Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 1 December 2009 (46th General Assembly, 2nd Session, Vol. XLVI No. 32)
2009-12-01
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
December
1, 2009
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVI No. 32
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!
Admit strangers
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: Today the Chair welcomes the following members'
statements: the hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley; the hon. the
Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North; the hon. the
Member for the District of Cape St. Francis; and the hon. the Member for the
District of Mount Pearl North.
The hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to pay tribute to
Hubert Osmond, a very special person from my district who celebrated his 100
birthday on Friday, November 13, 2009. I had the pleasure of attending a special
birthday celebration in which he was surrounded by his loving family and
friends.
Birthdays remind us that the gift of life is a most precious and important
one. About the only thing that comes to us without effort is age, and 100 years
is a long time and certainly deserves to be celebrated and honoured.
Mr. Speaker, Hubert was born on November 13, 1909 to James and Patience
Osmond. His father was from Moreton's Harbour, Notre Dame Bay and his mother
was from L'Anse aux Meadows. He was born in a little community in the bottom
of White Bay called The Beaches. He later moved with his family to Burtons Cove
on the opposite side of White Bay. There he and his three brothers and one
sister operated a sawmill business for many years.
Today his son Fred carries on the name of the sawmill business, Burtons Cove
Logging and Lumber Limited in Hampden, where Hubert and his wife still live in
their own home. Mr. Osmond has thirteen children, thirty-nine grandchildren,
forty great-grandchildren and four great-great-grandchildren.
Mr. Speaker, Hubert Osmond is truly an inspiration to us all. I ask all
members of this hon. House to join me in saluting and congratulating this
outstanding individual and wishing him the warmest of greetings on reaching his
100 birthday and best wishes for many more to come.
Thank you, 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, I rise in this House today to wish Minnie Hillier
of St. Lunaire-Griquet a very happy ninety-third birthday.
Born on November 24, 1916, Minnie has experienced an ever-changing
Newfoundland and Labrador and has survived the hardships of raising a family in
a rural area of our Province.
After the death of her first husband, William Quinton, who was lost driving a
dog team in a snowstorm, Minnie soldiered on living, working and raising her
children at the St. Anthony orphanage, until she eventually met and married her
second husband, Llewellyn Hillier.
Although Minnie has been through some tough times, she thrives on her
memories of the good times shared over the years with her family and friends.
She is proud of her thirteen children, her grandchildren and
great-grandchildren, and they have all been blessed and impacted positively by
her life.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending a
very happy ninety-third birthday to Minnie Hillier, with best wishes for good
health and happiness in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KEVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to
congratulate the Town of Torbay on their first Sports Hall of Fame, held in
October of this year. The town recognized five extraordinary citizens of the
Town of Torbay for their achievements in sports and recreation.
There were two categories, Builders and Athletes. There were three pioneer
builders that were inducted into the hall of fame, and they were: Cyril Power,
Jack Hogan, and the late Pat Dawe.
Inducted into the athlete category was Jack Hickey, who is a great hockey
player and softball player, but he is also recognized as a world champion for
firefighter combat challenge. Other inductee into the athlete category was
Colleen Tapper, who has represented this Province in eight separate sports on
the national and international level. I would also like to congratulate the
chairperson, Barry Codner, and his committee, Ralph Tapper, Bob Whelan and Marie
Codner for their effort in getting this initiative up and running.
I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating the first
inductees into the Town of Torbay's Sports Hall of Fame.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to recognize and offer thanks to a long time
resident of Mount Pearl and a former colleague of mine, Ed Grant.
I feel very privileged to have worked with Ed Grant during my time on Mount
Pearl City Council. Ed was a great mentor and someone who was always willing to
offer guidance and advice. He did not seek re-election in this year's
municipal election.
As one of the longest serving city councillors in the city's history, Ed
was vital in assisting the city with its advancement and progress over the
years. He was originally elected in 1985, followed by six successful elections.
Personally, I have learned a lot from Ed. He has brought a lot to the table,
including his great business sense. Ed truly helped make Mount Pearl the great
city it is and I am proud to call him my friend.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Ed
Grant on his retirement from City Council in Mount Pearl and wish him all the
best in his future endeavours.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy
Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to acknowledge yet another
important development in our offshore oil industry.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: There is a saying, Mr. Speaker, in the oil patch that
"big fields get bigger." That has certainly proven to be the case in
the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore.
Mr. Speaker, on November 23, Husky Energy announced that it discovered
additional oil resources in the North Amethyst Field, a White Rose extension
area. The current estimate of the newly discovered resource ranges from 30 to 85
million barrels of light crude oil, with the best estimate at this point being
60 million barrels.
Mr. Speaker, the Province, through Nalcor Energy, obtained a 5 per cent
equity interest when we negotiated the agreement for the White Rose extension.
The discovery of this additional oil points to the foresight of this government
in ensuring we are equity partners in the development of our resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: As a result of the discovery of this additional oil, Mr.
Speaker, the Province will benefit through Nalcor by such a large amount that it
is the same as recouping the purchase price for our equity in the White Rose
extension project and our equity in the Hibernia South extension field.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: And, Mr. Speaker, depending on recovery rates and price of
oil during production, this one discovery will cover all, or substantially all,
the purchase price of our equity share in the Hebron development as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, this is outstanding news for the people of
this Province and it certainly proves our critics wrong. Our decision to take
equity in these resource projects is already paying tremendous dividends. Our
government is taking greater ownership in the development of our resources in
the best interest of the people of the Province and for the greatest benefit of
the people of the Province.
This announcement demonstrates precisely why taking an equity stake in our
resources is such an important and worthwhile public policy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: In negotiating that equity stake, Mr. Speaker, not only
did the Province buy into existing reservoirs, we also acquired a piece of any
additional discoveries in the whole formation above and below the existing
reservoirs. Clearly, the information I am presenting here today demonstrates
that this was a very wise decision.
In addition, under the terms of the agreement reached with the White Rose
partners in 2007, the Province will obtain enhanced royalty of 36.5 per cent on
all the oil in the this new license area.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, Husky's announcement demonstrates the
tremendous resource in the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore area and, in
particular, the ability to discover multiple pools in a given area. It is yet
another positive step in our evolution as an oil producing jurisdiction and the
potential that lies before us.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly thank the minister for
an advance copy of her statement.
I think the statement is just proof of how desperate this government is to
have a little bit of attention created around anything in the Province. Mr.
Speaker, there is a saying that when anything is successful, you want to be
associated with that success. Well, I can tell you, this government wastes no
time, Mr. Speaker, in getting off the mark.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, I want to acknowledge companies, like Husky Energy, who has
given a lot to the exploration industry in this Province to ensure that we keep
building on the oil industry that we have.
Mr. Speaker, it is a concern for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians because
we know that oil production will start to drop over the next ten years in our
Province, and that could potentially mean a drop in royalties.
Mr. Speaker, if the minister's objective today was to make this
announcement to justify an equity share in the industry, I say to you, minister,
you have failed because there is no justification in this statement that says we
should be spending our money to buy equity in the oil industry. In fact, Mr.
Speaker, the oil industry in this Province
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
I ask members if they would allow the member to respond to the ministerial
statement.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: They are like kids in a playground who just got a lollipop.
