government now: Will you ensure that there is an end to this

unwritten policy and that women who are being scheduled for breast cancer

surgery in our hospitals are given the opportunity to be admitted, and are

admitted, and not asked to consent to be sent home if they are unwilling?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in fairness to the minister who just came

back from the inquiry and may not have had an opportunity to see the question or

even be briefed on what the outcome of the information is. I have available here

a letter which came from Eastern Health which indicates exactly what the policy

is. I am prepared to table that, Mr. Speaker, and make it available to the

Opposition. It only came to my attention within the last hour and ten minutes,

so we will have a chance to go through it. I understand it is a national policy,

it is a national procedure.

I also understand from a quick read of it, that some of these mastectomies

are performed through outpatients, which amazes me, quite frankly, but if that

is the procedure which is being done across the country I will have to find out

whether that is the norm. Of course, we will obviously leave that to the

Minister of Health.

What I am prepared to do is provide this for you because this is exactly as

it has been received by government from Eastern Health, and then we will take

that under advisement and the minister will certainly respond.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure it is the same information that I have received. The fact that it

may be a policy in other parts of the country still does not make it acceptable.

I will await government's response on that issue.

In September of 2004, government announced a decision to amalgamate all the

health and community service boards across the Province into four mega boards.

Seven boards actually were combined to make up the Eastern Health Authority.

I ask the Premier, if he will release any and all strategic plans, studies

and reports that were used by government related to this decision to amalgamate

the boards that now comprise Eastern Health or were there any strategic plans in

place at the time to do so?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I will check with my officials to determine if

there was any actual assessment done prior to and what kind of evaluation may

have been completed prior to 2005. Part of a formal evaluation would have been

done, and if that took place, then I will table it in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, our research has shown us that an essential part

of the process to regionalizing governance structures in health corporations and

other boards have been a transition team. This team oversees the process of

merging administrative structures and generally plan and assist the transition

process for health boards.

I ask the Premier, or the minister: Was there a transition team in place? Who

was on the team for Eastern Health and what resources were provided to them

during that time?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

And I assume if they did the research on it, it must be accurate. Just to put

the whole issue of consolidation into some context. In 2005, consolidation of

fourteen boards into four in this Province was probably the fourth rendition of

board consolidation. In fact, in the country we are probably the experts on

board consolidation.

When I worked in the health system back in 1985, when I began, there were

some fifty-odd health authorities in this Province, I say, Mr. Speaker, at that

time. We have gone from fifty-odd back in the mid-80s down to I think it was

thirty-odd and down to fourteen and now down to four. The 2005 exercise was a

repeat of an exercise that occurred in the early- to mid-90s. The authorities

and the individuals involved in the process in 2005 had already been a part of

in some cases what was two and in some cases three renditions of that before

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think, as a Province, as a Department of Health and Community Services and

the authorities themselves, there was a fair bit of institutional knowledge

around consolidation, I say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister shouldn't concern himself with my research. At least I read

the notes I was given.

Mr. Speaker, let me say this: There is no answer as to whether there was a

transition team or whether there wasn't.

Mr. Speaker, maybe he can answer this question: What were the budgetary goals

of this amalgamation process and was there a government expectation of financial

savings and were they achieved?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, had I been in power in 2003 and read the notes

from Eastern Health I probably would have known what was going on in ER/PR at

that time as well.

I say, Mr. Speaker, the question the member poses

MS JONES: (Inaudible). That is a very good point.

MR. TAYLOR: The Premier gave you one yesterday, a letter from a doctor.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that protection.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite asked a question around the financial

targets that were provided to the four authorities back in 2005. If I am not

mistaken, it was somewhere in the range of about $7 million. As a result of that

consolidation and what were believed to be some opportunities for some

administrative cost savings, the targets were in the magnitude of about $7

million, if I recall.

SOME HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister raises a very important point, and I would like to ask him: In

the transition of government in 2003, can you tell me what documentation

regarding the ER/PR testing and the laboratory at Eastern Health was in the

Department of Health and Community Services when you took over, in 2003?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wasn't the minister in 2003, I say, Mr. Speaker, but I could ask

MR. TAYLOR: You were in Cabinet in 2003 (inaudible). Were you in Cabinet

in 2003, Yvonne?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: - the officials in the Department of Health and Community

Services if the members opposite, when they were in government, if they, in

fact, knew of the letter that we question here that was written in 2003. I will

pose that question, I say, Mr. Speaker, and report back to the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we are all well aware of the memo that circulated

between the laboratory and Eastern Health as a corporation. My question is: What

information was in the Department of Health and Community Services? I have no

knowledge that there was any. There are accusations being made in the House of

Assembly by Cabinet ministers opposite that there was - I ask government to

search the files, provide all and any information, correspondence related to

this issue that was in the Department of Health and Community Services in 2003

when your government took office.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I find it very ironic, now that we are in

government and I am the minister, I am expected to know what is not only written

but what is unwritten, how many patients were admitted to what hospitals, how

many patients were in emergency departments last night.

Whereas the member

opposite wants to pose a (inaudible) standard when they were in government,

unless it was in writing, I did not know anything about it. Now that is a double

standard, I say, Mr. Speaker.

I may not be able to produce the document that was in the department during

2003 that the members opposite might have knowledge of, but if there was a

section of the laboratory in Eastern Health that was closing today for five

weeks, I suspect someone in Eastern Health would have at least verbally told me.

I suspect that back in 2003 when her former colleague was the Minister of Health

and Community Services, if the lab was closing for five weeks on his watch, he

definitely would have known. I say, Mr. Speaker, he definitely would have known.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have my doubts if the minister opposite would have known; I have to be

frank with you.

Anyway, getting back to the line of questioning that I started today because,

obviously, the members opposite are only propagating information that they know

nothing about and have no information to substantiate.

Let me get to my question, Mr. Speaker. We now know that there was no

transition team in place for the merger of the new Eastern Health Corporation

under that government's mandate. I have to ask: What was government thinking

at the time that they took on this massive merger by not providing no transition

team and no support services?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, what government did in 2005 was created four

entities in this Province, four health authorities, and we appointed four

boards. Those four boards appointed their senior executive team. They hired CEOs

and a team of management expertise around them. That CEO, together with the

management team led by the four boards of trustees, guided a transition process,

many of whom had been through that same process in the early 1990s and in the

mid-1990s. Some of them, in fact, had been through that same process back in the

1980s.

Mr. Speaker, many of those people who sat around the executive teams of those

four health authorities had gone through this process before. They had their

checking list of things that needed to be done during transition. These were

experienced administrators who had gone through the process before. They had the

complement of senior management people, together with middle management people

that they needed to be able to guide an organization through a transition into a

normal operational mode, I say, Mr. Speaker. So, that is the team we put in

place.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: That is the team, I say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are now three years into this process of amalgamating the boards that now

comprise Eastern Health.

I ask the minister: Has the transition now been completed or are there

certain aspects of this amalgamation that is still ongoing?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the member opposite has no

experience in this field of bringing together organizations, I say, Mr. Speaker.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. WISEMAN: As I have said many times before in this House, bringing

together organizations as large and complex as health care - those boards are -

to try to have that all accomplished within a three-year period is an impossible

task. There are some issues that are outstanding with respect to transition. Let

me name you one. The whole issue of the bargaining unit structure within the

authorities is a significant piece of work. Back in the mid-1990s when the

consolidation occurred, it took about four years for that one, single task to be

concluded.

