December 9, 2010 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 47

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the Chair would like to welcome two guests seated in the Speaker's

gallery. The Chair would like to welcome the President of the NunatuKavut

Community Council, Mr. Chris Montague, and welcome to a long-time member and

former Cabinet minister of this Assembly, Mr. Kevin Alyward.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard: the hon.

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

of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue; the

hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & La Poile; and the hon. the Member

for the District of Bay of Islands.

The hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House to recognize a very

talented young man from my district, Mr. Brandon Baker, son of Cynthia and Rick

Baker of Birchy Bay.

Brandon graduated from Lewisporte Collegiate in June of 2010. At the age of

eighteen he is already a very accomplished young man. He graduated from high

school with an overall academic honours average of 96 per cent.

He is the recipient of many scholarships, including the Greenwood Academy

Alumni Scholarship, the Lewisporte Area Flight 15 Scholarship, the Clement

Williams Memorial Scholarship, the MUN Entrance Scholarship, the EastLink

Scholarship, the Electoral District Scholarship, and the Municipal Assessment

Agency Scholarship. In fact, Mr. Speaker, he could not accept all the

scholarship offers because of certain fairness criteria attached to some of

these awards.

Presently, he is studying mechanical engineering at Memorial University of

Newfoundland. He is achieving marks ranging anywhere from 96 per cent to 100 per

cent, recently writing a physics mid-term getting 100 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, Brandon's accomplishments are a source of pride to his parents

and to his community. He is an example of the many talented, spirited and

brilliant young people we have in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand in this hon. House today to recognize and congratulate a

very accomplished playwright from my district, Mr. Robert Chafe, who was

recently awarded the Governor General's Literary Award for Drama for his stage

adaptation of Michael Crummy's book, Afterimage . The play had its world

premiere in Toronto on April 16, 2009.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time Robert has been shortlisted for the

prestigious Governor General's award. In 2004 two of Robert's plays, Tempting

Providence and Butler's Marsh were nominated for the same prize.

Tempting Providence , Mr. Speaker, is entering its eighth year of national

and international touring.

Mr. Speaker, since 1995 Robert has been working with production partner,

Jillian Keiley and their company Artistic Fraud of Newfoundland. Their

groundbreaking form of theatre has caught the attention of the nation through

their creative staging and innovative use of voice and sound called

kaleidography which produces a visually stunning theatre experience.

I encourage all hon. members to take in an Artistic Fraud show at some point.

They will have a perfect opportunity to do so when Robert Chafe's newest play,

Oil and Water , which retells the incredible true story of Lanier Phillips

who was shipwrecked aboard the USS Truxton in 1942 in St. Lawrence, will

premiere at the LSPU Hall this February.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Robert Chafe

and wishing this very talented Newfoundlander and Labradorian all the best in

his future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand here in this hon. House today to recognize Truce Sound Day, a special

day that was created this year to commemorate the first meeting between the

Harbour in 1612. This harbour attracted settlers because of the easy access to

Trinity and Placentia Bays.

Truce Sound Day took place in Sunnyside on August 7, 2010. This day will

promote the awareness of Sunnyside's history and to pique the interests of the

community itself and this great Province. Through the re-enactment of the

meeting, and the Beothuk artifacts that have been discovered at Frenchman's

Island in Sunnyside, we hope that Sunnyside will be identified in the future as

an historic site to visit in upcoming years.

I was pleased to be part of the celebration for the momentous day, and I ask

all the members of this House to recognize this wonderful occasion with me, and

I also ask all the members of this hon. House to join me in wishing the Heritage

Committee of Sunnyside all the success in their future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

It gives me great pleasure today to rise and congratulate Mr. George Robert

Parsons of Rose Blanche on the recent celebration of his 101st birthday.

Mr. Parsons was born in Rose Blanche on July 22, 1909. He had five brothers,

five sisters, and he and two sisters still remain. On April 16, 1936, he married

Mary Elizabeth Payne; and they had four daughters and one son, of which their

son is now deceased. Mr. and Mrs. Parsons spent their married life at Rose

Blanche, where Mr. Parsons was self-employed as a fisherman. Unfortunately, Mary

passed away last April, shortly after their seventy-third wedding anniversary.

Mr. Parsons is still living in his own home. He spends his time watching TV and

strolling down to the local stage, as well as being active in his shed.

Mr. Parsons continues to live in relatively good health. He is currently at

the Dr. Charles LeGrow Health Centre, but his daughter tells us he is expected

to be released any day, and his doctor informed them that he has the blood

pressure of a teenager. He has fourteen grandchildren, twenty-two

great-grandchildren, and four great-great-grandchildren. For the past number of

years, his birthday is a major celebration in the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour

Le Cou. His family hosts an open house at his home with family, friends, and

music. He has all his faculties, he is adored by his community, and he has a

very supportive family.

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

101st birthday greetings to Robert George Parsons. All the best, Mr. Parsons, to

you and your family.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a

much beloved lady in the Town of Meadows.

Born in Ramea, Minnie Vallis left her home at the age of fourteen to start

her teaching career. At the age of sixteen, Mrs. Vallis was teaching in Fortune

Bay, married and expecting her first child.

Since that time, Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Vallis, with the experience she gained as

a teacher, centered her focus on assisting others. She spent her lifetime as a

social reformer working beside students, youth, seniors, communities, and people

with disabilities and caregivers.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, October 8 of this year, Minnie, as she is

affectionately known, was recognized for her lifetime service to the people and

communities of Newfoundland and Labrador. Minnie was presented with the Doctor

of Laws degree at the fall convocation of Memorial University, Corner Brook

campus.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members here today to recognize Minnie Vallis for her

past achievements and we look forward to working with her in years to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, just over one year ago, on November 2, 2009, the

provincial government assumed responsibility for the design and delivery of

EI-funded Employment Benefits and Support Measures through the Labour Market

Development Agreement.

In 2010-2011, the Province will deliver over $146 million through these

programs that assist EI-eligible individuals to participate in training

programs, to start their own business, to find work or to gain valuable work

experience.

Through programs like the Job Creation Partnership and the Labour Market

Partnership, the LMDA is also supporting community partners and industry in

carrying out initiatives to address their human resource challenges or to

enhance community infrastructure.

This fiscal year, we have supported over 10,000 individuals in accessing work

experience opportunities, participating in training, or in starting their own

business.

The Province has approved 264 new Job Creation Partnership projects

supporting 1,380 individuals. The total investment for these projects has been

$13.6 million this year.

We have been making unprecedented investments in skills development. We have

already invested over $97.7 million this fiscal year, compared to $94.8 million

for the whole of last year, and there is more to come. We have supported over

9,000 individuals in starting or completing their programs, including 1,382 new

apprentices.

At the same time we are continuing to learn a great deal as to how we can

better shape the LMDA programs to meet the needs of the residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador and our provincial priorities.

Through the remainder of this fiscal year, we will continue to review and

make adjustments to the LMDA programs and services with a focus on better

streamlining business processes and increasing consistency in policies and

practices for clients across the Province.

We will standardize and harmonize intake periods for skills development

applications and other LMDA programs, such as the Job Creation Partnership

program, to help ensure more responsive application processing times.

We will introduce new approval processes for grant-based programs to ensure

that they are better aligned with provincial and regional economic priorities;

and we will review our skills development supports, such as amounts provided for

living allowances, to make sure participants throughout the Province have fair

and equitable access to these benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of our accomplishments since the devolution of the

LMDA programming and expect that 2011-2012 will be a hallmark year for these

programs.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement, and to say

that the Labour Market Development Agreement, no doubt, is a long-standing

historic agreement that began way back in 1997.

We also have to remember, when we talk about the facts and figures the

minister mentioned, about the unemployment rates that we see here in the city of

7.8 per cent, about the average throughout rural Newfoundland and Labrador being

17.9 per cent, there is no doubt that those programs are tremendous programs to

help those to get ready for the labour market, Mr. Speaker, but one of the

things we really have to do, which was mentioned yesterday in the private

member's motion, we have to make sure of the retention of our young people so

that they can find jobs right here in our own Province. We have to invest in

literacy, too, Mr. Speaker, so people can be prepared for those programs. I know

that is happening because we have a facility in my district, the Discovery

Centre, where people do accept the responsibility.

There are two things the minister mentioned, that I am glad government is

going to try to correct. One is them is: We will standardize and harmonize

intake periods to help ensure more responsive application processing at times;

and the other one is to make sure that the amount is provided for living

allowances to help the participants be able to take

part in the program.

I know, Mr. Speaker, those are issues that are of concern to many

individuals, but I have to say - and I congratulate them - that the job creation

program and the labour market partnerships are two wonderful programs and we

look forward to them continuing into the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement.

I am glad to see government looking at the Labour Market Development

Agreement in terms of amending it to make it more flexible and responsive to our

local economy and labour force needs here in this Province. That is one of the

benefits of the program: LMDA having been downloaded and the partnership program

as well to the provincial level where the Province is managing the money that

used to be managed under Human Resources and Labour.

One of the big benefits is that now we can shape programs to meet our needs

here, but we do have needs that the programs, especially the LMDA, do not meet.

Of course, the LMDA programs are EI funds, and there are young people who have

not yet accumulated enough hours for EI, or not being paid EI premiums, who

cannot access those programs if need be. Yet, they desperately need training and

upgrading. There are also women who maybe have not been in the workforce, or

have been for short periods of time and have not, either, had the ability to

access EI funded programs.