Mr. Speaker, the statement does not justify investment in equity in the oil
industry because for this reason: The oil in Newfoundland and Labrador is owned
100 per cent by Labradorians and never should we have to pay these companies to
develop that industry. We could achieve the same returns on our investment; we
could achieve the same royalties, and better, for the people of the Province
without ever paying equity.
Do you know what this statement tells me today, Mr. Speaker? It tells me that
we are paying money again. That is what it tells me, Mr. Speaker. I have some
great difficulty with that. If the minister thinks that this justifies
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to conclude her statement.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The reality is that we do not just own 5 per cent of the oil industry, we own
100 per cent of that industry; the people of the Province do. The fact that this
government is choosing to pay good money
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time has expired.
MS JONES: - so that they can play oil magnet in the industry, Mr.
Speaker, does not justify the needs I say to the minister.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party and the Member for Signal
Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I wish to thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement.
I have to say that when this news came out I think it was last week some
time, we were all quite busy at that time, but I remember when it came out. I
thought this is good news for the Province, obviously.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS MICHAEL: I mean the news of White Rose. Obviously, it is good news for
the Province if more oil is coming out of the ground; the government did not
take it out.
What I would like to say to the government, if they will remember, I have
always agreed in the equity stake. I stand here today and still agree with the
equity stake, but only if everybody in the Province is sharing in that equity.
So, it is not enough to say that the Province, as government, is getting the
equity stake, all of the people have to feel that equity stake. The people who
are on income assistance that is keeping them in poverty, the seniors who have
not enough money who are living in poverty, people who cannot get home care who
are in poverty; they need to share in that equity stake as well.
So put the programs in place now. We have a future. The money is there. Start
putting the programs in place!
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi if she has concluded her
remarks.
MS MICHAEL: No, I would like to put a concluding statement. Thank you
very much, Mr. Speaker.
What I am saying to the government is we know we have a future that is going
on and it is going to be bright and it is going to get brighter, don't wait
twenty years to put the home care in place, start putting the programs in place
now. It is too late down the road; put them in the infrastructure now. I wish
the government would realize that is the way to go.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Further statements by ministers?
The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As members of this hon. House are aware, AbitibiBowater's decisions to
first pull out of Newfoundland and Labrador and later to seek creditor
protection had a wide-ranging impact on the Province. It left many workers,
seniors and families in a precarious and vulnerable position.
While AbitibiBowater's actions evoked fear and anxiety, it has also led,
Mr. Speaker, to a sense of focus and determination to rebuild the economy of the
Province's Central Region. There is a renewed spirit of what can be done and
what can be accomplished.
As a government, we are a committed partner in the region's revitalization.
We share the view that the Central Region has played a prominent role in the
Province's economic and social landscape for the past 100 years and it will
continue, Mr. Speaker, to contribute to a vibrant provincial economy for many
more years to come.
Since the mill's closure, we have announced financial investments totalling
in excess of $100 million in the Central Region - that is on top of our other
annual investments in this region. These investments have ranged from our
unprecedented decision to provide $35 million in severance and other
entitlements to impacted workers to offsetting voids in municipal budgets to
initiatives targeting long-term economic development and sustainable employment.
We also recognize that a fundamental component of greater economic and
community development activity is to engage those who know their region best -
community and business leaders, along with the youth and social activists.
Prior to the mill's close, we established a fifteen-person Community
Development Committee. Led by Mr. Cyril Farrell, it consists of community
officials and leaders representing a cross-section of age, gender, geography and
professional experiences.
The committee has tackled its work with high degrees of passion and
enthusiasm. It has reached out to community development groups, businesses, and
local municipalities to discuss strategic opportunities. Members have also
played a key role in providing the platform for the provincial government to
discuss initiatives that impact the region's social and economic landscape.
Its work may not be in the public's eye but its results certainly are.
The Community Development Committee is, without question, front and center in
the provincial government's response to the mill's closure and we value its
work in advancing sector development initiatives in such areas as agrifoods,
tourism and knowledge-based industries and to help to create sustainable,
long-term economic opportunities for this region.
I would like to thank the members for their contribution and I look forward
to continuing our relationship and working together into the future. Together,
we can identify and realize opportunities that lead to a stronger, more
diversified Central Region.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Thank you minister for providing me with an advance copy of the
statement. It is noteworthy that there is nothing new in this statement. It is
commendable to acknowledge the people who are involved in this committee, who
are concerned about their future. The reality is there was a failure by
government to secure the mill when it ran into trouble. What people are clearly
worried about now is the long-term security of the area, and this needs to be
addressed in a long-term strategy.
Thirty-five million has been paid out to the workers, however, government
will be claiming this back through AbitibiBowater. This would never have
happened in the first place if government had not reacted to the relentless
pressure from the Official Opposition. The question now, Mr. Speaker -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The question now, Mr. Speaker, is: What are they going to do for the people
to gain some benefit from the resource, a resource that is earning government
millions of dollars with nothing going back to the people? Citizens of Central
just want a fair share on their hydro power. Another question we have, Mr.
Speaker, is: What about pensioners who will be losing approximately 30 per cent
of their pensions if the company is declared insolvent?
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is much of the statement is fluff, sorry. We
need more of a real investment of money in Central and the people of that area
need it and deserve it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement, with what should
have been, I guess in his eye, an update of the work of the Community
Development Committee. I would have expected some more specifics, minister. It
would be great to get an actual concrete list of what some of the results have
been. You named them in a very general way and I would like see you bring a
list, a more concrete one, to the House and let us see that. I would be very
happy to see it.
We do know, in my party and myself, that people are talking to us from the
Central Region and they do not see a lot of work coming from this committee. So
that is why I am asking for some concrete examples. I do know that the minister,
and probably all MHAs, are receiving letters from the AbitibiBowater pensioners
who are being affected by the fact that the unfunded pension liability that the
company has that is causing their pensions to be seriously reduced. I do not
know if the minister or the Premier or the Deputy Premier may be sitting down
with the pensioners or not. I do not know if you are sitting with CEP and with
the company, but somebody has to sit down and look at proposals that would help
these pensioners receive, not lose any pensions at all. I know that CEP and the
company have come up with a proposal that looks pretty logical to me. So I
really would encourage the minister to get involved in that discussion so that
the pensioners, who are facing poverty if these pensions do not get saved, can
have some hope because they have no hope right now, and that is certainly the
message of their e-mails.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the House of our funding commitment which
will help the Labrador region of our Province with adaptation planning for the
effects of climate change.
More than $98,000 in funding, Mr. Speaker, will help researchers examine the
role that values and cultural identity play in shaping responses to climate
change. In the context of adaptation decision making, values and culture are
important as they determine the policies and plans that are deemed
effective and equitable. The project also aims to build capacity at the local
level for planning and adaptation.
Spearheaded by Dr. Johanna Wolf of the Labrador Institute and Dr. Trevor Bell
of Memorial University, the research will complement the information gathered at
the Climate Change and Renewable Resources in Labrador Conference held in North
West River last year. At that time, key priorities for action were identified
such as improving collaboration among communities, researchers and governments
in Labrador, engaging communities on climate change issues, and compiling
existing knowledge on climate change studies in Labrador.