If you were to examine consolidation of health authorities across this

country, I say, Mr. Speaker, you will find exactly what I am saying to be

accurate. You will find that these transitions, bringing together organizations,

whether it is in health care or in the corporate world, you do not bring

together organizations of different cultures, different structures -

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

MR. WISEMAN: - and bring it together overnight as one, single

organization.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know that three years has already past. I asked a simple question: What

aspects have not still been amalgamated? The minister alluded to one aspect,

maybe he could tell us what the other pieces are that have yet to be amalgated

within the health care corporation and maybe he could table for us the full

timelines that government has in place to see those things completed.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Just to illustrate a point, Mr. Speaker - the member

opposite asked for very specific timelines - I will just use the example I used

a moment ago, the bringing together of bargaining units. It is a process of

negotiations. It is a process of discussions. We have the Nurses' Union

involved, we have AAHP involved, we have NAPE involved, we have CUPE involved,

we have multiple bargaining unit structures across the four authorities, and we

are bringing them together in a process, Mr. Speaker. There is a discussion;

there is a negotiation that takes place. Sometimes you are able to conclude

negotiations quickly. Sometimes it takes a little longer. So, there is a bit -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: Some of those things take some time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The members opposite are kind of anxious today but I will try to get to my

answer.

The point being, Mr. Speaker, some of these exercises take some time. I

cannot give the member opposite a definitive answer when NAPE, CUPE and the

Nurses' Union will agree to a particular process, I say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With all due respect, that minister finds it very difficult to give a

definitive answer on anything, we have learned here. Anyway, my question is for

the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, the minister is in the media commentary about the possibility of

having a federal prison built here in the Province, and the minister stated that

as part of that process there was a report done which resulted from a tour, I

believe, to Nova Scotia, B.C. and Saskatchewan, which was conducted by a

delegation of prison management and union officials in that regard. This report

apparently was prepared and forwarded to the minister in late January of this

year. I am wondering: When can we expect to see that report released?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to tell the Opposition House Leader, I do not know what report he is

referring to. My comments in relation to discussions with the federal government

have been based on internal documents that have been provided to me and which I

have discussed with Minister Day two weeks ago in Ottawa.

I am aware that there was a delegation that went away, but I have seen no

report. I do not know if the Opposition House Leader is confusing the issue of

the consultant's report which is in the process of being prepared but which,

at this point, I have not been provided with. The most I have seen is a draft

that contains a list of some proposed sites and a proposed prison facility.

I must emphasize, Mr. Speaker, at this time there is no commitment from the

federal government; and, until such time as there is a commitment from the

federal government, there is not much that we can do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

My question is for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

On April 11, the minister reported to the Commission of Inquiry that Eastern

Health told him in May 2006 they had an ethics subcommittee looking at

disclosure issues, but the subcommittee was only dealing with how to inform

families of deceased patients; it did not address whether to release information

to the public.

My question is: Will the minister ensure that Eastern Health puts in place a

permanent ethics subcommittee that, from here on in, will handle disclosure of

information in the public interest whenever needed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: There are two parts to your question, Mr. Speaker, I

believe.

On the issue of the subcommittee, I think there is an ethics committee within

Eastern Health, a standing committee, and upon need they pull together a group

of them to deal with the question at hand.

The question, I think, as I understood it, you are asking whether or not it

is appropriate to have Eastern Health deal with the issue of disclosure - and it

is a very good question, and I will put that to Eastern Health whether the

ethics committee should look at it, or some other group, the ethical issues in

and around disclosure do need to be examined.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Another question for the minister, then, first of all pointing out that the

Canadian patient safety guidelines that are now in place, and that Eastern

Health says it is now following, and this was tabled with the inquiry, do not

deal with systemic issues such as when information should be disclosed to the

general public in the interest of public health and patient safety.

Is the minister willing, then, to tell Eastern Health that he would like them

to get into the game of developing guidelines, even though they do not exist

nationally?

I would like you to do that, so I am asking you: Are you willing to do that?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Government has already given some consideration to that

broader question you are raising.

If you look at the terms of reference of the task force that was appointed by

the Premier back last year the Task Force of Adverse Events one of the

things that we would want Mr. Thompson to bring forward for government's

consideration is a whole series of policies in and around adverse events, issues

around disclosure, how we might do it, how communication would occur. When he

brings that forward, that will be then rolled out for the four authorities; all

four of them will have that as a part of their policy piece as well. So it is a

piece of work that is already being developed, and one that the task force is

being seized with.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: A follow-up question to that, Mr. Speaker, for either the

Minister of Health and Community Services or the Minister of Justice, because it

follows on a question that I asked yesterday.

Section 31 of the Access to Information and Privacy Protection Act states,

that the head of a public body should, without delay, disclose to the public or

an affected group information about a risk of significant harm. Eastern Health

did not appear to know that that existed and does not appear to be complying

with

section 31 since it did not inform all patients or the public in a timely

manner regarding the problems with ER/PR testing.

Mr. Speaker, my question for one of the two ministers is: Will this

government put in place a protocol for all health authorities and other public

bodies for releasing information to the public in the interest of public health?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi for her question.

As I indicated yesterday, the purpose of the ATIPP Act is to regulate access

to the public and to allow people access to information and correct it. The hon.

member was right yesterday, that in

section 31 there is a public interest

override, as she has read into the record. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that

this is an issue that appears to me to come clearly within the Terms of

Reference of the Inquiry. I am willing to direct my officials to write

Commission counsel and to ask Commission counsel whether or not they also think

it comes within the Terms of Reference and to examine it at the Inquiry, because

I think it is an important issue and one that could be addressed by the Inquiry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with paragraph 19(5)(

a) of the House of

Assembly Accountability Integrity and Administration Act, I hereby table the

Minutes of Commission meetings for January 23 and February 6, 2008.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to questions for which notice has been given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to present a petition today with reference to the maintenance depots

we have seen closing over the last few years this time of the year. They are

open in the winter months but they close down for the summer. I understand from

some of the people in the system that the same thing is about to happen. I know

some of those people have received layoff notices that will come into effect, I

think, within the next few weeks; the reason being that they are on in all of

those depots in the winter months as operators and when they close down for the

summer months they convert back to labourers and they take, I think, somewhere

in the vicinity of a $3 decrease in their pay. Some of them do stay on with the

decrease in pay, but others move on outside the Province and so on.

The problem is, Mr. Speaker, and I know the minister has announced tremendous

sums of money throughout the Province for roadwork this year, and my area is no

different, but this is not in reference to that; it is in reference to some of

the maintenance work that has to be done. We know and we are not blaming the

government for it - the condition of our roads. It is not major work that has to

be done, but a lot of maintenance has to be done, ditching and so on.

I was just calling upon government that hopefully they will reconsider

keeping those employees in the various depots that will close down shortly so

that the work can be done this summer. We know that maintenance work will go

ahead, but not to the extent by closing those depots down and having more

people employed throughout the summer.