So, I would like to see more employment training programs in place. I know

there are some things that have been done to help women. For example, women, who

I am aware of, who did the Orientation to Trades and Technology Program, went on

in training. There was money allotted for the OTT; it was not EI eligible.

So, the government has been creative and I look forward to seeing more

creative thoughts coming as to how we can make the program flexible for us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to bring attention to

International Human Rights Day. Each year, December 10 is set aside in

recognition of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the

United Nations General Assembly in 1948. This year's theme is, Speak Up, Stop

Discrimination, during which time we are encouraged to celebrate the dedication

of human rights defenders who work to end discrimination.

In this Province, Mr. Speaker, our government works tirelessly to protect

human rights and freedoms for each and every Newfoundlander and Labradorian. It

is vital that no one in our society be subjected to discrimination in any form.

The protection of human rights and human dignity is fundamental to the proper

functioning of any society.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I was pleased to stand in this hon. House and

introduce a new Human Rights Act that is progressive and sets the course for

protection of the human rights for residents of this Province. That new

legislation has now replaced the Human Rights Code, which first came into force

in 1971.

The new Human Rights Act contains four major changes that reflect the society

we live in today and further help to protect the rights and dignity of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

We changed the title from a code to

an act and have added a

preamble because

we believe, Mr. Speaker, this is important as it signifies to everyone in our

Province that this legislation is law. We have modernized the language to

reflect the changing ideas and attitudes of our society. We have expanded the

protections afforded under the act in two ways by adding new grounds of

discrimination and by expanding the definition of discrimination. Finally, we

have improved the procedure for the processing of complaints with the Human

Rights Commission.

Mr. Speaker, we have also proven our commitment to the protection of human

rights through our continued support of the Human Rights Commission in this

Province. Funding for the commission now, Mr. Speaker, stands at over $1 million

thanks to the investments of this government.

Mr. Speaker, our investments in human rights and our significant new

legislation serve as the guideposts for how we treat each other in our society

and I am confident it reflects the values of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

and will do so for many years to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

We, of course, in Canada have long been known throughout the world as being

staunch defenders of human rights and freedoms throughout the country and

throughout the world. Some countries and the inhabitants of certain countries in

the world live in very atrocious circumstances when we talk about human rights.

We are very fortunate to live in a country where we not only have them but we

make sure they are heavily enforced and carried through on.

It was great to see that we did in fact have an overhaul, after forty years,

of our Human Rights Act that came in, in 1971. Over the course of time, of

course, circumstances change, people expect more political circumstances,

different ideals in our society, and our new act certainly reflects some of

those.

We feel there are some shortcomings in terms of the definition when it comes

to disfigurement, for example. We made those issues known when we debated the

legislation, and government did not see fit at that time to follow through. I am

sure over the course of time some of these things, as they are implemented and

go through the human rights systems and appeal process, some time again we

might, I suspect, find our way back here to amend the code in that regard. That

is a good thing when we acknowledge that it is not all right in the first place

and we are prepared to be open-minded and accept changing laws as times change.

With regard to the Human Rights Commission, the minister is certainly well

aware that we feel, as an Opposition Party, and a lot of people in this Province

feel, that the Human Rights Commission should be distinct and at arm's-length

from government. Although it is funded by government, it should be distinct from

government so that it is stand-alone and it is not influenced by the paymaster

in any way, shape or form who puts the money into its operations. We feel that

is a legitimate way to operate and hopefully we will see the day when it is, in

fact, a stand-alone agency.

Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a day to be recognized: human rights, not only in

this Province but throughout the world, actually. We need to be vigilant as

people to make sure that we continue to be staunch defenders of human rights and

freedoms, and a leader when it comes to implementation of those rights.

Thank you.

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

Vidi.

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

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. It is important

that we mark December 10 as the day of human rights throughout the world. It is

something that we should always be grateful for; that we have come to the point

that we have come internationally, of recognizing basic rights for all human

beings.

I welcome the opportunity to raise some points with regard to our own

legislation. I am, in many ways, very pleased with the new act, but there were

issues that I raised in consultations, and issues I spoke to when we passed the

act, that I hope someday we will revisit and make changes in our legislation

with regard to them.

One, of course, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that our party also believes that

the Human Rights Commission should be a truly independent body such as the

Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, or the Office of the Auditor General. Of

all of our statutory offices it should stand alone and it should be independent,

funded by government, but be able to be accountable to the minister while

standing alone.

There were some things that we wanted to see in our new legislation. For

example, the social model of disability which was adopted by the UN is not in

our code. We still have a medical definition of disability which places the

disability in the person,

whereas the UN has a definition that looks at

disability from the social context. That is something, I would hope, that we

would continue to look at and the minister would see as something that he would

be willing to change.

Another thing I would have liked to have seen in our new code is the

recognition of protection to transsexuals and transgendered individuals, but not

including the words gender identity and gender expression under the grounds.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the time to make these points. I would

have liked to have done it in a more silent room, but thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

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

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Premier was asked to provide information which

would justify her claim that power from Holyrood is more expensive in the long

term than power from Muskrat Falls. Once again, she failed to provide that

information. She did say, however, that the cost of refurbishing Holyrood, and I

quote: well over almost $1 billion.

Well, we have gone through Nalcor's filings with the Public Utilities Board,

and the total cost of refurbishing Holyrood, over the next twenty years, comes

to something like $800 million. A mistake, a mere mistake of some $200 million

right there, and it is certainly a lot less than the $6.2 billion it will cost

to develop Muskrat Falls.

My question for the Premier is: Why, Premier, are you intent on portraying

Holyrood as being more costly than it actually is?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in the House earlier this week, the Acting Leader of the

Opposition made a claim that I had failed to provide information, or that I had

said information was available through the Internet that he could not find. Mr.

Speaker, I went back upstairs; my assistant, within one minute, downloaded the

document he was referring to from the Internet. I immediately sent a copy to

him. Mr. Speaker, I brought a copy to table later today, because it would not be

unlike the Leader of the Opposition to say that he still did not have his hands

on it.

Mr. Speaker, on page two, I do believe, of that document

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to conclude her answer.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: On page two of that document, Mr. Speaker, is the

loading forecast. On page six of that document is the costing. In there lies his

answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Now that the Premier has had an opportunity to try to deflect things again,

Premier, would you like to try a simple answer?

Why are you, on one page, saying that it is going to be over $1 billion on

Holyrood, and the actual figures you have filed through the PUB, over twenty

years, is going to be $800 million?

Now, that is a $200 million mistake, Premier. Would you like to explain that

to the people?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it has been stated quite clearly by the President and CEO of

Nalcor that just the precipitators and scrubbers for Holyrood will be between

$600 and $800 million. Mr. Speaker, there will be approximately another $250

million needed to do plant upgrades and renovations in Holyrood.

Now, I know they were having trouble with math yesterday around the ferries;

they are having the same problem today. So, a huge cost to refurbishing

Holyrood, Mr. Speaker.

More than that, and probably more importantly, Mr. Speaker, we are still tied

to thermal generation and the price of oil which will drive electricity costs in

this Province well into the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Premier mentioned the

thermal generation again, because she certainly created the impression amongst

the public that the thermal plant at Holyrood supplies most of the energy on

this Island, for some reason or other. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The truth is that Holyrood provides somewhere it varies from 15 per cent

to 25 per cent of the Island's total energy needs annually. It then fluctuates.

The other 80 per cent of our energy comes from hydroelectric sources, clean

hydroelectric sources here in the Province. Yet, the Premier would have us

believe that because oil prices are projected to go up some 50 per cent in the

long term, our electricity bills also go up that much if we do not build Muskrat

Falls. I cannot understand the logic.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose his question.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes.

Would the Premier answer: If Holyrood supplies only 20 per cent of our

energy, how would our oil prices on that 20 per cent drive up our overall bills

by 50 per cent?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Acting Leader of the Opposition takes small pieces of

information and tries to make a broad argument for his position, but it is

flawed, fundamentally flawed. The thing that the people of the Province

understand is that the Public Utilities Board governs electricity or power

supply in this Province. Nalcor is legislated to provide the least-cost

electricity to the people of the Province. So, Mr. Speaker, you have to look at

what constitutes less cost. You have to be able to justify it to the Public

Utilities Board, and you have to be able to explain what the load forecast is

and how you are going to meet it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I say to the Premier, that was a pretty helpful

explanation to the people of the Province as well. Fluff it off now and say that

the Public Utilities Board is going to make the determination.

Premier, we will continue to answer the small pieces because, rather than

take a thirty-eight-page term sheet that nobody in government is prepared to

explain in this House, we are going to keep your feet to the fire so that you

will explain it. Absolutely!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the Premier said the

cost of generation from Muskrat, if developed, would be 14.3 cents per kilowatt

hour, and that is to bring it to the Island. That was their figure. Now,

currently, a lot of that power is going to get sold and used by Newfoundland

Power, who in turn transports it on to consumers here in St. John's and

throughout the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose his question now.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Tacked on to the 14.3 from Nalcor is the six cents that Newfoundland Power

puts on. Mr. Speaker, we do not have

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. member has a question, I ask him to pose it.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

We are not getting 14.3 cent power.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Are there any further questions?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, thank you.