Adaptation is a serious issue for our Province, Mr. Speaker, given there are
many smaller coastal communities and towns. Warming air temperatures in the
north, changes in rain-snow patterns and increases in storm surge and sea level
are several of the anticipated adverse effects of climate change. We also
understand the specific challenges for our northern communities, and planning
must also incorporate their cultural identity and values.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that climate change is an important issue for our
environment and our economy, and is a consideration in our daily lives. That is
why we allocated $1.3 million in Budget 2009 to help communities assess and
adapt to climate change impacts, the results of which will inform policy and
strategy development. The adaptation project in Labrador is an excellent example
of our funding commitment in action.
Protecting the environment, Mr. Speaker, remains a priority for this
provincial government. Measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve
energy efficiency, assess environmental impacts, and support climate change
adaptation efforts are part of the ongoing focus of the sustainability of
Newfoundland and Labrador. Strengthening the resiliency of our northern
communities against climate change is an important part of this focus, Mr.
Speaker.
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, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. It is good
to know that government is becoming involved with regard to the issues of
protecting our environment, with regard to climate change, and to know that they
are engaging the communities in the northern regions. It is a known fact, Mr.
Speaker, that the people of the northern regions, not only in Newfoundland and
Labrador, but throughout this country of ours are affected more so than some
other regions. We know of new species that are stepping forward, and some of the
other ones are disappearing.
Mr. Speaker, from time to time, we try to get information with regard to
climate change, and it is good to see that the minister is coming forward with
some information. There was a provincial study done, I think it was about a year
and a half ago, and by the time we got it and we went through it, all the black
pages, everything was blacked out. There was one thing we did learn from that
study is that even with the Lower Churchill going ahead, and we hope that
happens sooner rather than later, even by the year 2010, it is my understanding
that even the levels of protection that we need will be higher than what Kyoto
estimates need at that particular time. We also know there are many other issues
here within our Province, like Holyrood, we are looking forward to the
short-term plan.
Mr. Speaker, it is good to know that money is being put forward with regard
to this. Hopefully, the minister, over the coming period of time, will be able
to announce to us - I know there is $1.3 million; we know where $96,000 of it
has gone now. Hopefully, we will be able to get a report on the other funding.
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, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. I am
delighted to see the plans with regard to climate change effects, adaptation,
that is being planned for Labrador.
I am aware, from the last Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador meetings
in Gander that some of us attended, that municipalities are being given disaster
preparedness kits and are expected to create disaster preparedness plans and
develop the infrastructure structure needed for disaster response. So, they will
have to invest in things like mobile command units and communication systems.
I am not sure that the $1.3 million is going to help with infrastructural
needs. It seems to me that it is more with the planning and putting plans in
place. More money will be needed for infrastructure as we anticipate,
unfortunately, more weather caused disasters.
One of the pieces of infrastructure that we need is a 911 service throughout
the Province. We all know that is a necessary part of disaster preparedness and
we still do not even have a basic 911 throughout the Province, as we know. The
enhanced 911 is being studied before we even have basic service. One of the
pieces of work that needs to be put in place, and I definitely saw this during
the two by-elections if I may have leave, Mr. Speaker, just to finish just
one sentence?
During the by-elections, I could definitely see that if we do not soon get
our civic numbering systems in place, the naming of streets and numbers, that we
are not preparing for disaster when it comes to emergencies. We all know, and we
have talked about it in the House, that needs to be put in place first.
So I really encourage the Province to support the municipalities in getting
the civic numbering in place in the municipalities.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Premier stated that the Department of Justice has
completed a review on the Upper Churchill deal and had received some legal
opinions from Quebec lawyers. These legal opinions have since been forwarded to
CF(L)Co, as we know, and they have asked Hydro-Quebec to have discussions around
renegotiating the deal.
I ask the Premier today if he is prepared to table those legal opinions so
that they are available to the public.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the level of betrayal of the hon. member
opposite to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador never ceases to astound me.
She is asking today that we release the legal opinions that could possibly be
used, if an action is commenced by CF(L)Co, and give them to Hydro-Quebec so
that they can prepare their case against Newfoundland and Labrador and the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Absolutely not!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, who does not have access to these opinions right
now? The government has them, Nalcor has them, CF(L)Co has them, of which
Hydro-Quebec is one-third shareholders of CF(L)Co; so my guess is they have
access to them. The only people, the only stakeholders in this that do not have
any access to any legal opinions to substantiate the case the government claims
they have, are the people of the Province.
I ask you, Premier: Why will you not disclose the information that will
substantiate the propaganda that is being put out there by your government?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, Nalcor Energy does not have our legal
opinions.
What we have indicated to them is what we have discovered, which we felt was
the proper
interpretation of Quebec's civil code when it comes to good faith
or bona fides with respect to the ongoing obligation under contracts. That
general information was disclosed to CF(L)Co, and CF(L)Co have then gone and
gotten their own legal opinions.
So these are opinions that are held by the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador. They are confidential opinions. There is a solicitor-client privilege
between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Department of
Justice, and those legal opinions that have come in from other sources.
We would basically be giving away the farm; we would be showing exactly what
our position is. I mean I cannot be any simpler or any plainer to you, that you
do not give the other side, in a legal case, your legal opinions. You do not sit
down in a game of cards at a poker table or a game of 120s and show your cards
on the table and then play out the game of 120s. That is not the way it works.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
The hon. the Premier to conclude his remarks.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: There is something, obviously, the Leader of the
Opposition is missing here because I cannot understand why she is trying to
accommodate Quebec in this whole exercise.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When Hydro-Quebec is a shareholder of CF(L)Co, who are the very people that
are issuing this challenge on behalf of the government, one would think they do
have all the information.
Mr. Speaker, back in May of 2008, the Minister of Natural Resources who
happens to be the Deputy Premier, stated that they had legal opinions at that
time in the Province. Her big statement of the day is that they were getting
ready to sue the federal government and Hydro-Quebec on redress on the Upper
Churchill. Mr. Speaker, no sooner was she out of the press conference then she
was backtracking on her statements saying that she had misspoken.
Well, Mr. Speaker, my question to the Premier today is the same legal
opinions that were being referenced by the Deputy Premier over a year ago. Is
that the same premise under which you, your government, Nalcor and CF(L)Co are
proceeding today?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Deputy Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is looking for trails and traces
and trying to thread pieces together that does not make any sense. Mr. Speaker,
when she has the facts before her she does not know how to interpret them.
No, Mr. Speaker, there was nothing I said back at that time that had any
reference whatsoever. I misspoke in a news conference. I owned that completely;
I withdrew those remarks. They have nothing to do with any action that has been
taken since that time, Mr. Speaker, none at all.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Premier went out there on that day with the big press conference,
Mr. Speaker, made the big statements and, no doubt, had misspoken because she
had nothing to substantiate of that of which she spoke, and that is why she
withdrew the comments. Mr. Speaker, let's see if there is anything to
substantiate the claims that they are making today.
The Premier committed yesterday, in the media, to provide any precedents
involving court cases where contracts were overturned as a result of the 1994
amendments to the Quebec civil code, which are really what is at the heart of
this entire challenge that is being launched by CF(L)Co. According to Ed Martin
- I listened to his comments on the radio.