I was just calling upon government, if they would reconsider keeping them

open, knowing that there is a tremendous amount of work that has to be done in

different areas throughout the Province. We hear about it every day, Mr.

Speaker, in the news, and we see it on television, and I was just calling upon

government if they would reconsider keeping them open, at least for this year,

to see that this work is carried out.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by calling Order 8, second reading of

Bill14,

An Act To Amend The Lobbyist Registration Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 14,

An Act To Amend The

Lobbyist Registration Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Lobbyist

Registration Act." (Bill 14)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased this afternoon to introduce Bill 14,

An Act To Amend The

Lobbyist Registration Act.

The proposed amendment to the Lobbyist Registration Act, Mr. Speaker, will

extend the provisions of the Lobbyist Registration Act to the City of St. John's

and its controlled entities, the St. John's Transportation Commission and St.

John's Sports and Entertainment Limited.

The Lobbyist Registration Act, Mr. Speaker, came into force on October 11,

2005. It was enacted to recognize that free and open access to government is an

important right of citizenship and must not be impeded, and that the public, as

well as government decision makers, should have knowledge of who was attempting

to influence public policy decisions.

This is the cornerstone of our government, Mr. Speaker. Openness,

transparency and accountability are what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

have come to expect from the government. The Lobbyist Registration Act is a

crucial part of this philosophy, and the amendments of today certainly

illustrate our approach.

Lessons learned in the past, Mr. Speaker, both at the federal and the

provincial level, have acknowledged the need for this approach. The Lobbyist

Registration Act defines, Mr. Speaker, appropriate lobbying practices,

establishes a public registry of paid lobbyists, and sets a code of conduct for

lobbyists. The act requires paid lobbyists who lobby public office holders to

register with the Registry of Lobbyists and provide specific information about

their activities.

Public office holders are persons occupying elected, appointed or other

employment positions in the House of Assembly, government departments and

agencies, and other public bodies. Lobbyist information filed with the Registry

of Lobbyists is made available to decision makers and the public through

searches available either on-line or in person at the registry. Complaints about

lobbyists can be made to the Commissioner of Lobbyists who may investigate and

impose sanctions as appropriate.

Following proclamation of the act, Mr. Speaker, government undertook to study

whether municipal elected and administrative officials should be included as

public office holders. Having consulted, Mr. Speaker, with Municipalities

Newfoundland and Labrador, the Department of Municipal Affairs decided that

consideration be limited to including the Province's four largest

municipalities: the City of St. John's, Corner Brook, Mount Pearl, and the

Town of Conception Bay South. This was based on the level and frequency of

lobbying experience and the size and composition of municipal governments.

Seventy-six per cent of municipalities, Mr. Speaker, in Newfoundland and

Labrador have a population of 1,000 or less.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Municipal Affairs proceeded to consult the

cities of St. John's, Corner Brook and Mount Pearl, and the Town of Conception

Bay South, and concluded that lobbyist registration is only an issue for the

City of St. John's. As well, Mr. Speaker, the City of St. John's advised the

Minister of Municipal Affairs that it wished to have the act applied to the city

and its entities. As a result, Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendment will apply

only to the City of St. John's. Councillors and officials of the Province's

other cities and municipalities are not included under this amendment. The City

of St. John's, through the Office of the Chief Commissioner, has been involved

with the preparation of this bill and supports its content.

As members review the bill, you will see that proposed amendments to the act

are designed to include the City of St. John's, which is defined in the bill

as including its controlled entities, as circumstances require, to take into

account the city's structure and activities.

In particular, Mr. Speaker, you will note that the definition of lobby is

amended to include city activities equivalent to those included for the Crown.

Information requirement for lobbyist returns are amended to include city

activities similar or equivalent to those included for the Crown.

The former public-office holder restriction in

section 20.1 of the act,

clause 5 of the bill, prohibits certain former city public-office holders from

lobbying city public-officer holders for one year after leaving office. The

positions prohibited from such lobbying are equivalent to those applicable to

other bodies under the act and include councillors, the deputy mayor, mayor,

chief commissioner and chief executive officers of the city's controlled

entities. Former public-office holder confidential information restrictions,

similar to those in place for government officials, will apply to former city

public-office holders.

With regard to the

section 20.1 restriction, I note that its scope, namely a

one year prohibition from lobbying city public-office holders, recognizes that

the city is not a government/public sector body, per se, and that the

prohibition warranted relates to the lobbying of city public-office holders.

It is important to note that any former city public-office holder not

prohibited from acting as a lobbyist for one year after leaving office, who

becomes a lobbyist, will be subject to

section 21 restrictions.

Section 21

imposes prohibitions regarding the use or disclosure of any confidential

information obtained through the previous city public office position. As a

result, all city former public-office holders that are permitted to become

lobbyists face restrictions to avoid conflict of interest.

The proposed amendments will come into force January 1, 2009. This date was

chosen to facilitate implementation and, more specifically, to ensure that

required changes at the Registry of Lobbyists are in place. Notice of the

amendment can be provided to current registered lobbyists as part of routine

registry correspondence regarding six month renewals, and government and city

officials can provide appropriate notice in education to city council and

appropriate city staff, as well as the public, regarding new requirements of the

act.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, also makes a housekeeping amendment to the act. In

March 2007, the Lobbyist Registration Exemption Regulation was enacted to

correct an oversight to the exemption provision,

section 4 of the act. Taking

this opportunity to incorporate the regulation in the act will result in

eliminating unnecessary regulation and, most importantly, Mr. Speaker, will make

the act more user friendly by ensuring that all exemptions are found in the act.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the application of lobbyist registration -

legislation from municipalities in other provinces, only Quebec includes

municipalities of public office holders. The City of Toronto is the only

Canadian city to have lobbyist legislation and I understand its lobbyist

registry system became operational in February, 2008. As you can ascertain, this

legislation puts us at the forefront of the field across the country.

Mr. Speaker, as previously stated and as stated on numerous occasions in this

House and in the media, our government is committed to openness, transparency

and accountability. We believe this to be a critical operating function of

government and I believe it is a good day for democracy within our Province when

our largest municipality, the City of St. John's, joins with us to ensure that

its decision makers and residents will have access to up-to-date information

about persons who are paid to lobby city counsellors and officials.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the proposed amendment is a positive one. The

general public, and specifically residents of St. John's, will benefit from

this amendment and the greater transparency in public decision making that it

will ensure.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to discuss the amendment to the

Lobbyist Registration Act. I ask for the support of all hon. members in passing

this bill and I look forward to participation from members of both sides of the

House in this debate.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to speak at second reading concerning this

particular bill, Bill 14, amendments to the Lobbyist Registration Act.

I find it really helpful, and I am sure the general public does as well, when

the minister speaks in second reading and gives an explanation of what the bill

is all about, what the purpose of it is. So people have a better understanding

of why these amendments are being made. I am sure there are some people who do

not know what the Lobbyist Registration Act was about in the first instance.

Basically, there is a registry, there is a system, there is a law which

exists that says if you are in the business of lobbying a government, looking

for contracts or looking for a minister or Cabinet or whatever government to

make a decision one way or the other, you would lobby the government to make a

decision in your favour. That got out of hand in some jurisdictions. So people

said we need some controls on that. We have to know, first of all, who is

allowed to lobby. Secondly, whom you can lobby? Where is it inappropriate to

lobby? Somebody should know where to look to find out who the lobbyists are. Not

just anybody off the street can walk in and be a lobbyist. Let's find out who

they are and let's require that they be registered. That was the purpose and

intent.