Since 2006 I have been asking successive Conservative Health Ministers where

their plan for a home care and long-term care program is. They all said they

were working on it, but, Mr. Speaker, it was continually postponed. Finally,

consultations were begun this past August; but, Mr. Speaker, there is still no

sign of the report from the consultations. This week the minister announced in

this House a litany of reviews, including a Province-wide skill mix review and a

potential operational review in Corner Brook concerning long-term care, but no

mention of the report.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: When are we

going to see the home care and long-term care plan that should alleviate these

problems? When are we going to see action from government, instead of talk, on

home care and long-term care?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I indicated earlier this week in this House, we have conducted long-term

care consultation sessions throughout the Province. We have had tremendous

participation by the public. We now have to, Mr. Speaker, take all of that

information, accumulate it, correlate it and essentially come up with the

strategy.

Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, we have been working on this strategy for years. Look

at the long-term care facilities that we have built throughout this Province: in

Corner Brook, the new St. John's home, in Carbonear, Happy Valley-Goose Bay,

Labrador West, and Lewisporte, Mr. Speaker. We have invested significant amounts

of money.

In the home care sector, Mr. Speaker, we have also increased wages. In the

personal care homes, Mr. Speaker, since 2004 we have increased the rates from

$1,112 to $1,717; more than $500. So, Mr. Speaker, the investments go on. As I

said back last fall: We are going to do it and we will do it right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

I would like to point out to the minister that money being put into

infrastructure and raising salaries is not a strategy. Mr. Speaker, we are

seeing over and over again that people are suffering under the present long-term

care system. We see that there is insufficient staff to care adequately for

patients, try as they might. Mr. Speaker, families are suffering because of

government policy. The most vulnerable who do not have the wherewithal to fight

for themselves are getting the short end of the stick.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Is this government going to put in adequate

human and other resources for the existing facilities to take care of people

before he gets his strategy in place?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier this week the Leader of the Third Party asked me about: When are we

going to conduct a review of the health care system in general? I am assuming

she is talking about the long-term care included in that.

Mr. Speaker, the last time that a review of the health care system, in

general, was conducted in this Province, the recommendations that came back were

that we would lay off hundreds of people, there would be millions of dollars in

cuts, and we would centralize clinical services. Essentially, Mr. Speaker, we

would take all of the services out of rural Newfoundland and Labrador and we

would centralize them.

This is the kind of question that is put by the hon. member to me, Mr.

Speaker, with suggestions that we close everything else down. Is she suggesting

the same thing in relation to long-term care?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

I would point out to the minister that the very fact of the results of that

study and the things that were put in place are a sign that we do need to look

more at what has happened because of that study.

Mr. Speaker, government is not doing its job. Our elderly and those who need

care are being shifted from one facility to another. Government's inability to

deal with our long-term care issues resulted, on November 25, in a

ninety-two-year-old man being forced to move a three hour's drive from his

family, five days later returned to the hospital. He died a week later, all

within thirteen days, Mr. Speaker.

When are we going to see, Mr. Speaker, a comprehensive home care and

long-term care program that meets the needs of people and their families?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I indicated in this hon. House yesterday that I was aware of the unfortunate

situation that arose with this gentleman, and I expressed sympathies to the

family. I also expressed, Mr. Speaker, over the last couple of days that I am

aware of the problems that have arisen in the long-term care facility in Corner

Brook.

Mr. Speaker, there have been at least three public forums and open meetings

with families. I indicated again yesterday that part of the problem with opening

up a new facility like this, with 236 beds, is that there are issues that we

have to look at: Is there enough staffing? Are we delivering services properly?

I indicated that we were willing to consider, Mr. Speaker, an operational

review to ensure we have it right, because this facility is a template for the

new facility in St. John's and in Carbonear. We are not afraid of the truth, Mr.

Speaker, and we will go out there and find out what it is, and we will implement

the policies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The Premier confirmed here this week that it was going to cost 14.3 cents per

kilowatt hour for the Muskrat Falls power. We also know that the PUB currently

allows Newfoundland Power, which is going to use much of that power, to recover

at least six cents per kilowatt hour. Premier, that is not 14.3 cent power; that

is over twenty-cent power.

Can you explain that to the people, why you are out talking about a 50 per

cent increase, when in reality it is a 114 per cent increase?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is one cost associated with capital, in terms of the

building of generation and transmission infrastructure to have the capacity to

develop power. There is another issue in terms of operations and maintenance.

Mr. Speaker, the PUB has a regulated rate of return on transmission here in the

Province that is applied to Newfoundland and Labrador Power and will also be

applied to Emera Energy, Mr. Speaker. They are two different things. All of the

capital expenses will accumulate to $143 per megawatt hour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Again, the Premier has not explained that it is not twenty-plus cent power;

it is 14.3. The PUB has not played a role in this yet.

Premier, the public has been told as well, or given the impression, that

Holyrood is going to be shut down once this is all done. Yet, Nalcor, in its

2011 capital budget, says: following completion of the Lower Churchill project

the Holyrood plant will continue to be an essential component of the provincial

electrical grid. That does not sound like a plant closing.

Can you explain what is exactly anticipated with respect to Holyrood? Is it

closing or not going to close after we inject this $6.2 billion into this

project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we will not be using thermal generation from Holyrood once

Muskrat Falls comes online.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, it is important that we move away from

thermal generation so that we can manage the costs of power generation here in

the Province, that we can provide reliable costs, that we can provide

predictable costs to the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, this is clean green energy for domestic use, for industrial use.

It is a good deal for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and

they are reflecting that in their approval of this plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the NunatuKavut of Labrador has

expressed concern over their government's lack of meaningful consultation by

government with them over the Muskrat Falls proposal. They held a press

conference this morning and expressed that again, and in fact, said quite

clearly that if there is not consultation, there will be no Muskrat Falls

without them. The Premier did answer the other day saying they would have some

consultation during the environmental assessment process.

Well I say, Premier, that is not adequate, according to them, and I ask you:

Is government prepared to consult with the NunatuKavut with regard to an IBA so

that they are part of this process totally, as opposed to just part of the

environmental assessment process?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say that this government is proud of its

record with Aboriginal people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we negotiate IBAs with groups who have

established land claims in the Province. Mr. Speaker, we understand that

NunatuKavut has such a claim before the federal government, and we encourage the

federal government to deal with that claim expeditiously. Mr. Speaker, we have

negotiated a wonderful, wonderful project here with tremendous benefits for all

of the people of the Province, particularly the Innu of Labrador; and secondly,

to all other people in Labrador; and thirdly, to the people of the Province,

generally.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good deal for Newfoundland and Labrador, it is a good

deal for the Innu, and it is a good deal for the NunatuKavut.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, in December 2008, this government expropriated

Abitibi assets in Grand Falls-Windsor, including a hydroelectric generating

station at Star Lake.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us exactly what is the status of the

Fortis stake in the Exploits generation facilities which you expropriated? For

example, are you still paying Fortis for what you expropriated from them, and if

so, how much?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we established a relationship with these companies from the

moment we decided to expropriate. It has been a long process through bankruptcy

protection, through various appeals, through the settlement of the NAFTA claim,

Mr. Speaker. We are at a place now where very soon you will see legislation

brought forward here in the House of Assembly so we can conclude all our

arrangements and keep these companies whole and end the process, as we promised

to do when we took the action earlier, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, since the government's accidental expropriation at

Grand Falls-Windsor, the former AbitibiBowater paper mill has sat idle.

Mr. Speaker, my question today is: What has been the cost to date for this

Province's taxpayers to mothball this facility? What have Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians paid in terms of immediate environmental costs, security costs,

legal fees, consulting fees, and any other costs attached to maintaining the

property?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, when we took possession of the mill it was

properly idled and the current status is that it remains idle with security in

place waiting, I guess, to see where we go with that particular idled mill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It would still be nice to have some idea of what the cost has been to date.

For nearly two years the former Abitibi mill at Grand Falls-Windsor has been

out of use. In that time, at least two companies have come forward with

potential plans to revive the facility; one as recently as this past summer. In

both cases, any tentative deals have fallen through before ever gaining any

traction.

My question is: What, if any, plans does this government have for the

expropriated mill at Grand Falls, and can we expect future use for this

facility?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a number of companies that have expressed interest

in the property at the Grand Falls mill area. As has been our mantra right from

the beginning with this, we will evaluate all submissions to see what is in the

best interest of the Central Region, seeing that we can maximize the amount of

employment, maximize the value of the resource, and make sure that we maximize

the return on the resource to the people of the Province. When we are finished

that evaluation, I will come forth with the recommendation to Cabinet at that

point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, Corner Brook Pulp and Paper are proceeding with

their plan for the trial run of burning tires for fuel in their mill. Several

area residents have expressed concern over the levels of emissions this may

cause.

I ask the question: Can the minister confirm what guidelines, if any, were

issued to Corner Brook Pulp and Paper for inclusion in their EA, and are they

required to study all forms of toxins that may increase during this trial run?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

As the hon. member, I am sure, is aware, last Friday that process closed.

There was some, I believe, 170 submissions to the Minister of Environment. She

has ten days to review those submissions, and I have every confidence that the

minister will come back with a recommendation.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure the minister will come back with a recommendation.