I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker, -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: - what precedents are there, and I ask if you would at least be
prepared to table the information around those cases that you feel will
substantiate your claim?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite is frightened to
death that we are going to be successful, that we are finally going to turn
around and get redress and reverse the terrible inequity and, I guess, the
wrongdoing that has been done to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as a
result of a Liberal government. This happened back in 1969. There has been a
terrible injustice. We have been wronged. We have lost a fortune. We are going
to lose another $60-plus billion over the next thirty years, and she is
frightened to death that maybe, maybe we are going to do something good for the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I watched in astonishment last night when she did a scrum outside and
basically said that she really did not have any confidence in what was going on
with regard to our legal action. What kind of a message is that to the people of
the Province? What kind of message is that to the people of Quebec, who are
watching it and saying, a politician in Newfoundland and Labrador does not think
Newfoundland and Labrador has a leg to stand on in its legal case?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have no problem with success in this Province; in fact, we want to see as
much of it as we possibly can. What we do we have a problem with, Mr. Speaker,
is a government who continues to make mistakes, and they have admitted to a lot
of them in the last few months, Mr. Speaker.
Let's not forget, this is also a government about fluff. They were going to
put transmission lines through a national park but turned around after and told
people, we are just kidding. So, Mr. Speaker, what do you expect when you lay
something out there in the public but you do not want to substantiate it?
So I say to the Premier today, I say to the Premier today, the research that
we have done, very limited, very limited, I will admit to that, Mr. Speaker, but
there has never
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask members to my left for their co-operation and I ask the hon. the Leader
of the Opposition to pose her question now.
MS JONES: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, because it is a very
important question.
In fact, we want to know where the precedented cases are that the Premier
speaks of because according to the knowledge that we have, Mr. Speaker, there
has been no serious address or definition by the provincial courts or by the
Supreme Court as it relates to the Quebec criminal code (inaudible), and I ask
the Premier today if he will give us that (inaudible)?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Deputy Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has raised the issue of research,
and I can't - not take advantage of this opportunity to point out the dearth
lack of any ability they have over there to research information. Yesterday, Mr.
Speaker, the House Leader for the Opposition stood in this House and accused
Nalcor of spending nearly $1 million on Summa in Ottawa, a lobbyist company, to
lobby on behalf of them. The information he said he got from the federal
government Web site. Mr. Speaker, he was completely, totally wrong.
First of all, there is no federal government agency that provides information
on fees that are paid to lobbyist firms on companies' behalf. Second of all,
the information
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer now.
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is important. The $960,000 that was referenced on that Web site was for
three specific initiatives of this government that are being done on behalf of
Nalcor. In fact, since 2006, only $298,500 has been spent by Nalcor (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Great diversion by the minister from the question that was asked to her.
Obviously, they have no precedented cases. They have no information to tender.
They have nothing to substantiate, other than fluff, Mr. Speaker.
So let me ask the minister this. The amendments of the Quebec Civil Code,
which took place in 1994, and we know that the Churchill Falls Agreement was
signed in 1969, so I ask: Is there any retroactive clauses in this agreement
that would allow you to even have the contract addressed twenty-five or thirty
years later?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: So, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite has talked
about her research and the detailed research that she does, and how strong it
is, and how accurate it is.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: The Opposition House Leader, who I presume deals from
the same
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: brilliant pool of research that the Opposition
Leader deals from, came up yesterday with a figure that had absolutely nothing
to do with what he pretended it was all about. In fact, the $960,000 was for the
Northern Strategic Plan, for diesel subsidies, which I assume the Member for
Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair is in favour of, and energy related studies for the
Department of Natural Resources. That is what the $960,000 was for.
So this is the research. So, if your researchers are telling you you cannot
do something on a legal case, or they are telling you about precedents, ignore
them, because they do not know what they are talking about, like you do not know
what you are talking about.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Still no answers. Still nothing to substantiate the claims that they are
making. They cannot tell us if the Quebec Civil Code that was amended in 1994 is
even going to be retroactive to deal with this issue. They cannot tell us if
there are any precedented cases that exist in the courts since 1994, Mr.
Speaker.
Maybe they can tell us this, if Quebec Hydro refuses to meet and negotiate
before the January 15 deadline that you have put in place, what is the next
course of action? Is there a case to take to the Supreme Court or not?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we will cross that bridge when we come to
it. That is an action in good faith. We are assuming that there may be good
faith by Hydro-Quebec. It will be a first, believe me, if they happen to do it.
Unlike my friends opposite who think they are probably the greatest thing since
sliced bread.
Having said that, we will - if at the end of the day there is no
renegotiation, then we will leave that matter in the hands of CF(L)Co. They have
the benefit of legal opinions which they have performed, which I assume are
similar to the legal opinions which we have which indicate that there are other
remedies available. That is the simplest and most general way I can put it for
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My next questions are for the Minister of Health, and I know he is awfully
excited to be getting on his feet in this session of the House.
Mr. Speaker, today marks World AIDS Day and the Province has been without an
infectious disease specialist since March of this year. In fact, in questioning
in the spring session of the House of Assembly and in the early fall session,
the government had committed to launch a recruitment strategy to fill those
particular positions. To date, they have still not been done.
I ask the minister today: What the plan of action is and what are they doing
to recruit these specialists for the Province after such a long period of time
of having the positions vacant?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Leader of the Opposition is accurate that the infectious disease
specialist position is vacant; however, we did have a locum here for the
Province in November. This locum is now finished but has expressed interest in
coming to work. We are also speaking to another infectious disease specialist
who is interested in coming to the Province and doing locum work in January.
In terms of recruiting doctors or physicians, Mr. Speaker, we currently have,
I think it is 1,042 doctors in the Province more than we have ever had. We
are currently in negotiations with the medical association. Most significantly,
Mr. Speaker, we are ready at some point in the near future, to release the
market adjustment policy which will allow us to address the situations of
recruitment and retention in hard to fill positions. This has come out of the
bargaining process, Mr. Speaker, and we are confident that in the not too
distant future we will be able to fill this position.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Right now, today, I think it is slated for three infectious disease
specialists for this Province, of which we have neither one. We have 130
patients today who are suffering from AIDS and HIV who need this particular
service on a regular basis. We have just come through a major pandemic in the
Province, not quite over yet, with regard to the H1N1.
I ask the minister today: In the absence of the many months that have went by
with no success of recruiting not even one of these three specialists for the
Province, why are you not looking at some kind of a package that we could offer
to retain one of those locums that are currently visiting every month, or couple
of months, to come and stay and practice in Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I just indicated to the Leader of the
Opposition that we are in negotiations with the medical association on an
ongoing basis. We are talking to a couple of doctors who are specialists in this
area, with a view to recruiting them to the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, we are offering attractive bonuses in terms of retention and
recruitment. Also, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador offers a quality of
life that doctors are looking for today. There is more than just money, Mr.
Speaker, it is good place to work; it is a good place to raise a family. In
fact, Mr. Speaker, I can think of no better place.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, on June 2, 2008 the Western School Board -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. DEAN: -decided that Bayview Regional Collegiate in St.
Lunaire-Griquet would close its door upon the completion of a new facility in
St. Anthony.
This closure of Bayview would mean that children would have to be bussed up
to forty kilometres to St. Anthony which poses great safety concerns for
parents, especially during the winter months. Also, the loss of this school
could mean that the community of St. Lunaire-Griquet would lose an important
part of its identity.
So I would ask the Minister of Education: What has your department done to
ensure the best interest of the students, and the community of St.
Lunaire-Griquet, will be served by keeping Bayview academy open?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the member opposite for his question. A very interesting question. I
wish I could ask it back because I remember the member opposite making some very
public and clear statements on commitments that he would honour if elected as
the member of the other side.