A lot of people, governments, municipalities, deal with millions and millions

of dollars, taxpayers' money, and that, of course, leads to decisions being

made that people want to know: How are you handling my money? How did a certain

decision get made? Did anybody try to influence you to make a decision one way

versus another? If so, who was it, so that you are aware of that? That is where

the Lobbyist Registration Act came about. It is a pretty standard piece of

legislation now in most jurisdictions across the country. What we are doing

here, of course, is the minister is telling us that we are going to make some

amendments because the Lobbyist Registration Act did not apply to the City of

St. John's formerly, and based on this amendment going through it would apply.

Second reading, of course, is also an opportunity where the Opposition get to

ask the minister some further questions about the bill. That gives the minister

an opportunity - if he has the answers readily available, of course, he usually

stands up and responds back and gives the answer to them. If he doesn't, he

usually says: Fine, I will take it under advisement and get the information for

you, and when we move on to the next stage of the bill, which is committee

stage, I will have the information for you and get it for you.

So, in that vein, I do have a couple of questions for the minister that I

would like to put forward now that I understand fully. I had read what it was

you wanted to do, but of course the question that comes to bear is: Why the

limitation here? First of all, I would like to know who initiated this change.

Did government look out and say: Well, we have certain entities in our Province,

town, cities, whatever, that we need to consider whether that Lobbyist Act

should apply to them or was there something that happened in the City of St.

John's in particular, or was there some person in the City of St. John's in

particular who said: We need to have the Lobbyist Act apply to us? What was the

motivation? Why did this come about all of a sudden?

Normally, these amendments come about because something happens in real live

that causes a person to say: Oh, something has happened here. We had a

circumstance. My God, we thought that was covered by a law and we find out that

it was not. I think it would be helpful here to understand where this came from

and originated from and the motivations for it. If it came from the City

Solicitor for St. John's, Mr. Penney, did something happen? He is a very

astute character, I know him personally. I would assume he was the person who

would have brought it forward to government and said, amend your legislation.

So, it would be nice to know where it came from.

In that regard, that leads to the next question, and the minister has already

explained that they looked at the possibility of having this legislation, this

amendment apply to some other cities, Mount Pearl, Corner Brook and CBS. These

entities, these cities and communities have come back and said no, we do not

want this amendment to apply to us. So government has decided to proceed and

only do it vis--vis St. John's. Which begs the question of: Who gets to

decide whether a law applies to you or not? Should that be a decision that the

individual's municipality should make? Or, given that we are talking about a

provincial piece of legislation, is that a decision that the government needs to

make? Rather than singling out certain entities, or doing it because a certain,

specific entity asked you to do it, like the City of St. John's, what about

these other places? In fairness, and in true openness and true accountability,

how do you draw the line as to who you make it apply to? For example, what if

the City of Corner Brook comes back in six months time and says: Whoa, we

changed our minds now. We would like that to apply to us. What if Mount Pearl

changes their mind because they have a particular incident next year and they

want to get it changed?

My question to the minister is, not that it is not right to do this

amendment, but why are we only doing it piecemeal for the City of St. John's

if you already anticipated and thought that we should have it apply to some

other places? In fact, I am wondering why it should not apply to anybody under

the Municipalities Act. In fact, I mistakenly thought, in first incidence, that

what had happened here was that municipalities were already in. I thought we had

overlooked the City of St. John's, because the City of St. John's is

normally governed by its own separate act rather than the Municipalities Act. I

was under the mistaken belief that we are playing catch up here, that it was for

all municipalities but not St. John's, so that is what we are doing. Now I

find out that no, it never did apply to municipalities. We are only now doing

this because the City of St. John's has asked us.

The minister made a comment. I find it very telling and I am wondering if

that was the rationale for doing it. The minister made a comment that, we

checked with these other places and most populations of towns in the Province

are around 1,000 people. We sort of left it to the more populated areas, St.

John's, Mount Pearl, Corner Brook, CBS, and we did not think it was necessary

to apply it to most places. They only have a population of 1,000. Again, I

question the logic of that. To me, this is not about what the population of your

community is. The purpose of the lobbyist piece controls who was trying to exert

influence, whom they were trying to exert it upon, and making sure that you

registered if you were going to do such a thing so everybody knew you existed.

To me, whether you have a population of 500 or 250,000, it is a basic generic

law. Unless there is some reason not to, it should be a basic generic law that

applies to anybody. I am just wondering why the government did not see that it

should be generic in nature.

For example, I would think an issue - when it comes to the lobbyist, it is

always about contracting, and who is doing it, and who gets the benefit of

influence being exerted. That comes down to money; and, whether you are the

mayor or a councillor in the City of St. John's where you have a multi-million

dollar budget, or whether you happen to be the Mayor of Stephenville with a

budget of $7 million, $8 million or $10 million, I would think there are still

massive amounts of money being spent. There is still the need for the controls,

the openness and the transparency, of who is trying to exert influence upon that

entity. So, I do not understand the rationale and the logic of why we would just

accept that the City of St. John's wants to do it and not make it apply to

anybody else. I am questioning whether the fact that the City of Mount Pearl

says: Well, we don't want it. Is that justifiable reason for not doing it?

Maybe there is a very valid reason, and I look forward to the minister

explaining that to me. For example, is this going to be an administrative

nightmare if municipalities are required to have it? If there is an

administrative nightmare and communities do not have the resources to be able to

administer this, I can understand that, but what exactly is involved in the

implementation of it, in the administration of it? If I could be educated a bit

in that regard it would be helpful, because that may well be the reason.

The other thing is, I would ask: Is there any financial burden to

municipalities if you ask them to comply and be covered by the Lobbyist Act? We

know there are lots of upsides - for example, everybody in the Province gets

treated the same; the same law applies to everybody equally but what are the

downsides of asking municipalities, or making the Municipalities Act and

everybody under it be covered by this Lobbyist Act?

As the minister says, too, the reason for having this, of course, is

influence-peddling. I believe that is a criminal consequence of certain acts,

but what we are doing here, basically, is saying to people who practice the

heart of lobbying that there are going to be certain controls and you are not

going to do it under the cover of darkness. You are going to do it with you name

on a public registry.

So, again, the consequences of administratively imposing this upon

municipalities, the consequences financially to imposing this upon

municipalities, has that been factored in, or did we just willy-nilly make the

decision that we are not going to make it apply? Because, I say to the minister,

we had a case here recently in the last three or four years where we imposed

something on municipalities which was pretty monumental, and we decided as a

Province and as a government of the day that we were going to go ahead with it

and do it. That was the privacy legislation.

We came from a position of no legislation on the books for privacy. We

brought in the new ATIPP Act in 2002. We said the privacy provisions would be a

piece of it, and we knew at the time, of course, that you could not just impose

it upon them and not give them some time to implement the privacy provisions,

but we certainly did not deal with the possibility of health boards and

municipalities not being included. I mean, they are included, and were included

from day one. I agree it was an oversight that we did not do it in this case,

maybe, but now that we have spotted that there is an oversight, should we not

make it applicable to everybody in the Province?