Mr. Speaker, the government is prepared to invest $4.4 billion in the Muskrat

Falls deal to make our Province 7 per cent more green while, at the same time,

allowing Corner Brook Pulp and Paper to proceed with their plan to burn tires

for fuel.

I ask the minister: What justification do you have for allowing this company

to burn tires as an alternative energy source?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the hon. member was listening

or not, but I think he should listen this time because I am going to tell him

exactly what is happening.

What is happening is there is a process that is unfolding. Yes, there is an

assessment being done. Last Friday it ended, and the minister has ten days to

respond. There have been 170 submissions and, Mr. Speaker, once they are

reviewed, we will respond to that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, in the past, the Minister of Environment and

Conservation and the CEO for the MMSB have indicated that other options were

being considered for the use of tires that are currently stockpiled in Dunville;

however, it now appears that they are wholly supporting the burning of tires as

the only option.

My question to the minister is: What other options were considered for the

stockpiled tires? Was it a consultant's report, and, if so, could a copy be

released?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, the only thing we are supporting is that members

can now buy Q-tips to clean out their ears. That is about the best thing I can

advise the hon. member.

I can only tell him we have not approved the burning of tires anywhere. There

are 170 submissions in. People are concerned, and rightfully so. The Minister of

Environment is very informed on this topic. She will hear all the submissions

and she will make a decision. The hon. member should read the paper, or have one

of his researchers read the paper, and will find out the answer in the ten days

allowed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I saw to the minister: We do not need Q-tips to

clean out our ears, but the residents of Corner Brook might need a solution to

wash out their eyes after this starts.

Mr. Speaker, the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board is a Crown agency of the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador reporting to the Minister of Environment

and Conservation. They have endorsed the use of tire-derived fuel at Corner

Brook Pulp and Paper as a solution to tire town in Dunville.

I ask the minister: Do you consider yourself to be in a conflict of interest

as your Crown agency is endorsing a plan that is currently undergoing

environmental assessment, and are you able to be unbiased in your decision?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, there is a process that unfolds when anybody

wants to burn tires or dispose of tires, and that process is currently

happening. Last Friday was the deadline for submissions.

There were 170 submissions submitted to this government, to our minister -

our Minister of Environment. Mr. Speaker, she has ten days to review all of

those submissions and she will respond appropriately. To say, Mr. Speaker, that

we have approved it is absolutely false.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, in the Throne Speech on March 10, 2008, government said, and I

quote, "My Government will introduce whistleblower legislation this year after

appropriate consultation has taken place." We know there was no whistle-blower

legislation introduced in 2008. We know there was no such bill introduced in

2009. We know there was no such bill introduced up to now, December 2010.

I ask the Premier: When can we expect to see this legislation come before the

House, or is this simply a promise that was conveniently made at the time but

you have no intention of keeping?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, let me say from the outset that this

government is very much committed to openness and accountability. That has been

demonstrated through a number of initiatives that this government has

participated in, including passing the House of Assembly Accountability,

Integrity and Administration Act; the Lobbyist Registration Act; and

Transparency and Accountability Act.

With regard to whistle-blower legislation, this is a significant piece of

legislation, Mr. Speaker. A lot of work has been done it, a lot of discussions

have been held on it, a lot of scanning has been done it.

The provinces that have whistle-blower legislation at the moment are

undergoing the regular growing pains of new legislation. We are monitoring that

to see what best practices come out of it, how it is working out, what

discrepancies lie in it, so when we produce our legislation, we have the best

piece of legislation we can possibly come up with.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister could tell us then -

it has been three years since you promised it. We assume you had some idea of

when you promised it, what you were promising. You have had three years since.

Rather than just a fluff answer, can you give us some idea of who the

minister or his department consulted with in the last three years? Give us a

couple of names of interested stakeholders who you have consulted with?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the department has consulted with

jurisdictions all across Canada, all associations, anybody with a stakeholder

interest in whistle-blower legislation. We have done a tremendous amount of work

on it, a tremendous amount of consultation on it. We are monitoring existing

legislation in other jurisdictions to see how it is working out. It is new in

most provinces, and when we see how it works out, what discrepancies can be

ironed out of these legislations, where the discrepancies are, and what the best

practices are, Mr. Speaker, we will look at bringing in our legislation to serve

the best needs of our public service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier this week, government announced the creation of two new safety

organizations for the fishing industry. While it was a long time coming, we were

pleased to see the emphasis on enhanced safety for the fishing industry, which

we all know is a dangerous line of work.

The concern we have, and we have heard this expressed by many harvesters this

week, is that once the three year period funding by government runs out,

fishermen will be left with yet another fee to contend with. Harvesters are

already facing difficult times making their profession viable in the face of

challenging times in this industry. They already feel they are fee'd to death.

I ask the minister: Can you explain how these two organizations will be

self-sustaining in three years time?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation

Commission dues that are paid, Mr. Speaker, are not paid by the harvesters. They

are paid by the processors, for starters. Mr. Speaker, you cannot put a price on

safety. We have our vessels now, Mr. Speaker, who are often smaller than the

bigger ships that were once at sea, going further.

So this is an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to create an even safer environment

for the fish harvesters in our Province, and secondly, for the folks that work

in the plants. Mr. Speaker, if we improve that, the natural evolution is that

the amount that is charged goes down. So, Mr. Speaker, within three years, we

will let the process work through, and then we will see what the results will

be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My question is for the Premier. The Newfoundland and Labrador Office of

Federal-Provincial Relations has been without a representative for some eleven

months now.

I ask the Premier, because we know this was a pet peeve of the former

Premier: Do you intend to keep this office in place, and if so, when do you

intend to appoint a person to that position?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will have been in this position one week tomorrow, Mr.

Speaker, and I have had more pressing issues

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: that I have had to deal with during that particular

time frame, Mr. Speaker. It is certainly something that is on my radar. I am

going to deal with it in the coming weeks, and at that time, when I make a

decision, I will be happy to share it with you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table, in this House today, the Generation

Planning Issues 2010 July Update from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and

Nalcor.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents.

In accordance with

section 51 of the House of Assembly Accountability,

Integrity and Administration Act, I hereby table the annual report of the

Speaker on the activities of the House of Assembly Management Commission for the

2009-2010 fiscal year.

Further tabling of documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005. (Bill 52)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

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

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

An Act To

Implement The Comprehensive Integrated Tax Co-ordination Agreement Between The

Mr. Speaker, I also give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 3. (Bill 44)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Public Accountants Act. (Bill 49)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Abitibi Consolidated Rights and Assets Act. (Bill

47)

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

Act To Amend The Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. (Bill 51)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

The hon. the Government House Leader and Acting Minister of Human Resources,

Labour and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a

bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.

(Bill 45)

Further, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 No. 2. (Bill 48)

Mr. Speaker, I also give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act. (Bill 50)

Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that under Standing Order 11, I

shall move that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, December 13,

Further, I give notice under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House

not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. Monday, December 13, 2010.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

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

and Community Services to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To

Amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act, 2005, Bill 41, and I further move that

the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister

of Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act, 2005, Bill 41, and that Bill

41 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to

introduce Bill 41 and that this bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act, 2005", carried. (Bill

41)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act, 2005.

(Bill 41)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 41 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 41 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 41 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

and Community Services to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To

Amend The Regional Health Authorities Act, Bill 42, and I further move that the

said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An

Act To Amend The Regional Health Authorities Act, Bill 42, and that Bill 42 be

now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to provide leave to introduce Bill 42 and

that this bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Regional Health Authorities Act", carried. (Bill 42)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Regional Health Authorities Act. (Bill

42)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 42 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 42 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 42 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Municipal Affairs, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend

The Municipalities Act, 1999, Bill 43, and I further move that the said bill be

now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister

of Municipal Affairs shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To

Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999, Bill 43, and that Bill 43 be now read a

first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 43 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs to introduce a bill, "An

Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999", carried. (Bill 43)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 43)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 43 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 43 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 43 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Order 1, second reading of

Bill 32.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 32,

An Act To Amend The

Real Estate Trading Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading

Act". (Bill 32)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of

Labrador Affairs, that Bill 32,

An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act, be

now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to pay compliments to my predecessor,

the current Minister of Municipal Affairs, and what I should say, I guess, is

that I would like to thank him very, very, very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, the Real Estate Trading Act, what we are doing

in this one is making an amendment to remove the business of real property

management from the application of the act.

As most people know in this Province, real estate, especially in the Avalon

area, has been very brisk over the past number of years. In fact, Newfoundland

and Labrador has the highest rate of home ownership in Canada. Just recently,

most people might have heard too, that housing prices in most areas of Canada

are expected to increase, but in our Province of Newfoundland we are expected to

lead the way again with an estimated 8 per cent increase in the average price of

a home in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the Real Estate Trading Act is

an act that protects consumers in

their dealings with real estate salespersons and agents when purchasing or

selling a property. Not everyone can do that. The educational requirements to be

met before an individual can call themselves a real estate agent or a

salesperson, they have to do a certain course of study and be knowledgeable in

the real estate transactions. Once they are licensed to become involved in that

business, they certainly are expected to act in an ethical manner in all

dealings that they do with consumers; because what we are talking about, Mr.

Speaker, is the protection of the consumers interest.