What I have done is I have honoured the commitment that I made at a public
meeting at which three members opposite attended and a number of people on this
side of the House attended. That was to ensure that due process was followed, to
ensure that the concerns raised to me by members of the public meeting, each and
every single one of them were brought to the attention of the school board and
that I would direct the school board to respond appropriately to the people, to
the town council, to the school council, to address the concerns they brought
forward.
Mr. Speaker, I have followed through on that commitment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, back in 2005 there was an announcement by the Nova
Central School Board that Leo Burke Academy in Bishop's Falls would be closing
and students were to be bussed to Grand Falls to attend school.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
MR. DEAN: At that time government, Mr. Speaker, decided to reverse a
decision made by the school board, and Premier Williams was quoted as saying:
The Province will continue to overrule the decisions of government boards and
consultants with which it disagrees. He also stated: You will see it again.
So I ask the minister: Will you commit to reversing the decision made by the
Western School District to close Bayview Regional Collegiate?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to make all kinds of commitments
today, and I am prepared to review for the member opposite the kind of
leadership we have provided for education in this Province. If we had the time,
I could talk about the elimination of school fees, and the provision of
textbooks. I could talk about the quality of facilities we are putting in place.
I am prepared to talk about the $120-plus million we are putting into
infrastructure and new schools and renovations and maintenance.
I am prepared to talk, Mr. Speaker, about a democratic process that this
government supports that just saw new school boards elected in this Province,
and I am prepared to talk about my commitment to let those boards do the job
that they have been elected to do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's commitment. However,
my question was: Given the establishment of a precedent, would the minister be
willing to commit to reversing the decision made by the Western School District
to close Bayview Regional Collegiate?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, to pick up where I left off, I am certainly
prepared to talk about the new schools we are building in Placentia and in
Torbay and in Paradise.
I am also prepared to, once again, reiterate this government's commitment,
Mr. Speaker, that all of us recognize the role of school boards in this
Province. As a matter of fact, this government made the decision to invest more
than $300,000 into democracy to promote the election of school boards because it
is their role, Mr. Speaker, to provide governance and to organize schools and
school systems in this Province. My commitment is to ensure that those boards do
their jobs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, the 2009-2010 academic year has already been
marked by four school closures due to air quality issues. We have urged the
Department of Education, repeatedly, to make air quality inspections mandatory
in all schools throughout the Province and for inspections, of course, to be
made public. The Department of Education continues to reject the idea and
schools continue to be disrupted.
I ask the minister: How many more times will we have to raise this issue
before you will take the initiative to reconsider the way that air quality is
monitored in our schools?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair is having great difficulty in hearing the questions asked, and I
can only imagine what the ministers are trying to do in listening and trying to
provide an answer. I ask members to provide an opportunity here for questions to
be asked and answers to be given.
The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I know my colleagues get rather excited when we talk about education. We have
done so many wonderful things in this Province. It is really hard to contain
ourselves.
I thank the member opposite for the question. I am gratified by the amount of
attention you are giving me today. I appreciate that.
Let me remind you of a couple of things that I am sure your colleague next to
you from Port de Grave has reminded you of. We have invested this year $120-plus
million, Mr. Speaker, in school maintenance, in renovations and in air quality
projects. Mr. Speaker, that includes everything from replacing roofs, windows,
and siding to tiding, to building new schools.
Mr. Speaker, I would also remind the member opposite, or share for his
knowledge perhaps, that is more than a 700 per cent increase in investment in
school facilities for the purposes of things like controlling and fixing air
quality problems, more than 700 per cent increase from when the Liberal
government was in power, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KING: Let me also say to the member opposite's question, Mr.
Speaker, that they are clearly misinformed about the kinds of things that will
fix air quality problems.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, on previous occasions when we raised the question of whether air
quality testing should be conducted in the Province's schools, the minister
said the practice of conducting enhanced inspections is the best way forward.
However, when mould issues are found and renovations are done the contractors
frequently use air quality testing to determine whether it is safe for students
to reoccupy the school. So there seems to be a contradiction going on.
I ask the minister: Why is it that air quality testing is not being used to
detect problems in the first instance, but is being used to give the green light
for the reoccupation of schools?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KING: First of all, Mr. Speaker, thank you again for the question and
the opportunity to elaborate a little further on some of the things that I have
been talking about.
For the member opposite, let me say, first of all, that clearly people who
are experts in the field of air quality will tell you, number one, that air
quality testing will not solve the problems, and in many cases, many of the
problems we are having with air quality in our schools cannot be detected by the
kind of air quality testing that the member opposite talks about.
Well, let me just say this, Mr. Speaker, let me just say this, to be very
clear for the people who are watching and listening to this. The problems we
have discovered recently with air quality testing have not been discovered
through air quality testing. They have been discovered because this government
has gone in and invested money to upgrade facilities. Problems, Mr. Speaker,
that would not have been detected, would not have been detected, if we had not
been investing time and money to ensure the facilities were as good as they
possibly could be for students.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I could not believe my ears yesterday when I heard the Minister
of Health and Community Services say in this House that the long-term care and
community services strategy is not complete. Mr. Speaker, at the very least he
should have known he indicated he had been listening to the news and he had
seen the town hall that I held last week on CBC on the Internet. He should have
known I was coming with questions on home care yesterday. Mr. Speaker, this
government announced they were working on a strategy in February of 2008. It was
the first time it was said in this House by the then Minister of Health, and
since that time we have heard nothing but empty promises.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Why is the long-term care and community
support strategy not ready?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I say to the member opposite, as I have
indicated yesterday, the strategy is not complete. I am not satisfied where it
stands in our department and I have decided that there is further work that
needs to be done in relation to this strategy. That does not take away, Mr.
Speaker, from the amount of money that we have spent on long-term care. As I
outlined yesterday, I cannot even add it all up there is so much there, in terms
of so many different long-term care facilities.
Also, Mr. Speaker, the amount of money that we have put into home care, and
the amount of money that we have put into health care in general. Mr. Speaker,
$2.6 billion of our budget, 40 per cent of the budget is into health care. There
is a $1 billion increase over five years ago, and it is double the budget over a
decade ago. We are the second highest spending per capita in the country, just
after Alberta. Now what does that tell you, I say to the member opposite?
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 did not ask about our health care expenditures, I am well aware of the
budget. What I am talking about is why this government is not setting home care
as a priority. The minister should have been able to announce yesterday that the
strategy was finished. Mr. Speaker, with so many people hurting because they
cannot afford home care or get adequate home care, government's lack of action
on this serious situation is unjust. No less than unjust.
So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: When is government going to make
universal home care a priority, and is that the strategy he is working on?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is hard to answer in forty-five seconds the question being asked by the
member opposite. In terms of universal health care, it is my understanding, Mr.
Speaker, that across this country the jurisdictional scan I have had completed
indicates that there is no universal home care.
I did indicate, Mr. Speaker, yesterday that I would outline how our financial
assessment tool would benefit people. There have been, Mr. Speaker, 1,435
clients reassessed. The number of decreased contributions is $937, resulting,
Mr. Speaker, in a $3.3 million cost to the government. To give you an example, a
monthly income of $2,100, Mr. Speaker, that would have currently had to give or
contribute $1,000, will now contribute $124 for a decrease in the client
contribution of $953.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: That is money in the pockets of people of this Province that
they can spend.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am amazed by the minister's statement about doing a scan and not finding
universal home care across the country. He had better check on his own
researchers because there are at least three that have complete, total,
universal home care: Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba for three.