If lobbying a body is justifiable to have a piece of legislation for, I think

everybody who could potentially be lobbied in the Province, who has the

wherewithal to do it, such as councils unless it is a burden too big to

bear, in terms of administration and financial that we should make it apply

to everybody. Otherwise, we could find ourselves setting a precedent. We have a

situation here now that a municipality has come forward and said: We do not want

that law to apply to us. Another one has said: We want it to apply to us.

I think that is a dangerous precedent that we are setting here, possibly,

when we single out certain entities to have laws apply to and others that it

will not apply to and we are leaving that decision not in the hands of

government but in the hands of the municipality.

If that is the case, I am sure I have communities in my district that are

going to say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs: Well, I hope you do the same

courtesy to me when it comes to your waste disposal, because you are going to

impose some pretty rigorous conditions on me in waste disposal; I think I would

like to opt out of that.

I am sure that has administrative and financial consequences to

municipalities and local service districts; yet, we don't get any opt-out

rights there. Yet something as simple, I would think, as a Lobbyist Registration

Act, we have the communities being offered the opportunity to opt out. I am a

little bit confused as to what criteria government looks at to determine whether

one can or cannot or should be covered by certain legislation. We have decided

that privacy is a big enough issue to warrant a blanket policy and approach in

legislation. In fact, we gave the municipalities and the school boards and the

hospital boards in the Province three or four years to get up to snuff, so that

they could implement the law properly and move ahead. God knows, it was

financially burdensome and yet we had it because it was the right thing to do.

We have the same thing coming at us now, pretty quickly actually, in the case

of waste disposal, and yet we cannot add opt out provisions for certain

municipalities. We have a case where the Minister of Environment sent out a

notice to everybody in this Province who uses a teepee that said, get rid of it

by December 31. That is a pretty burdensome financial obligation.

I am a bit lost as to what government does or does not consider to decide the

range that a piece of legislation has. Maybe the minister has some statistics

and facts there that he could show me about the financial burden, the

administrative burden, in requiring people to do that. I just don't think

population alone is the be all and end all in terms of whether the lobbyist

legislation applies. I would think it comes down to the principle of the thing,

who is lobbying whom and who is likely to be lobbied. I don't care if you are

the Mayor of Port aux Basques or Stephenville or the Mayor of St. John's, you

are likely to be lobbied. In fact, in my experience it is often in small towns

that a lot of this controversy happens.

I would appreciate it, if the minister would take an opportunity to provide

us with some of those answers. As I say, I have no problem and I will be voting

in favour of the amendments as proposed. That is not an issue. I agree they

should apply to the City of St. John's. I am just thinking, why do it

piecemeal, why not have it apply, unless there are some very good reasons which

I have not heard yet, why it should not apply to everyone. I don't think it

should be based upon your population size.

Those are my comments. I will be voting in favour of it. I have some concerns

in terms of explanation and my knowledge level at this point, as to why it only

applies to the City of St. John's. I am at a loss here, by the way, because

this is not a case where the City of St. John's approached the government and

asked them to do it and that is where it ended, and the government has decided

to go along and amend it. That is not what I understand the process was. I

understand that the City of St. John's initiated it and, as I say, I would

like to know the reasons why this came about and what has happened. Then the

government started on this other process and went a bit further and said to

other places, like how did Corner Brook get involved? How did Mount Pearl

get involved? How did CBS get involved? What was the process there? We know the

answer. They all came back and said no, we do not want it. I think there begs to

be some further information provided here.

I am sure the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is going to have a few words

on this as well. Albeit her district falls within the City of St. John's, she,

of course, has a provincial responsibility and I am sure she will address that

issue as well, as to how it applies to other municipalities in the Province.

one hand, policies that apply to everybody and then, on the other hand, making

amendments to laws and saying it is only going to apply to the party who

requested it. Maybe it is justifiable, but I just have not seen it there right

yet.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak to this bill and to the amendment

that is being suggested for the Lobbyist Registration Act.

I have some of the questions that my colleague, the Opposition House Leader,

has posed, but I may be posing them in a different way, and some I may repeat.

When I first saw this bill, I smiled to myself because I remember back in

2004 when the act was brought in. I was not in the government at that time. I

was working with the not-for-profit sector. There was quite a buzz about the

Lobbyist Registration Act because many groups in the not-for-profit sector,

especially many of the women's organizations in the not-for-profit sector, but

not only, were quite scared of this act. They were concerned about its being

restrictive and oppressive, and I understood where that fear was coming from.

There were many questions that had to be answered, and I do remember our

organizing a meeting with people from the Department of Justice. We had quite an

in-depth session for a few hours discussing how the act affected groups who did

regular advocacy work and groups who, as well, did not have people being paid

for that work.

I am happy to say that I think the efforts that we put into getting educated

at that time helped people in the not-for-profit sector understand the benefits

of the Lobbyist Registration Act and also understand that it was not something

that was being put in place to impose a heavy burden on the not-for-profit

sector; because, in actual fact, the not-for-profit sector in no way - there may

be some exceptions, but in no way - would meet the definition of lobbyist that

one finds in the act.

For example, an in-house lobbyist is defined as an employee who is paid to do

the lobbying work. An in-house lobbyist is somebody who is employed by an

organization and who spends 20 per cent of that person's time - 20 per cent is

spent on doing nothing else but lobbying. It also means a company who might have

two or three workers together putting 20 per cent of their time into lobbying.

When the not-for-profit sector sat down and looked at it, in actual fact,

even though it felt like they may be talking to an MHA every day, and they may

have the occasional meeting and write the occasional letter, when they came down

and really put it together there was hardly a not-for-profit sector that was

spending their time, 20 per cent of their time, in actual lobbying. So, it was a

very helpful exercise. It was an exercise that removed the fear that was in the

not-for-profit sector and helped people understand that, no, they did not have

to get the forms and they did not have to fill them out; that, in actual fact,

they just did not qualify under the definition of lobbyist. So that was good.

That was helpful.

I am just wondering, with regard to the amendment to bring the City of St.

John's and the St. John's council in under the act, I am wondering, along

with the Opposition House Leader, why there are not other municipalities

involved. I know that I have heard the minister's explanation, but when I took

the bill and read it that was my very first question. Two questions have already

been asked, but I will say them again. Where is this coming from? Who initiated

it? Number two: Why only the City of St. John's?

I have heard the minister's explanation, but I do have some problems with

it. I am wondering if part of the reason - and I do not know - if part of the

reason why, if municipalities were approached, they said, no, we do not need to

be involved here; this is not something that really is an issue for us - I

wonder, is it because they maybe did not fully understand the act, just as the

not-for-profit sector initially did not? Did they feel it as something being

laid on them, a burden? Which I do not think is what it is at all.

As a matter of fact, in the spirit of openness and transparency and

accountability, which this House has embraced because of the Green Report, I

think we should be promoting that the Lobbyist Registration Act covers all

public bodies, because all public bodies in one form or another are being

lobbied. Now, they may not all have organizations lobbying them to the extent

that the company or organization has people working full-time lobbyists. If they

do not, then they do not have to register, but having the recognition of

registration where necessary really does open us up in a good way to the whole

spirit of openness, transparency and accountability.