This legislation that we are talking about now is the protection of consumers

in the sale and purchase of property. The item that we are talking about

removing from this act today of real property managers does not really fit in

the business of buying and selling properties. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it was

never the intent of the Real Estate Trading Act to have included dealings with

respect to property managers. Mr. Speaker, that is why we are removing that, or

asking to have this removed from the Real Estate Trading Act.

Just to give an example, I guess, of what we are talking about in terms of

property managers, is that if I own a property and I wanted to sell it - or not

wanted to sell it, but if I wanted to pass it on to a person to look after that

property for me, to collect the rent, to see that repairs were made as needed

and things like that. These things were never intended, like I said before, to

be a part of the Real Estate Trading Act. That is what we are talking about

removing from this act. Mr. Speaker, one really important thing about this

removal is that the rights of tenants will still be protected and these rights

will be protected through the Residential Tenancies Act.

Mr. Speaker, that is the only comment that I have to make at the beginning of

this debate. I look forward now to hearing comments from the other members.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say it is a pleasure to be able to stand today and make a few

comments with regard to the Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act, Bill 32.

Before I get into my few comments I want to congratulate the minister on this

being his first piece of legislation, his first bill that he will put before the

House. Even if we were against it, I guess he would not have much trouble

getting it put through the House of Assembly.

This is a piece of legislation that we know it is a minor change, but a very

important change, Mr. Speaker. All too often, we see changes, even though they

are minor, they are something that has to be done to protect the consumer. Mr.

Speaker, that is the sole purpose behind most legislation that we see coming

forward.

It was only today we know that we do it many times in conjunction with

other jurisdictions, and it was only this afternoon we heard the Minister of

Justice saying with regard to the whistleblower legislation, they were sizing up

what is happening in other jurisdictions. I am sure many of the points that

other provinces use will be a part of our legislation when it comes forward. Mr.

Speaker, a lot of times it is basically housekeeping, like the minister

mentioned. It may be an addition of a sentence or a word. It may be a deletion

of a word or two, but the main thing is that it is a part of the legislation

where people, the salespersons and agents, make sure that the consumers are

protected at all times.

With this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, in

section 1, really what it

does, the punctuation in

section 1 has been adjusted in order to remove real

property management from the definition of trade and confirms that the act does

not apply to real property management. I think the minister explained that. He

went on to say that, really, this probably should not have been a part of this

piece of legislation. I guess one of the key things and one of the questions I

had for the minister, and I will pose them probably in a little different way,

but it is good to see that this piece that is being taken from this legislation

will still be those people will be covered under the Residential Tenancies

Act.

I know last year, through the Department of Government Services, there were

other pieces of legislation that came in, like the Condominium Act and so on.

So, really, even though it has been taken out, it is not that those people will

be ignored totally.

Mr. Speaker, another

part in

section 4 has been adjusted to specifically

exclude persons involved in property management. Basically, overall, the sum

total of amendments in this act is to make sure to exclude persons involved in

property management from this particular act. This act, on a whole, pertains to

real estate agents, as the minister explained, and regulating the conduct of

their business.

Under trade, it goes on to reference, it says, (

i) a disposition or

acquisition of property; (ii) an offer to list real estate for sale; (iii) a

negotiation to further a sale, and (iv) is what is being deleted, the real

estate property management as a

section of government. Mr. Speaker, as the

minister stated, there are no major changes here; it is just a deletion of the

part when we reference real property management.

The question I had for the minister, I was wondering: By removing it from

this piece of legislation, where would it be covered under other legislation? I

think he already answered that for me, because he said those people would be

covered under the Residential Tenancies Act.

I know there was another piece of legislation last year; I am not quite sure

if it was called the Condominium Act or something pertaining to similar issues.

It is good to see that it is not just being taken away, eliminated from this

act, but it is also being covered off somewhere else.

As the minister stated, this piece of legislation solely looks after the real

estate end of it. It is good to know that what is being done here, the consumer

will be protected.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my place.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Minister of Government Services speaks now, he will close the

debate on second reading of this bill, Bill 32,

An Act To Amend The Real Estate

Trading Act.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Member for Port de Grave

for his comments. He is correct in that tenants who were involved with property

managers, they will automatically be covered through the Residential Tenancies

Act. So, it will not have any bearing at all upon these people.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add, too, that the property managers themselves,

they have been requesting that they be removed from this Real Estate Trading Act

because they did not see the point of being involved there anyway. Also, the

Building Owners and Management Association have been fully supportive of having

them removed.

Mr. Speaker, on that, I would like to conclude second reading on this bill.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House to move second reading of Bill 32,

An Act To

Amend The Real Estate Trading Act?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act. (Bill 32)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 32 has now been read a second time.

When shall Bill 32 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act", read a

second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.

(Bill 32)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I want to call from the Order Paper, Order 2,

second reading of Bill 33.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 33,

An Act To Amend The

Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 2, be now read a second time.

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

And Business Practices Act No. 2". (Bill 33)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to begin second reading. I move, seconded by the hon. Minister

of Fisheries and Aquaculture that Bill 33,

An Act To Amend The Consumer

Protection And Business Practices Act No. 2, be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 33 is

an act that will be amended and it will allow

consumers to start an action, a court action, against the manufacturer. What we

will be doing is broadening the definition of the word supplier to include a

person engaged in the business of manufacturing, importing, producing or

assembling goods. Right now, Mr. Speaker, that is not included in our

legislation. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we are the only Province in Canada where that

is not included in our legislation. By removing that requirement, that will put

it in order then to start an action of consumers entering into transactions

dealing with suppliers.

Mr. Speaker, the Consumer Protection and Business Practices Act is new

legislation which consolidates several different pieces of legislation that came

into effect last year. This new act took the place of, I think, probably seven

or eight, or eight or nine old acts that were in our legislation. I know some of

them were: the Consumer Protection Act; Direct Sellers Act; the Trade Practices

Act; and there were four or five more. So, these were all repealed.

The intent of the act is to prohibit unfair and unconscionable business

transactions and provide remedies for wronged consumers. That is the principal

purpose of this piece of legislation.

One of the old pieces of legislation that it replaced, the Consumer

Protection and Business Practices Act, was the Trade Practices Act, as I

mentioned earlier. It has come to the department's attention, Mr. Speaker, that

the act limited the definition of the word supplier that was included in the

legislation. It did not specifically include or it did not involve people who

were in the manufacturing part of the supplier business, or importing, or

producing, or assembling of goods.

Mr. Speaker, this came about, as some people may recall, a year or so ago.

Ches Crosbie Barristers took a class action suit against Imperial Tobacco. In

that class action suit, what it involved was the taking of that company to court

with respect to advertising that they used for some of their tobacco products.

The lawyer felt that it was not appropriate and it was misleading. As a result,

this came to our attention, and that is one of the main reasons, I guess,

because that is where his court case stopped, when it came to the

interpretation

of the judge in word supplier. It did not mean the manufacturers of the tobacco

products in this particular case.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, Newfoundland and Labrador is the only

jurisdiction that does not have this definition of supplier in its legislation.

What we are saying by broadening the definition of supplier, it will be more

encompassing of all suppliers in the business community, not just the retailers

or the wholesalers but everyone involved in that product.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, we will remove some wording in

section 10, which is

in the same spirit as the definition of supplier. Currently, that

section in the

current act states that a consumer has the right to start an action in court

where a consumer has entered into a transaction with a supplier and has suffered

damages as a result of unfair business practice or unconscionable act or

practice. By removing the words - as we are doing - entered into a transaction,

we are removing a limited

interpretation of the wording and also removing a

limitation of the actions of a consumer in seeking compensation for damages.

Mr. Speaker, basically that is what this piece of legislation is all about.

Right now, I will conclude my remarks on this part of the debate and leave the

floor open to any other member who would like to participate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Like I said earlier, it is a pleasure to be able to stand and make a few

comments with regard to Bill 33,

An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And

Business Practices Act No. 2.

Like the minister stated, this is a fairly new piece of legislation that was

brought forward last year by his former colleague and replaces some six, seven

or eight pieces of legislation.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, similar to what I said earlier, what we are doing

here today is, again, protection for the consumer. From time to time, changes

have to be made to make sure that should take place. It is good to hear the

minister saying where this came from, because with regard to the issue with

tobacco products and how it went before the courts, the definition of a supplier

and where it could go.

Mr. Speaker, there are many incidents like that. I know there is another

piece of legislation that is probably being worked on and the former Minister of

Municipal Affairs, the late minister, I know she referenced one time a

definition of what a car wreck was. So many times different pieces of

legislation it might only seem minor but it means a lot when you go out into

the community and whether a municipality can sue somebody for having old wrecks

on their property and so on. So that is where that stands.

This, Mr. Speaker, is similar. Really what it is doing is expanding on what a

supplier is to include someone who offers or advertises goods for sale, also

engaging in consumer transactions and manufacturing, importing, and assembling

goods.

Mr. Speaker, we all know today in this modern world that we live in there are

so many scenarios put before our people, whether it is purchasing on the

Internet we hear talk of the eBay situations the TV shopping and so on. Many

times people make purchases regardless of what the product is. All too often if

there is something wrong the reply that comes back is: Well, I am sorry you have

it; there is nothing we can do. Many times when people get those products come,

it is just as well for them to keep it even if it is damaged because it costs

just as much to send it back to the manufacturer or the shippers, so they are

stuck with it anyway.