Mr. Speaker, if home care is a priority for this government, why is it that a
year ago last month the then minister said that the strategic plan would be
released in the very near future? That was a year ago, November 25.
Can the minister define for this House: With the many people across his
Province who need home care services, what the very near future means to you?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I became Minister of Health approximately two
months ago. I indicated at that time that I would speak to the people of this
Province whenever needs arose and address concerns, as we did in Flower's Cove
and Lewisporte and as we did with H1N1.
The strategy, Mr. Speaker, will be developed and it will be provided when it
is completed. I am not going to rush a strategy simply because the Leader of the
NDP wishes to see the same. I cannot give her a time frame as to when it will be
done; but I can tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, when it is done, it will be
done right.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A quick question from the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of Natural Resources and the Premier both alluded to the fact
that I supposedly gave some incorrect or misleading information to this House
yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, I have with me in my hand here the information that I referenced
yesterday, which I will table with this House. It was obtained directly from the
Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada. The information shows that
Nalcor, which is owned 100 per cent by the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador, paid $960,000. It had nothing to do with what the Premier said about
subsidization of oil rigs. It had to do with assistance for infrastructure and
development of the Lower Churchill. It had to do with capacity of
hydro-electricity in the Province of Newfoundland.
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to table what I have, I challenge the minister and
ask the minister, will you table what you are referencing which says that I am
not right?
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, all I have to do if he tables the document
that he has, which is from the Web site, that is the only evidence I need. The
category right along that describes what the money is for is money from the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to Nalcor. It nowhere says that that
money was used to pay Summa. The money is money that Nalcor received outside
their core budget for three different projects. It has -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MS DUNDERDALE: You have it. You are tabling it.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS DUNDERDALE: You do not know how to read the Web site.
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.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Notices of Motions.
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to once again table some petitions that were submitted on behalf
of the people of the Province with regard to the number of accidents with moose
on our highways, calling upon the government to take some action.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, I had more petitions of about 6,000 names delivered to
my office again this morning with regard to this particular issue. It seems to
be an issue that is growing in support right across the Province. In fact, there
has been no end to the e-mails and the feedback that we have received at our
office. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, any time that the public perceives that there is
an issue of safety that is impacting upon the lives and people throughout the
Province they would like to see some action on it. I think they are very
sincerely asking the government to look into this situation, to take the advice
and the direction that has been taken in other provinces in Canada, to look at
what has worked in those provinces in terms of reducing the number of
moose-vehicle accidents on our highway, and look at what can be implemented in
Newfoundland and Labrador. They have provided a number of options and they have
also provided substantial information to accompany those options that will tell
you what has been effective in Alberta, or in New Brunswick, or in Nova Scotia,
and what has not been effective in some of these provinces as well.
Mr. Speaker, I think that this is a plea that is being made on behalf of many
individuals. In fact, over 700 individuals this year have had accidents with
moose on our highways. Over 700 families are working themselves through, Mr.
Speaker, serious illness and injury as a result of it, and through some
financial crisis that often comes with extended health care bills and
infrastructure damage.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, we have also had four fatalities on our
highways since January with moose accidents. We have heard the stories of some
of these people in the media, some of these people who talked about the loss of
their loved ones as a result of motor vehicle accidents with moose, and how they
strongly feel that more needs to be done to try and curb the number of accidents
that occur, to try and make the highways safer for people that use them and
travel on them.
Mr. Speaker, as I said this morning, yesterday I had petitions with about
20,000 signatures. I had another group of petitions delivered to my office today
with another 6,000 signatures. Tomorrow we will have an opportunity to debate a
private member's motion that focuses on this particular issue. Of course, all
of the work that we are bringing forward, as a part of that motion and through
these petitions, have been done by a group within the Province. It is a group,
an active group that was set up to lobby government just on this issue. I
certainly want to recognize the work that they have done and the tremendous
support and profile that they have given this particular issue.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?
Orders of the Day.
Before I recognize the hon. the Deputy Premier, I just want to say that
members may notice a misprint in Orders of the Day. It shows in the distribution
of Orders of the Day that second reading has taken place on Bill 38 to Bill 47,
when actually Bill 38 to Bill 41 has been second reading, and Bill 42 to Bill 47
has been by Notices of Motion.
I bring that to members' attention, and I think a new bill has probably
been distributed, at least to some members, the Government House Leader and the
Opposition House Leader.
Orders of the Day.
MS DUNDERDALE: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier on a point of order?
MS DUNDERDALE: Yes, sir.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order.
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as referenced in Question Period yesterday here in the House,
the Opposition House Leader made an accusation here in the House that Nalcor
paid nearly a million dollars to Summa to represent them as a lobbyist company
in Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, this information is incorrect.
We ask you to view the federal government Web site that the Opposition House
Leader referenced and you will be able to confirm that the information that is
provided around the $960,000 has nothing, nothing, to do with fees being paid to
Summa; this information is correct.
It could potentially be damaging to the company and we ask that the
information be withdrawn, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I recognize the hon. the Opposition House Leader standing, but there is no
point of order. If the hon. member might want to raise a new point of order he
can, but there is no point of order. It is a point of clarification, a point of
information.
I remind all members when points of order are to be raised, that they should
be raised at the time that the point of order occurs; not the following day or
from any time thereafter.
There is no point of order.
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to refer to the Order Paper under the motions, Motion 1 -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair is having difficulty hearing the Government House Leader. I ask
members for their co-operation.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of
Government Services, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The
Vital Statistics Act, 2009, and I further move that the said bill be now read a
first time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House
Leader to have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Vital
Statistics Act, 2009, Bill 42, and that Bill 42 be now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have 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 Government Services to introduce a bill,
"An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act, 2009", carried. (Bill 42)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act, 2009, 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.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask members to take their conversations
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask members to take their conversations and their arguments to the outside
of the Chamber, so as the Chair can hear the hon. the Government House Leader.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture
and Recreation, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Repeal The
Newspapers And Books Act, 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
Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To
Repeal The Newspapers And Books Act, 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 Tourism, Culture and Recreation to introduce
a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Newspapers And Books Act", carried.
(Bill 43)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Repeal The Newspapers And Books Act, 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 move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of
Justice and Attorney General, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act
To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act, Bill 45, and I further move that the
said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the
Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To
Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act, Bill 45, and that Bill 45 be now read a
first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 45 be now read a first time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a
bill, "An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act", carried.
(Bill 45)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act, Bill
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 45 has now been read a first time.
When shall Bill 45 be read a second time?
MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 45 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
Aboriginal Affairs, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend
The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, Bill 46, and I further move that
the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved by the hon. the Government House Leader that
Bill 46,
An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, be now
read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 46 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 Aboriginal Affairs to introduce a bill,
"An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act",
carried. (Bill 46)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement
Act. (Bill 46)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 46 has now been read a first time.
When shall Bill 46 be read a second time?
Tomorrow?
MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 46 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
Aboriginal Affairs, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend
The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act No. 2, Bill 47, and I further move
that the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded by the hon. the Government
House Leader to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The
Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act No. 2, Bill 47, and that Bill 47 be now
read a first time.