I have the same concern that was expressed by the Opposition House Leader. I

am concerned about the fact that, what if, in six months' time, Corner Brook

says: Oh, my goodness, we should have gotten into that. Or, in a year's time,

Grand Falls-Windsor thinks they should have gotten into it. Every time that

happens, there has to be an amendment.

I am with the Opposition House Leader on this one, and we both came to it

separately, that it seems logical to me that the amendment should be that all

government levels, all municipalities and all public entities in the Province

should actually come under the Lobbyist Registration Act, because advocacy and

lobbying is happening on all levels. In most cases it very well may be that the

groups and businesses doing lobbying do not have lobbyists who meet the

definition that is in the act - that is quite possible - but as long as there is

even one group who would meet it, then let's get them registered. Whether they

are registered because they lobby in Corner Brook or whether they are registered

because they lobby in Port aux Basques or in St. John's, it does not matter.

Let's be open about it. If it is open, the general public knows: Oh, that

company has a lobbyist and that lobbyist does go and talk to our town council or

to our city council, but it is open and it is above board.

I do have a problem with the fact that other municipalities are not involved.

So, though I will be voting for the bill, I am not voting against it, but I will

be asking the minister to do - because he is new in this portfolio and probably

was not part of the initial discussions around putting this bill in place. I

would ask the minister to immediately start looking at broadening and including

all of municipalities and public bodies under the Lobbyist Registration Act so

that maybe in a years time we will do an amendment again, but the next time it

will be the last time we have to do it in terms of who is covered. So, I really

would ask the minister to look at that, to give us an answer with regard to

that. I do not think - while I think there should be consultation and I think

the minister should meet again with Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, I

think the proposal should be presented that all municipalities and public bodies

should come under the act and with a rationale for them to have a discussion on

that. Like I said, it could be a year's time before that comes back to us but

bring it back so that we do not have to piecemeal, bring in different

municipalities into the act. If we believe that this is so good to have a

Lobbyist Registration Act, then it should be the government's goal to have all

municipalities and public bodies included.

Now, those were more general comments. I do have a particular thing that I

would like the minister to look at with me and think about. There is just one

amendment that I really want to question. It is just an insertion that I think

needs to go in. In the act itself, in

section 20 of the act - there is an

amendment for

section

Section 20 says: a person who is a former

public-office holder shall not lobby as a consultant lobbyist or an in-house

lobbyist for a period of twelve months after that person has ceased to be a

public office-holder.

The next subsection says: "Subsection (1) shall apply only where a

person has held the following positions..." The positions that are named

are a member of the executive staff, other than the support staff of the person

holding the position referred to. Now, I want to point out that other than the

support staff, because I think - now this is in the act itself. I think other

than the support staff is really important because I really do not think that

somebody who is in a clerical position - and obviously the government did not

either when the act was put together in 2004 - which is basically support staff,

should be considered. I think they should be exempted, and they are exempted in

the act.

When I go to the amendment - and I am going somewhere with this, Mr. Speaker

- when I go to the amendment, the number five amendment which is for

section

20.1, so it is relating to

section 20 in the act. It says, "Notwithstanding

section 20(1), a person who is a former public-office holder under subparagraphs"

- and it names the subparagraphs, and those subparagraphs are on page 3 of the

bill. So here the definition is going to be related to the definition on page 5,

from paragraph 2(1)(f). There they talk about who is going to be affected

"a member of the board of a city-controlled entity and the chief executive

officer, officers, directors and employees of that entity" - but it does

not exempt support staff. So, we have a support staff being exempted -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: It will just take one more minute, I think, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I apologize to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, but the Speaker is

having some difficulty hearing the member. I ask all members of the House to

respect the member who is standing in her place and speaking.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am looking at, on page 5 of the bill,

section 3, paragraph 2(1)(f). In the

definition under (i.3), it names employees of that entity but does not exempt

support staff. Support staff is exempted for those who work within the

provincial government context, in the act, but by not saying support staff here,

we are going to have two contradictions going on. I would like the minister to

look at this. I would be happy to work further with him on it, but I really

think this should be corrected before we approve this bill, because if not, we

are going to have two different

definitions. The definition for employees who

work for the city is not going to include an exemption for support staff,

whereas the exemption for support staff will be there for employees who work

under the regulations covering the provincial section. So, I think we are going

to need to fix that. I saw the minister taking notes and I think he probably got

them all. I think we have to be consistent with regard to this thing of the

exemption of support staff.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I think I probably have used my time, but I am

glad to have been able to do this. My two main points: yes, I am going to

support the bill - I guess there are three points. I would like the minister to

immediately look at extending coverage of all municipalities and public bodies.

Number three, I think there is a wording change that needs to happen.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Minister of Justice and Attorney General speaks now

he will close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to thank the Opposition House Leader and the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi for their comments. I will need some time to find answers to

their questions. So I would move to close debate at this point in time and

report back to committee when I obtain the answers.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now

read a second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Lobbyist Registration Act. (Bill 14)

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

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

Tomorrow?

MR. RIDEOUT: Presently, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently, by leave.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Lobbyist Registration Act,"

read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House

presently, by leave. (Bill 14)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like now to call Order 7, Bill 18, standing in the name of the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board,

An Act To Amend The Liquor

Control Act Respecting A Licensee Levy. (Bill 18)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 18 entitled,

An Act To

Amend The Liquor Control Act Respecting A Licensee Levy, be now read a second

time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control

Act Respecting A Licensee Levy." (Bill 18)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Finance and President

of Treasury Board, I am pleased to introduce for second reading today Bill 18,

An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act Respecting A Licensee Levy.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that in some respects this piece of

legislation is, in fact, unique, but it is certainly not a piece of legislation

of a type that a Parliament, a Legislature, a House of Assembly, has not dealt

with before. We are not inventing the wheel in the sense that this legislation

is a first-time piece of legislation in principle. It is a unique piece of

legislation, yes, I acknowledge that, but it is a type of legislation that

legislators have had to deal with over the course of time going back, I suppose,

centuries.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment to the Liquor Control Act has been designated as

the Liquor Licensee Levy - it is commonly referred to - and is a direct tax on

purchasers of liquor at the time it was collected, and licensees were acting as

agents on behalf of the Province in its collection. Mr. Speaker, the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador collected liquor licensee levies get this, Mr.

Speaker from 1969 to 2006.

Mr. Speaker, let me give the House a small lesson in history. As I understand

it, in the provincial Budget of 1969, the government of the day - I was around

but I was not here - in their Budget of 1969, announced in this Legislature that

they were going to close two cottage hospitals: one in Botwood and one in

Markland. As a result of that budgetary initiative and that budgetary

announcement in this House in 1969, the government expected that they would save

$300,000.

Mr. Speaker, needless to say, there was, to put it mildly, a war in Botwood

and Markland and the government of the day, the Liberal government of the day,

backed off from their announcement that they made in their Budget in 1969. It is

not usual, perhaps, for Liberal governments to back off, but they did, in fact.