Mr. Speaker, there are many situations when it comes to this bill where there

are unfair business practices. They include things like representing that a good

has some sort of approval or sponsorship. Many times there are products that are

placed before us and they are saying: Look, this is a really good product; it is

similar to this and it is similar to that. All too often we know that is not the

situation. We see products representing that a good has a particular standard

when it does not. We might know of a product that has been in the marketplace

for many years and someone saying this new product is of the same standard when

we know full well it is not. The consumer before this legislation that is being

brought forward did not have much choice in the matter.

We also know, Mr. Speaker, representing a good to be a particular style or

origin or model. All too often, and I know in just this example I am going to

use, I have heard people say they have gone to one clothing store and bought

something, went to another one with the same brand name on it, but they soon

found out it was not the same product. So the supplier or the manufacturer

probably an undercover agent was doing this, but when they got this product,

there was very little they could do with it.

It also means representing that a good is new, when it is used. Many times,

and I know I have been caught in this one, you go buy something, whether it is a

part for a vehicle or whatever it is, from some supplier. All too often you find

out that it was used or remanufactured or what have you, but you bought it as if

it was a new product. Mr. Speaker, under this legislation now, I believe that

individuals will be protected.

Also, representing that goods have a particular prior history, when in fact

they do not. How often do we hear talk of items that are for sale, and they say,

well, this has been proven or that has been proven, but probably it only came on

the market recently and there was no history behind it at all. We can also talk

about representing that a particular good has a particular advantage, when in

fact, it does not. All too often, people are led down the garden path with

issues such as this.

So it is good to see the changes in this bill, Mr. Speaker. It is good to see

that this will also probably cut off false advertising that we see many times,

whether a brand is good or bad versus some other brand. To know that the word

supplier has been expanded to include those other transactions, I think, is a

great thing for the consumer, and Bill 33, I believe, is meant to do just that;

to protect the consumer and put in place legislation that will correct the

wrongs that have been done in the past.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

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

I am very happy to have time to speak to the bill that we are dealing with

here today,

An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act,

which is dealing with a very important issue in our society right now, and has

been for a long time; that is making changes to a bill that does relate to the

whole issue of smoking in our society.

I think what we have here, Mr. Speaker, is a real example of the devil is in

the details, because, as the minister has pointed out, the reason for the main

change that is taking place in the bill today is that there was a class action

lawsuit against a tobacco manufacturer by a private law firm. The lawsuit was

dismissed by the courts on a technicality, and the technicality was: Who is the

supplier of the tobacco product? So, it is extremely important that we are

taking time to spell out who is the supplier.

The supplier now is much broader than the former meaning, which was mainly

the retailer was the supplier. The supplier now means somebody who actually

directly or indirectly, in the course of business, "(

i) offers or advertises the

sale of goods or services to a consumer, (ii) engages in consumer transactionor

(iii) manufacturers, imports, produces or assembles " So, it is a much broader

definition. There are many, many more people than just the retailer involved in

supplying tobacco and tobacco products.

What this amendment will do, and I suspect we are going to see it happen, is

that the amendment is going to allow the type of lawsuit that was brought before

to be brought forward again. This time there will not be a technicality standing

in the way of those lawsuits. It will still remain to be seen whether or not a

judge would agree with the contention of the lawsuit, but at least the lawsuit

will get heard; it will not be thrown out on a technicality, which is extremely

important.

We all know the harmful effects of smoking and we know that tobacco companies

are more and more in our society being found responsible in the courts for the

health consequences on people who use their products. Of course this is

resulting in the tobacco industry and individual tobacco companies becoming more

active in lobbying governments with regard to legislation. I suspect that there

are tobacco companies out there who are watching us in this room here today and

who are not happy with the changes that are being made in this act, because they

know that it is going to make it easier at least for a lawsuit to get heard in

the courts, which is absolutely essential because consumers have to have the

right to complain. They have to have the right to bring causes to the law courts

if they feel that they have been treated unjustly or not fairly.

As I said, I am sure that there are all kinds of people out there in this

industry who are not happy. I wonder to what degree have some of them tried to

have access here; tried to have access to our own ministers to try to bring to

bear on our ministers what they have brought to bear on the ministers in Ottawa.

We have a very sad thing happening right now that our federal government the

Conservative government in Ottawa spent six years and nearly $4 million

developing new health warnings on cigarette packages.

We now have a decision in Ottawa which is very disturbing, because yesterday

we get a big announcement with regard to the fact that the government is backing

down from expanding warning labels on cigarette packages. We do know that this

action by the government in Ottawa has been taken because of really heavy

lobbying that was going on. Tobacco company lobbyists waged a co-ordinated,

sometimes secretive lobbying campaign. Nothing around lobbying in Ottawa is

supposed to be secretive and yet, research is showing that this is, in actual

fact, what has happened.

It has been noted, for example, on The National CBC news, that

Canada's three major tobacco companies employed lobbyists with strong ties to

the government in Ottawa. This government has not shown itself open to that.

This government itself has shown a concern about tobacco companies and the use

of tobacco. I certainly would see the action that our government is taking today

as a sign that they are not susceptible. We have a high rate of smoking here in

this Province. While we do know that it is going down somewhat, it is still

very, very high.

A Memorial University study in October of this year has shown some dangers

around smoking. It is really good to know that our own university is doing this

research. The study is called Tobacco Smoking and Colorectal Cancer - which is a

high cancer here in this Province - a population-based, case-control study in

Newfoundland and Labrador. We have the highest incidence of colorectal cancer in

Canada. Globally, colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of death from

cancer in men and the fourth leading cause of death from cancer in females.

Researchers here in our Province found a significant association between smoking

cigarettes and colorectal cancer.

This is another case where people probably did not recognize that smoking can

affect us in causing colorectal cancer. People now know that, of course, it is

directly related to lungs, and they know there is a relationship to heart, but

there is also a relationship to colorectal cancer. So, it is very important with

the high rate of this particular cancer in this Province, and with the high rate

of smoking, even though it is slowly going down, that our government is taking

this action to make sure that if people feel the need to take action through

lawsuits, that they will have more of a protection in bringing those lawsuits

into the justice system.

I thank the minister for the action. I thank him for this amendment that is

being made, and, of course, I will be supporting this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Government Services speaks now

he will close the debate on second reading of Bill 33,

An Act To Amend The

Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 2.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to express my appreciation to the hon. Member for Port de Grave

and the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi for their comments on this bill.

The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is right, in that by the passing of

this legislation we will now be able to give permission to Ches Crosbie

Barristers in that particular lawsuit against Imperial Tobacco to resume that

case. That in itself is very, very important, or I should say very, very, very

important maybe. In any event, Mr. Speaker, it is an important issue and

something that could affect a large number of people in this Province.

Also, one other point on that; by doing this now, we will also be harmonizing

this piece of legislation with all of the other jurisdictions in Canada.

On that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude second reading on Bill 33.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 33 be now read a

second time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business

Practices Act No. 2. (Bill 33)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 33 has now been read a second time.

When shall Bill 33 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business

Practices Act No. 2", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the

Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 33)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we go to Order 3, second reading of Bill 34.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 34,

An Act To Amend The

Mortgage Brokers Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Mortgage Brokers Act".

(Bill 34)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that Bill 34,

An Act To Amend The Mortgage Brokers Act, be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the Mortgage Brokers Act will provide greater

enforcement abilities to the Department of Government Services in the

enforcement and the protection of consumer interests from unethical and improper

acts of mortgage brokers in this Province. Many of the provisions that we are

bringing forward in this piece of legislation are similar to those other acts

that the government brought forward last spring by my predecessor. What it does

is ensure harmonization with the other sections of legislation that is with this

department.

Some of the specifics that I would like to point out, first of all, is one

that includes where a judge is now being able to issue a search warrant for one

of our investigators to enter and search a private dwelling where it is believed

that evidence of violations of the act is located. In the present legislation,

Mr. Speaker, that was not included. We will also be able to seize actual

documents or records as opposed to only being able to take copies of these

records. This will ensure that original documents are available for court

purposes and also eliminate the possibility of altered documents showing up at a

later date in the court process.

In today's age of computers, business transactions are recorded

electronically and that is common pretty well wherever you go now, Mr. Speaker,

in this Province, whether it is in an urban centre or in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador. With laptop computers and mobile storage devices, these business

records of mortgage brokers can be kept anywhere, including in a private

dwelling. Our investigators need the ability to seize these records wherever

located.

A judge, Mr. Speaker, will also be able to issue a production order requiring

a person that is not under investigation but has documents that pertain to

non-compliance with the legislation, to pass over these records. This process of

obtaining evidence from a third party is more efficient and less disruptive than

using a search warrant, as a business will be ordered to produce copies of

required documents and to pass them over to an investigator within a required

period of time.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments will also provide authority for investigators and

examiners to summon and enforce a person to testify and to produce documents in

relation to a particular case. This enables an investigator or examiner to

gather evidence from a person who is reluctant to co-operate with the

investigator or the examiner. The amendments also make it an offence to obstruct

or interfere with an investigator or an examiner in a course of a lawful

investigation or examination. This will provide a deterrent to those who may

consider not co-operating, as we have seen in a number of cases in the past.

Also, Mr. Speaker, a very important of this legislation is the fact that in

the current act a person who violates the act must be charged within three years

from the date the violation occurs. This simply means that by the passage of

time a person can avoid being penalized for their fraudulent acts or whatever.