Shall the minister have leave to introduce and have Bill 47 read a first
time?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs to introduce a bill,
"An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act No. 2",
carried. (Bill 47)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement
Act No. 2. (Bill 47)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 47 has now been read a first time.
When shall Bill 47 be read a second time?
MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 47 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 from the Order Paper, Order
4, second reading of a bill,
An Act To Amend The Private Investigation and
Security Services Act, Bill 39.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 39,
An Act To Amend The
Private Investigation and Security Services Act, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Private
Investigation and Security Services Act". (Bill 39)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Aboriginal
Affairs, that Bill 39,
An Act To Amend The Private Investigation and Security
Services Act, be now read a second time.
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to get up in this House in regard to addressing
certain things in regard to this act. The Private Investigation and Security
Services Act has been in my department for some time now, but there are certain
things within the act that are not consistent with the actual industry itself.
First off, I would like to just address to the people in this House and also
in regard to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador exactly what the act does.
It certainly governs the licensure of private investigators, security agents,
security agencies, burglar alarm companies, security consultants, and armed
vehicle guards and couriers. Certainly, the purpose of the act itself, too, is
to maintain and enhance the business of security in the Province by providing
education and professional requirements and standards for the employees of these
companies which carry on this type of business within the Province. In that
regard, it certainly promotes a secure business environment in the Province in
certain things that addresses crime, such as theft and shoplifting and that kind
of thing. So in that regard it is a very, very important act when it comes to
the Province and the businesses that we find in our Province across Newfoundland
and Labrador.
It also provides within the act assurances that these companies, that the
employees of the agencies are properly trained and educated in the field of
expertise that they have chosen as a career. Certain things are prescribed
within the act itself and required before a licence can be issued. Such things
as proof of Canadian citizenship, minimum age of nineteen years of age, the
completion of a recognized training program, proof of liability insurance, the
provision of a bond. The amounts are specified in the regulations itself and the
proof that the applicant has never been found guilty or convicted of an offence
under the Criminal Code. These are all relevant to the issuing of that licence
and very important too, as well, and held in the regulation part.
What we find in the act itself is that within the act it specifically
references membership in the Newfoundland Security Guards and Private
Investigation Agencies Association Limited. That association has been in regard
to its activities being sporadic, very sporadic at times. We have had no
activity there since 2006. They have not even submitted any of their financial
statements or anything like that to Vital Statistics. So, when it comes to the
association itself, it was mostly focused, I guess is the word that I would want
to use, on the trade organization itself opposed to the organization being
dedicated to training and professional development as the legislation suggests.
Certain sections,
section 15(3) of the act requires: "The administrator
shall require that a person of a prescribed class who holds a licence as an
agency under this Act be a member of an association incorporated for the
purposes in relation to that prescribed class as a condition of holding that
licence." So, certainly when you read that and just as I referenced too, as
well, the sporadic nature of the association itself in the past and being
inactive in the Province too, as well, since 2006. In order to issue a licence
under the act as it sits today seems unfair to the people who would choose this
fine profession as a career. That should not be there. So a part of this act, in
regard to what I am speaking to today is to repeal
section 5(3).
Furthermore, referencing 5(3) on to
section 15(4), it also allows the
administrator to issue a conditional licence but, as well, it can be refused if
they cannot show a membership in the association. Again, that is unfair to the
person who is asking for the licence to conduct their affairs and work in this
fine profession because the association really has not existed since 2006.
Then, pursuant to
section 9 of the act, I believe, it says in the act that an
applicant of a licence to conduct business as a private investigation or a
security guard agency, except an agency which implies armoured vehicle guards
shall also provide proof of membership in the Newfoundland Security Guard and
Private Investigators Agencies Association Ltd. Again, in reference to that part
of the act,
section 9, it has been very, very sporadic over the years and
non-existent since the 2006 area.
The Trade Practices Division of the Government Services have informed me as
well, that we issue approximately seventy-five agency licences a year to
applicants who must meet the requirement set out in 15(3) of the act and
section
9 which makes it very, very hard in order for us to address the issues that
these people need addressed when we have these erroneous sections within the act
itself, and are not relevant to today's standards. I guess, in today's
marketplace the membership in a trade organization is accepted really as a
voluntary act and is not imposed and someone as a condition of their licence.
That is accepted within the marketplace today and it is a general practice of
the market in other professions as well.
With that, Mr. Speaker, the intentions that I am bringing to the House today,
and I am asking for concurrence and support from not only the members on this
side of the House but the members on the opposite side of the House, because I
think this is very important to the people who choose this profession, that it
will make it much, much easier, within the act itself, to issue the licences and
have a certain flow through the act. In certain ways, it takes away some of the
red tape that a person might have to go through with regard to providing or
obtaining a licence and then working in the business itself.
The intention of the act is to repeal these sections that are referenced.
They are 15(3), 15(4) and
section 9, I believe, of the act itself. That is the
intention of the actual piece that I bring to the House of Assembly.
I will take my seat now, Mr. Speaker, and welcome the comments of my hon.
members of the House, but I think they will look at the act as well, the same
way as I do, that it is an important piece that has to happen. It might be a
little bit of housekeeping; you cannot get up and speak for hours and hours on
the subject matter. I am sure that the people that are working in this
particular industry and I see that the hon. member across the House is
guaranteeing me that he is only going to take about thirty seconds to a minute
to address the issues because he seems to be in concurrence.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat in the House.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a pleasure to be able to stand and make a few comments with regard to
Bill 39.
The minister had it partly right when he said that I was only going to stand
for thirty seconds, but he promised me that he would only be thirty seconds as
well.
I am not going to take too much time, Mr. Speaker, but as the minister
stated, it is
An Act To Amend The Private Investigation And Security Services
Act. The explanatory note, Mr. Speaker, is very straightforward and I think the
minister explained it with regard to sections 15(3), (4) and (5), and
section 9.
Really, what it is, it is repealing some of the sections that are already in
that particular bill.
The bill would amend this particular act "to remove, as a condition
of a licence, the requirement that an agency be a member of the Newfoundland
Security Guards and Private Investigators Association Ltd."
First when I saw this, Mr. Speaker - and probably I will ask this question as
we go along during the debate, probably in the committee stage. Some of the
issues that came forward, more or less, we were wondering - it was unclear who
had approached government to repeal this information. Generally speaking, some
comments were made that seemed like the legislation involving public safety was
to be watered down.
I will not go that far to say that, but we know in today's society how
important it is with regard to security and private investigations associations.
We know full well, not only in our Province, but throughout this great country
and our neighbouring countries, the importance of security in the world today.
Regardless, if it is a major organization or one of the seventy-five agencies
that are here in the Province, which the minister noted, I believe that the
legislation make sure that people have to be properly trained.
I have had incidents with regard to people who work with security groups here
in St. John's, and for whatever reasons they were let go and had to go to
appeals with them, trying to get their EI benefits. There were standards that
were not met, and rightly so. So the owner of some of those securities made sure
that this was followed through, they were trained properly, but for whatever
reasons they let the rules and regulations slip by the wayside, but not to the
point that there was anything major happened or any breaches of break and enter
or anything like that.
Mr. Speaker, it is a very important issue and it was good to hear when the
minister mentioned that it is going to be paramount in regard to the proper
training of those people. It is a very important profession, more so today than
in the past.