In 1969 they recanted. Out of all of the great waves of opposition emanating

from Botwood, I am sure our good friend and late colleague in this Legislature,

Dr. Hugh Twomey, would have been part of that. Who would have led the fight out

of Markland, I don't know, but suffice it to say, for purposes of the debate,

Mr. Speaker, in 1969 the government of the day recanted. They backed off from

their announcement on closing the hospital in Markland and Botwood, but they

still had a $300,000 problem, because they announced in the Budget in 1969 that

this measure would save the government $300,000, so here is what they did.

On April 18, 1969, Premier Smallwood announced in this Legislature, in this

House of Assembly, that the decision to close the two hospitals had been

reversed and that a 10 per cent increase would be imposed on the cost of liquor

to licensed establishments to pick up the $300,000. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is as

plain as I can put it. In 1969, the government of the day had decided to

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Pardon?

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes.

The government of the day had decided that they were not going to proceed to

close down those two hospitals but they still had a $300,000 problem; and, to

solve the $300,000 problem, the government, in an announcement made by the

Premier, Premier Smallwood himself as leader of the government, announced that

they had instructed the then Newfoundland Liquor Commission, as it was called,

the NLC was instructed by the government to put a 10 per cent increase on the

cost of liquor to licensees, okay, not the cost of liquor to you or I, if we

went into the liquor store to buy it. I guess none of us were old enough in

1969, but the cost of liquor

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. RIDEOUT: Some of you were not even a gleam in the e'e in 1969, but

the cost of liquor to liquor establishments had a 10 per cent premium placed on

it by the government in 1969. That revenue, therefore, would be used to help the

government keep those two hospitals open.

So, that is what happened. That is where this tax came from, Mr. Speaker, in

1969, and I think it is important that all members and the general public

because, you know, there is a public policy issue here in terms of

retroactivity. This piece of legislation, what makes it unique, Mr. Speaker, is

that not often is this House called upon to pass a piece of legislation that has

a retroactivity clause in it. If it is, it is not often that piece of

legislation is retroactive back a number of decades. That is not something that

we do often in this House. In fact, in my thirty years here, I can remember it

being done once before. Once before, in the Peckford days, we had to pass a

piece of labour legislation that was retroactive because of a situation in

Labrador West. Perhaps my colleague from Labrador West might remember it, and I

remember there was a great hullabaloo at that time, but it was a piece of work,

unfortunately, that the Legislature had to do in order to make that piece of

legislation stand constitutional and court challenges. That is what is happening

here with this particular piece of legislation.

Premier Smallwood imposed the 10 per cent tax in 1969. The tax was on

licensees; it was not on individuals. So, what did the licensees do, Mr.

Speaker, from 1969 up until where I will get to shortly from the time

the tax was imposed, in 1969, the licensees, of course, passed that 10 per cent

on to the person who came in and ordered a drink over the bar, all right?

So, if I went in for a drink, I paid the 10 per cent, or my friend from White

Bay & The Straits paid the 10 per cent. It wasn't a licensed

establishment. I want members to understand, it was not a licensed establishment

that paid the 10 per cent. They paid the 10 per cent in the initial stage, yes,

when they went and bought the liquor, but they then passed that 10 per cent on

to their patrons who came in to visit their establishment.

That went on, Mr. Speaker, from 1969 right through until and it got

increased at some point along the way. I do not have the date here but it got

increased, at some point, from the initial 10 per cent that Premier Smallwood

introduced to 12 per cent. Then, Mr. Speaker, as part of our Budget in 2005, we

announced that the 12 per cent levy as I said, it got increased at some

point from 10 per cent to 12 per cent we announced in 2005 that the 12 per

cent levy would be phased out over 4 years.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the next year we started to see that we were a little bit

better off fiscally. The bar industry had taken a number of hits as the result

of decisions by this government to cut back on VLTs and to introduce a smoking

ban, and things of that nature, so we were open the government was open - to

trying to do something for the bar owners in the Provinces. So, instead of

taking four years to phase out the levy, as we announced in the 2005 Budget, in

2006 we announced that the remaining 9 per cent because we had begun the

reduction from 12 per cent and there was 9 per cent left to do in the Budget

of 2006 we announced that the remaining 9 per cent fee would be eliminated

effective April 1, 2006. So we did away, as a government, with the levy all

together in two budgets in Budget 2005 and Budget 2006.

That was fine and dandy, Mr. Speaker; that is what we did. Of course, in New

Brunswick there was a similar tax. As a result of a court action in New

Brunswick, the New Brunswick case eventually ended up before the Supreme Court

of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada in the New Brunswick case held that,

even though the levy had been imposed and even though it was passed on to

patrons, that was not a defence in its totality. The New Brunswick people were

suing and saying: We collected the tax. We passed the tax on, as it happened in

Newfoundland, but, government, you should pay the tax back to us.

Let's think about that for a second. The levy was placed on the booze that

went into the bar, and the bar owners added it on to the product and passed it

on to you and me and the rest of the population. In the case of Newfoundland, it

is about $13 million, I believe. If we are going to give that $13 million back,

to whom should we give it back? Not the licensed establishment, because the

licensed establishment passed it on to us. Now, just think for a second. How do

we give back $13 million to the population of Newfoundland and Labrador? We can

give out a chit and say everybody go down to George Street and have a drink on

us, or have a drink on yourself because really it is your money. To give it back

to the bar owner would be an unjust enrichment of the establishment because they

never absorbed the tax. The tax got passed on to the people who bought the

product.

What happened to the tax, Mr. Speaker? Well, the tax was put on by the

government back in 1969 to save two hospitals, and every year from 1969 up

through until we finally took it off in 2006, every year that tax came into the

consolidated revenue of the Province and it was used to keep hospitals open, to

pay nurses, to pay teachers, to pave roads, to build hospitals and to build

public buildings. That was what the tax was used for.

The levy was used to offset, initially, the cost of keeping the hospitals in

Botwood and Markland open, but then it got - obviously, like any levy, like any

tax, it gets rolled into general revenue and it gets spent across the board

doing all the things that government does every day on behalf of providing

services to the people of the Province. So, to take that levy and rebate it to

bar owners, I think, certainly would be an unjust enrichment of bar owners. They

did not absorb this particular levy. They passed that levy on to those who

bought the product, therefore, in other words, they passed it on to the people -

generally, I suppose, the people of the Province, but people from outside the

Province, anybody who went into their establishment and bought a drink. That is

what this is all about.

Therefore, the Supreme Court of Canada, in its decision on New Brunswick

said: Government, it is not a defence to say that the charges have been passed

on to the consumers, so therefore you have to find a way - and they left it open

- to find a way to make this tax constitutionally valid. The way that you make

the levy constitutionally valid would be to introduce retroactive legislation

saying that yes, this is a tax, we use this tax to provide goods and services to

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and we are going to make this tax

retroactive to the date that it was introduced. Retroactive, in this case, is

back to 1969 when the Budget of 1969 was brought down. Now that is it in a

nutshell.

There have been arguments, as I said, from establishments that they should

have the money. There is an argument that could be made that we should find a

way to rebate the fee to ordinary individuals. Well, many of them who paid it

are long dead, Mr. Speaker. Some of us who paid it are still living. How many

times did we buy a drink and pay the extra cost on it? It is impossible, is what

I am trying to say in a simple way of saying it, I suppose, to figure that out.