This is not fair, Mr. Speaker, to the consumer who realizes in year four that

they have been taken advantage of by the system.

The new provision in this new legislation gives the registrar two years

instead of three years from the date he or she became aware of the violation.

That is the important point about this: before it was three years, they had

three years from the time the violation occurred, but in this new piece of

legislation it will be done within two years of the time that we became aware of

the violation, even though it might have occurred four or five years previous.

So, that is an important piece of this legislation.

Also the new penalty provisions increases imprisonment and the amount of

fines that can be levied. The imprisonment term will be increased from nine

months to, under the new legislation, two years. Also, Mr. Speaker, with respect

to the penalties incurred, right now the maximum that can be charged is a $2,000

fine; however, we are proposing, in this new legislation, to have that amount

increased to $100,000.

These two changes, in particular, will act as a deterrent to those who would

look to scam consumers of their hard-earned money. In this Province, a mortgage

broker last year - as probably most people may remember - was charged with

fifty-one counts of fraud against a private individual. Mr. Speaker, I think it

was something over a half a million dollars that this person was charged with

for defrauding an individual. Mr. Speaker, those kinds of things cannot go on

any longer.

There is a greater awareness now, by consumers, that financial products are

used as a means to scam consumers. These provisions in this new act will help

establish greater consumer confidence that the government is now able to more

efficiently and effectively investigate and charge those who violate the

Mortgage Brokers Act.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks now and let the other members have

whatever comments they want to make.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Member for the District of Port de

Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I have to say it is a pleasure to be able to stand once again to have a few

comments with regard to Bill 34,

An Act To Amend The Mortgage Brokers Act.

Mr. Speaker, I will not delay it very long, but I think the minister covered

it all off. I think one of the key components in this piece of legislation is

the last part that he did mention, the fines that will be imposed against

individuals, and rightly so. I know the minister also mentioned that it is very

important - and I know there were quite a few pieces of legislation last year

from his department that went through, and I would have to say each and every

one of them had the best interests of the consumer at heart, and also to

harmonize with other jurisdictions throughout our country. Many times, when

something happens in this Province or another province, if we do not have the

same legislation that joins the issues together properly, then a major problem,

no doubt, can result from that.

The minister mentioned, with regard to this piece of legislation, where the

registrar can now appoint a deputy of mortgage brokers, and that individual can

pass along to the individuals to see that they can conduct an investigation. I

guess the only question I have, and the minister can respond at the end, I am

just wondering: Are those people within your department now who are eligible to

conduct this, or is this something that would have to be brought in, new people

hired on or what have you, to carry out those acts? There are probably people in

your department who are doing that now for other pieces of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing, based on that, I was just wondering what the

qualifications would have to be. I would think they would have to be fairly well

trained, because they are going to be people who are going to enter other

premises. Sometimes it can be a dangerous situation, so they are going to have

to be on the security side of the equation.

Mr. Speaker, as the minister stated, all too often we hear of situations, and

he mentioned one where fifty-one counts were done by a mortgage broker last year

against a private individual. We know that the consumers, the individuals of our

Province, they work hard for the dollars that they have. Then they go into a

situation with the greatest interest at heart and find that something like this

should happen. I believe that legislation like this, and other pieces of

legislation that have been revised last year - and I am sure there are more

coming; the minister announced more today - have to be done to protect the

people of our Province. We live in an age, not only with mortgage brokers or any

other issues, the many scams that are ongoing that he referenced. All too often

people get wrapped up in it. A lot of our seniors become involved and, before

long, their money is gone, and they do not realize what is happening.

It is good to see that this piece of legislation will help to protect those

people and make it more a deterrent for anyone to try to get involved. When you

look at the fines part of it, as the minister mentioned, a maximum now in our

legislation is $2,000. To see that jump to $100,000, I think that is going to

make some people think before they really get involved. I guess we will never

stop it all, people will have ways around it and means to do it, but this is one

way.

To know that the limitation is there now - I think he said before, it is

possible that it could be a nine-month imprisonment term, but now it is to a

maximum of two years. That, in conjunction with the fines, I think is what the

consumers, the individuals of this Province, would want to see.

To know that they can also go in, take the documents and make sure that those

documents cannot be tampered with in the future, because many times - I am not

only referencing mortgage brokers or anyone else - once they see the actual

documents and what is going to be brought forward in a time frame before the

courts, many times they are altered. In this case, once you can go in and do

that, I am sure that will be taken care of.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, I think this is a good piece of legislation. I can

assure you we will be supporting it, because most all the legislation that comes

from that department is to help individuals. It is not controversial. It is

issues that have to be brought forward and they are brought forward in a timely

manner. It is to be in conjunction with other jurisdictions, but also to

strengthen our laws so that the individuals who we represent, each and every one

of us, the consumer can have added protection that they know that their concerns

are taken care of.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

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

Again, I am very happy to stand and speak to this bill, which is

An Act To

Amend The Mortgage Brokers Act. Again, it is important in the lives of consumers

in this Province, and once again, as with the former bill that we discussed here

this afternoon, there is always a reason why amendments are being brought to an

act. Of course this bill is bringing a change to the Act To Amend The Mortgage

Brokers Act. Whenever something like that happens something has happened,

something has occurred. We did have a very public case here in this Province,

Mr. Speaker, called the Sterling Norman case, where an individual made big

profits on mortgages and promised investors huge returns and then lost people's

money. When investigators tried to deal with this case they could not get access

to the evidence that was located in the home of that person. That became very,

very significant. Now the person was found guilty down the road but this became

something that was recognized as a real stumbling block and it is one of the big

pieces of this legislation. One of the most important parts of the pieces is

allowing those who are qualified and who are appointed to investigate, allowing

them access to evidence in the home of the mortgage broker.

Now I understand and we had a little briefing actually my office from

people in the department. I do understand that things are much better in this

Province right now with regard to licensed mortgage brokers. We would hope that

the use of this act will not have to be used very often in this Province. We are

growing up; we are maturing in the industry here in the Province. Most people

now are trained. They are self-regulating to protect clients and their own

reputations. They do have a concern and of course right now mortgage brokers do

not charge their clients directly any more the fee comes from the banks. So

things have changed a lot in the Province.

However, we have to make sure that, even with all of that, any individual who

may be inclined to cheat people of money will be deterred. So that is why the

other part of the act is so important, the deterrence factor. The fact of the

fine going up so astronomically which is extremely important; the fact that if

you have to go to prison, the time that one would spend in prison going up as

well, which is extremely important. One would hope that those deterrent factors

would keep anybody from trying anything.

If, in fact, somebody does cheat people, we now have a strong piece of

legislation that will allow the investigators to go into that person's home. It

is interesting to note what they may do when they get that warrant. The warrant

will authorize the investigator "in the warrant to enter the private or public

premises, including a dwelling house". That means their personal home. They will

be able to search; they will be able to examine the contents of the premises and

make inquiries that the investigator considers necessary, and will also be able

to copy, extract, photograph, video, seize, and take away evidence, books and

records for the purpose of investigating the suspected contravention of the law.

So what we have here now is real protection for the consumer, for those who

are getting mortgages. We have deterrents for anybody who is a broker who might

be tempted for whatever reason. Unfortunately we know that there are all kinds

of reasons that tempt people to misuse or to actually take money from others.

A big one in our Province right now, and has happened a number of times a

couple of cases right now before the courts where people have gambling

addictions, VLT gambling addictions; they become completely out of control. This

addiction is a serious, serious addiction. Just like anybody else in society, I

am sure there could be mortgage brokers who have gambling addictions and with

those addictions become completely out of control and unable to help themselves.

If that kind of thing were to happen with a mortgage broker and people suffer

because of it, we now have protection for people that will help find that person

guilty if such were the case.

So this is a solid piece of legislation. I think that the details are needed,

especially around the search; I find the details there very important. It seems

to me that nothing has been left out, especially with today's technology. I

think every way in which one could copy a piece of evidence is covered here.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to see this piece of legislation

and happy to support it.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Government Services speaks now

he will close debate on Bill 34.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I would like to thank my colleagues on the other side for their input

into this piece of legislation regarding mortgage brokers in the Province.

The hon. Member for Port de Grave had a question there with respect to if new

people would be needed to do the enforcement of this legislation. My

understanding is that this will not be the case; people we have on staff will

certainly be able to carry out these duties, and certainly be able to do it with

greater protection behind them. So that should bode well for everyone.

Mr. Speaker, in

summary, this piece of legislation will harmonize enforcement

abilities with the other legislation that we have in the department. It will

also give greater flexibility in ensuring that we have the means now to be able

to see that mortgage brokers are in compliance with the regulations in a timely

manner. Like the other two speakers have already mentioned, the most important

thing of all is that what it means is greater protection for the consumers in

this Province. So on that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude debate on this bill.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 34,

An Act To

Amend The Mortgage Brokers Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Mortgage Brokers Act. (Bill 34)

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?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Mortgage Brokers Act", read a second

time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 34)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I call Order 4, second reading of Bill 35.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of

Education, that Bill 35,

An Act To Amend The Public Safety Act, be now read a

second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 35,

An Act To Amend The

Public Safety Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Safety Act".