What do you do to ensure that the least amount of pain is inflicted on the least

amount of people? The only fair way to do it is that this money was taken in by

the government of the day, all governments of all days, from 1969 up to 2006. It

was spent on providing public services for all the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. The Supreme Court of Canada has said in order to make this

constitutionally valid you have to make it retroactive and that will satisfy the

situation.

I believe there were some people who were heading down to court today,

tomorrow, or some day with an application seeking an injunction saying that the

Legislature should not move on this matter until the court rules on it. Can you

imagine going to a court and asking for an injunction that the Legislature not

take a decision on something? The way that that works, Mr. Speaker, is fairly

simple. If we pass a law in this Legislature that ultra vires our authority, in

other words that is outside our constitutional authority, that does not -

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

I remind the Government House Leader that his time for speaking has expired.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I am a minister

introducing a bill and I have an hour, I believe. We are not in committee, we

are in second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: My apologies.

MR. RIDEOUT: I will not take an hour, Your Honour. Don't worry about

it, I will not take an hour but I believe I do.

I was trying to explain the business about the court injunction. The fact of the

matter is that if this Legislature, any Legislature, any Parliament in the

British Parliamentary system were to pass a law that is outside of our

jurisdiction. In other words, the Province gets its right to pass laws by the

headings that are included in

section 91 of the British North America Act. If it

is outside of that, or not caught up in some way that the Province has

jurisdiction, then it would be ultra vires our right to pass the law. If a court

decided that then the law would be struck down. The law would have no validity.

It would not have any effect, but a court is not going to say we do not have the

right to pass it. We passed the law; we believe we have every right to pass it.

As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court of Canada, in this case, said to New

Brunswick, here is what you can do to fix it. Well, if it applies to New

Brunswick - a ruling by the highest court in the land applies to a situation in

New Brunswick, surely it applies to a similar fact situation in this Province.

We do have the right, in our view, the constitutional right, to pass this piece

of legislation. We believe there is no chance whatsoever that it would be ruled

unconstitutional by a higher court, but if it were to be ruled unconstitutional

by some court, that does not impact on our right to pass it. This House is

supreme within its constitutional authority. We can pass laws on anything that

falls under our constitutional mandate to pass. If we step outside of that

mandate, of course, that constitutional mandate, then the courts have every

right and they would reel us in accordingly and say that the law is not valid

and therefore has no effect.

We believe, Mr. Speaker, in this case, the fair way to deal with this piece

of legislation is to pass the legislation and to pass it retroactive to when

Premier Smallwood brought in the levee in the first place in 1969. There is no

other fair way to do it. The money was spent improving goods and services or

spent on goods and services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is

impossible to take that back and to take that amount of money, whatever it is,

whether it is $13, thirteen cents or $13 million, and give it to somebody who

passed the levy on to the general populous would be unfair; would be, what we

call in law, an unjust enrichment and we do not believe that should be allowed

to happen. So, we believe the fair way, the principle way to do this is to do

what we do not do very often, thankfully, because we would not want to be doing

it very often, and that is pass legislation that will be effective on the date

that the original legislation and the original levy was imposed, which was back

to 1969.

So, Mr. Speaker, based on that simple explanation, I would move second

reading of the bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words on Bill 18, The Liquor

Control Act.

I say to the Government House Leader, thank God government does not do this

very often. It is a rarity, in any Legislature in the country, to have a piece

of retroactive legislation. I think we understand the reason government is doing

this is because somebody told them along the way that this levy that you had was

unconstitutional, illegal, improper, should not have it. The Supreme Court of

Canada overruled it in New Brunswick and said such. So, the government realized

that, my God, we were taking money out of somebody's pocket, bar owners or the

public or consumers or whomever, that we never had a right to do it because I

guess it was called a levy. Now, if you had a tax that is a different story. So,

they sent the Government of New Brunswick packing and said: no, you are not

going to be allowed to do it.

I personally have not read the New Brunswick case, the Supreme Court of

Canada decision. So I do not know the context in which the minister says that

the Supreme Court of Canada told New Brunswick how to get around it, by passing

a piece of retroactive legislation. Now, I have not seen that for myself. That

is very unusual if they did, by the way. Courts are usually into the habit of

dealing with the issue and saying yea or nay, it is or is not constitutional and

giving the reasons for it but if they did, that was a very explicit direction

from the Supreme Court of Canada that we normally do not get when they say it is

unconstitutional but here is how to fix it. They usually leave that to the law

makers again and the drafters to say why. If they did, I mean that would be a

very unusual case where the court was very explicit, because the court is into

the whole issue again then of when is it appropriate to have retroactive

legislation.

I think the Telegram in an editorial put the words on it. Some of the

journalists, of course, can sometimes capture very readily and succinctly

phrases to describe an issue. They call this the legislative time machine; the

legislative time machine. I thought that was pretty good. What they are saying

is the government is rewinding the clock here.

The reason, of course, why courts normally don't let you rewind the clock

is because it is a massive intrusion and negative consequential impact upon the

parties in question. For example, if the government of this Province were to

pass a law today saying that as of twelve o'clock midnight tonight all motor

vehicle registrations will cost $200 per vehicle effective tonight, midnight,

1990. Now, that would be quite the unheard of Draconian type of approach and you

would say: just a minute now, you are telling me you are going to rewind the

clock and instead of what I had to pay today for motor registration, you are

telling me that I have to pay $200 going back to 1990. You are off your head!

That is what retroactivity does and that is why retroactivity is not looked upon

by anybody, including the courts, as being proper because you are changing the

fact situation, you are changing the terrain, you are going back in time. Unless

you have a very good reason the courts look and frown upon retroactive

legislation.

I listened intently to the minister's comments about unjust enrichment.

Quite frankly, I haven't made up my mind yet as to where I am going to come

down in terms of a vote on this bill. Now, there is no question the bill will go

through, the government has a majority of members and at the end of the day they

can make it go through. It could be as illogical, as ill thought out as you

might want, but when the government has a majority they make that decision and

they have made the decision here to bring that piece of legislation forth.

They talk about unjust enrichment. We are going to do this because we don't

want the bar owners to have the $13 million back. Well, I hope that is not the

only reason that the government is passing this bill, because they are being

sued in a class action by the bar owners who are looking for the $13 million

that the government illegally took. That is the bottom line: the government

illegally took $13 million out of somebody's pocket, because they were not

allowed to do it.

One issue is: What happens to the $13 million? That is a legitimate question,

what happens to it? According to what the minister is saying, the government

have decided, in their wisdom, well, we know one thing that is not going to

happen to it. It is not going to go back to the bar owners, because that puts

$13 million in their pockets and they would be unjustly enriched. In other

words, we are going to give them money that is not justified and they should not

have.

That does not take away from the propriety, the appropriateness, of making a

bill retroactive. Surely, if the issue was that you should not have taken it in

the first place, the issue is: What do we do with it now that we took it

illegally? Maybe the government wants to find something else to do with it,

other than just saying we are not going to give it back to the bar owners.

I do not think that is a proper piece of justification for making a

retroactive bill. The bottom line is, once this bill goes through sure, you

kept it from going to the bar owners, but how does that justify that you still

have money in your hands you should not have had in the first place? We are

still left with the question of: What is government going to do with the $13

million?