(Bill 35)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This act I do not know how many people on the Province might be aware of it

what it does, it provides the legislative requirements for the use and

operating of things like elevators, elevating devices, lifts, amusement rides

that you see from time to time, pressure systems, and electrical systems. Under

this act, Mr. Speaker, companies or individuals can appeal decisions by

inspectors and chief inspectors through the Public Safety Appeal Board; however,

the sections that lay out the appeals process have very few provisions that must

be followed in hearing an appeal. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, that is the reason why

we want to make the changes to this particular

section of the legislation.

The department has other legislation that provides a model for the process to

be followed for hearing an appeal. In particular, we have under the appeal

provisions, laid out in the Financial Services Appeal Board Act; there is a

guide there for amendments to the Public Safety Act being presented here today.

By outlining the general appeal procedures and legislation, government will be

ensuring the board's process for consideration of appeals is clear to all

parties. Right now, Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. It should also allow the

appeal to operate more smoothly, efficiently, and most important of all I guess,

more fairly.

The changes will also allow decisions of the board to be appealed to the

Supreme Court Trial Division, which is an option that had not been available up

until now. Mr. Speaker, up until now, under the current legislation, the

decision of the person who was making the call on this was binding and final.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that will not be the case. The person will now have an

opportunity to go to the Supreme Court Trial Division. The amendments also will

provide more detailed provisions for the governance structure of the board,

including outlining the number of members, the term of appointment, the

allowance for re-appointments and replacement of board members, and for the

board to continue in the event of the expiry of a member's term or a vacancy on

the board.

Mr. Speaker, to give you an example of the way the legislation is now, is

that it does not specify the number of members to be appointed to the board. The

term of the appointments are not specified. The appointments of a chairperson,

there was no clear direction as to how that could be done or the continuity of

the board in the event of terms expired before a new board is appointed.

Mr. Speaker, what I just outlined will take care of all of these things that

are now missing from the current legislation. It will also clarify the process

for accepting and hearing appeals to ensure the process is transparent and

allows sufficient time for the parties to prepare, while also ensuring the

matter is dealt with in a timely manner. It will clearly lay out the procedures

for the board and the parties to follow in the hearing of an appeal. A person

aggrieved by a decision of the board may appeal to the Trial Division of the

Supreme Court of Newfoundland on a question of jurisdiction or law in

section

28. This is also standard with other pieces of legislation in this Province.

The final

section of the bill, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to point out,

repeals the existing avenue of appeal under the Electrical Regulations. Right

now in

section 14 of these regulations, there is an appeal to the assistant

deputy minister responsible for the government service centre. This is the only

such provision in the three sets of regulations under the same act. The others

are the Boiler, Pressure Vessel and Compressed Gas Regulations, and the

Amusement Rides and Elevating Devices Regulations. This one for the Electrical

Regulations is the only one that does not conform to the present legislation.

The provision is rendered largely unnecessary by the existence of the appeal

board provisions under the act.

Mr. Speaker, on that, I will conclude my remarks at this time and let any

other member who would like to comment have the opportunity.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to make a few comments with regard to Bill 35,

An Act To Amend

The Public Safety Act. I know, Mr. Speaker, in conjunction with the minister, we

have gone through three bills here this afternoon; three very important bills. I

want to say: Why waste time on them, when you make your comments and you agree

with it? Sometimes we have legislation that is confrontational, we probably

linger it on a bit longer, but I think the minister is covering off on this

legislation, explaining it properly and that is the way it should be.

As he outlined, Mr. Speaker, this legislation covers people in the electrical

field. He mentioned very importantly, the type of work that is involved and what

we are referring to here with the elevators and lifts, and different electrical

systems. Those individuals, up until this point of time and I am sure there

are other trades in the Province where there is legislation that covers off on

them as well - they did not have a means to appeal a decision that had been made

not in their favour. Mr. Speaker, that is the

part I want to touch on because I

believe the appeal process is very, very important, regardless of what it is.

I just want to reference three issues that I get involved in fairly heavily:

EI appeals, workers' compensation appeals, and CPP disability. Even those

individuals when they present a case I will give you an example with EI; if

someone has their EI claims rejected, they are given an option to go before the

Board of Referees. Once that is settled, if they are not satisfied they go to

the umpire, which is in the court system. That is what is happening here. Those

individuals now have a process, that if it is not satisfactory there as it is at

the present time the decision is binding, but now they can go to the Trial

Division.

It is the same way with workers' compensation. If someone has an issue with

workers' compensation, first of all there is an internal review. If they are not

satisfied, they have another option where they can go before the chief review

commissioner. Each and every group in this Province have that process.

The Canada Pension one is no different, even though it is federal. With the

CPP disability, you appear first before the Review Tribunal. That is who makes

the decision for you. If you do not like that you can go to the Canada Pension

Appeals Board, and that is three Supreme Court judges who travel to our Province

periodically throughout the year. That is good to see with this piece of

legislation. I know it is very important for those individuals because they have

a very important job to do and safety is a key issue with it. So if something

should come up or go wrong and they feel that they are not treated properly, now

this appeal process is really where they want to go and what they have been

looking for. I am sure those people have been consulted and I would say they are

very pleased with this because at the present time they do not have that option.

It is good to see this piece of legislation.

It also outlines other issues that the minister mentioned and that is in

regard to how the committee, how the chairperson - the terms that they serve on

this committee. If that was not there before I can understand why a decision was

made and it was binding because there was no other options open to them.

Mr. Speaker, this act and incorporated amendments apply to Electrical

Regulations across the Province in general, which includes design, construction,

use and maintenance.

So, Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with this piece of legislation that the

minister has brought forward and to know that those people have a process from

here on in. It explains the time frame when they can appeal and so on, Mr.

Speaker, and they can bring forward oral submissions. It is not just a haphazard

thing. They have a process to go through and then if they are not completely

satisfied again, they also have the option to go through the Trial Division.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to Bill 35,

An Act To Amend The Public Safety Act -

and I am sure there are other acts within the minister's department when it

comes to the public safety aspect of it that will be coming forward - I would

venture to say that this is also in conjunction with what is happening in other

jurisdictions throughout our country.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I will take my place.

Thank you.

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

Vidi.

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

Again, I am happy to take my place in speaking to this bill, Bill 35,

An Act

To Amend The Public Safety Act.

In some ways, it is a housekeeping bill. I think the minister has alluded to

that. It is important that we have uniformity and consistency with different

processes under government. The process that we are dealing with here is the

appeal process that comes under the Public Safety Act. It looks like a big act -

the bill itself I mean. It is certainly longer than the other bills we have

dealt with this afternoon, but in terms of content it is pretty straightforward.

As the minister has said, what it is doing is modelling the appeals process

under this act after other appeal processes throughout the government, for

example, the Financial Services Appeal Board. This act and the bill that we are

dealing with to make amendments to the act would bring appeals under this act

more into line with that kind of a process that exists, and there are many, many

other examples in government where the appeal process takes place.

The important thing about this, which is similar to the other acts we are

dealing with this afternoon, is that we are dealing with the protection of the

public. In some cases, as we have dealt with earlier today, it is the protection

of the consumer aspect of the public. Here it is, in actual fact, dealing with

public safety, physical public safety. That is what is the important difference,

I think, that we have a bill that is designed to ensure, the act is designed to

ensure, that systems as have been described already such as electrical systems,

boiler systems, elevator systems, et cetera are properly designed, installed,

maintained and operated.

It is good for the public to know that there is protection for them out there

if, for some reason, they become injured from any of these types of things. It

does not matter whether the system is put in place publicly by government or put

in place by private operators; this act protects the public with regard to their

physical safety.

I like the changes that have been made to the appeal process. As I said, it

is pro forma now, in a way, where it is the template for appeal processes in the

Province, and that is good. I think an important thing to point out, when you

have final decisions with regard to technical rulings, if there has been a case

brought forward, that the decision has to go all the way to the board and not to

the assistant deputy minister, which was the case before in the appeal process.

I think that recognizes the importance of the appeal being fair. When you allow

one person to make a decision with regard to appeals, you can get a lot of

individual bias brought in. So, the process that is in place now takes away that

danger of individual bias, and treats much more seriously the whole process of

appeal.

The other thing I like too there are a number of things, but it is

something else that I particularly like; and again, this is now found in other

appeal processes as well is that members considering an appeal may permit oral

submissions. I think that is extremely important, because not everybody has the

same level of literacy skills, and putting things into written documentation can

be very difficult sometimes for some people. So, oral submission allows for a

much more flexible way and a fairer way of making sure that evidence brought

forward, whether it is written or oral, will be considered. Again, this will

always be important, I think.

So, having said that, I really do not think there is more to add. There

certainly is not anything to change in this bill. It is very straightforward and

very clear, and of course, I will be supporting it.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Minister of Government Services speaks now, he will

close debate on Bill 35.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I would like to thank my colleagues on the other side for their

comments and, more importantly, their positive comments with respect to the

changes that we are making in this piece of legislation.

On that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude second reading of Bill 35,

An Act To

Amend The Public Safety Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 35,

An Act To

Amend The Public Safety Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Public Safety Act. (Bill 35)

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?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Safety Act", read a second

time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 35)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, Order

9, second reading of Bill 40.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of

Natural Resources, that Bill 40,

An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And

Business Practices Act No. 3, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 40,

An Act To Amend The

Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 3, be now read a second time.

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