I know the minister made comments, too, with regard to the financial
statements end of it, that it was more or less just looked at the trade
organization end. Hopefully, with this new legislation, the rules and
regulations will be tightened up. There will be more responsibility when it
comes to reporting and so on.
I guess I was amazed at the number when he mentioned that seventy-five
agencies apply for licences each and every year here in the Province. I take it
that was for the full area of Newfoundland and Labrador. Not only when we look
at the legislation with regard to the two or three clauses that will be
repealed, I am sure that there is also a cleaning up of the act. We see that
from time to time. Legislation, after certain time passes, different wording has
to be changed to go with the rules and regulations that we see today. So, a lot
of the issues with regard to legislation being changed has to do with the red
tape and so on.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is very important, as the minister stated, to have a
secure environment here in the Province for the business. Not only that, but
when it comes to those private investigators and security businesses, it is very
important to see that the rules and regulations are carried out. I guess there
has to be a reason why this clause is being repealed, where people do not have
to be a part of the Newfoundland Security Guards and Private Investigators
Association. I guess probably some of the agencies that apply each year were not
a part of that association and that piece of legislation will be repealed.
So having said that, Mr. Speaker, those are the only comments I have. Maybe
the minister, when he has a chance later on, whether it is in committee, will be
able to explain just a little where this change came from where individuals
would not have to be required to be a member of the investigators association in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
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 glad to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 39, which is
An Act To
Amend The Private Investigation And Security Services Act. I thank the minister
for his opening statements. I, too, will have brief comments.
I think this bill is important. Dealing with this issue is important because
it does have to do with the safety of people in the Province. The private
investigation and security services do play a very special role in the Province,
within businesses, within the public sector, within government bodies,
government buildings. They are all over the place. I, too, was surprised by the
number of companies that exist. I had no idea that the number was as high as the
minister has told us.
I have no problem whatsoever with the changes that are being suggested by the
minister which are being brought forward in this bill. We have spoken to people
in the industry, both to companies as well as to unionized members, to get a
sense of their response to what is happening and there seems to be agreement
that this does need to be done by all hands involved in the industry, and I am
glad to see government responding to that.
I think it is also an opportunity for us to look at some of the issues that
the industry is dealing with and issues that I would like the minister to think
about. Right now, we are just dealing with a housekeeping issue and it is very
simple to take care of, but I think there are more in-depth issues that people
in the industry, both those who own companies as well as workers, who would like
to see the government become involved in and would like to see the ministry
become involved in.
One of it has to do with the licences for individuals and licensing
individuals is something that government does, but we have become aware of the
fact that government has fallen behind in its licensing, and because of this,
some security firms have taken it upon themselves to issue licences. I do know
that there are differing opinions out there. There are some who think government
should not be involved at all and there are others, of course, who think
government should be. I think what everybody has agreed upon is that there needs
to be an efficient way of licensing so that things are not held up. I think that
is the issue. I know that there are some people in the industry who think that
it is a waste of time to have government involved. I do not think I agree with
that. What I do agree with, that there should not be undue red tape and there
should not be waiting times, because the waiting times affect the employees who
are wanting to get into the industry. So I think it is a serious issue.
I think government needs to sit down with all those involved in the industry,
with those who actually run the agencies, with the union I think it is
Steelworkers, USW that represents unionized workers. So I think all hands
need to sit down at the table, together with government, to try to get at how to
deal with the licensing issue. I am sure the minister would be open to that. I
would love it if he stands up later on, either in reading or in committee and
says that he is open to this issue. It is a problem, and it is a problem that is
affecting the industry having people, adequate people in the industry.
There are two things about those who work in the industry that also need to
be looked at. One is the whole training issue. Training costs money, and some
companies are now offering private training because the workers themselves
cannot afford the training, and yet training is required. I really think
government has to look at the provision of training. There are other areas
this is a global issue. For example, in home care, I think government needs to
look at the provision of training as well, but here we are looking particularly
at the security services. We do know that some of the programs out there are not
even satisfying the industry, not satisfying the companies. I would like to see
the government using our public college system I understand that the College
of the North Atlantic does have a very good training program for security
personnel, and I think it really would be a role of government to get involved
in helping with the cost of the training that people need in order to do the
program.
There is a whole issue, too, of when one should have the training, and that
is another discussion I think that needs to be had with industry. It would seem
that people should have the training before they even start a job, because this
is a serious job. Being involved in security services, in particular, requires
very, very important skills. I would hope that the minister would agree with me,
that training is essential, and nobody should be out there doing the work
without having training first. Government should be involved in offering that
training. It is expensive. A lot of the guards in particular are working for
minimum wage or just above. Even those who are working inside of public
institutions are working for $14 an hour. That is not enough money to pay for
the training. The training program is expensive. This is a lot more important
than the issue that we are dealing with here in this bill. The change that we
are making is important but it is much more important to have people who are
trained to do their job and that that training is offered to them if they are
going to go into this industry.
The other issue which also is a bit of a universal issue, not just related to
security guards, but as I mentioned a minute ago, security guards get paid, some
of them minimum wage or just above minimum wage. There is a disparity between
what security guards get in the private sector from private companies and what
security guards are paid if they are working in a public sphere. For example,
like working at one of our hospitals within buildings of Eastern Health. It is
similar to the disparity that exists between people who work with ambulance
services in the private or community-based services and those who work for
ambulance attached to a health authority. There is a disparity in the wage. The
work is the same. The training that is expected is the same; therefore, the wage
should be the same. What we are lacking here are provincial standards that need
to be put in place.
So, there are a number of issues in what I have talked about here that are
related to the bill, in that they all deal with the whole issue of security
services. I once again say to the minister, that the issue for me is that he
look not just at this housekeeping piece that we are going to be changing with
this bill but that he look at these problems that exist in the industry and sit
with industry and with the unions that represent some of the workers and try to
work them out. Some of them, all of them, I guess, involve money but it would be
money well spent. There has to be a way to make sure that the standards that
exist for workers who are unionized, the standards that exist for the companies
that employ, the standards that exist for the government itself through, for
example, its health authorities, that all the standards are the same.
There is a role for government in making sure that happens because government
does have a responsibility to monitor the industry, to regulate the industry,
and because of that, government then has to have a role in ensuring that
training happens. People who are working for $9, $10, $11, $14 an hour cannot
afford to do the training, and that standards exist with regard to the training
as well. It is not just enough to say do the training. A program that is being
done needs to also meet standards. I do not think that happens. I am aware that
people out there are not satisfied with all programs, and I think that is
problematic as well. We do have a public college and that college does offer a
program which I understand is very good.
There is a way for government to work this. There is a way for government to
be involved in the training of the personnel, and there is a way for government
to ensure that the industry is an industry that is respected. I really have come
to appreciate this industry and I think government needs to respect that
industry and to respect the workers in that industry and to ensure that the
industry is there for the good of our community.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
If the hon. the Minister of Government Services speaks now he will close the
debate on second reading of Bill 39.
The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am ever so happy to get up on my feet
again to close second reading. I certainly welcome the comments of my hon.
members across the House.
As I referenced, the association itself was totally focused on the trade side
of the industry and not so much on education and training as I would like. So in
that regard, I brought forward those amendments in regard to repealing that part
of the act.
Also, as well, in regard to the hon. Leader of the NDP, that my door is
always open. I am ever so happy to meet with industry in pertaining to any of
the legislation that I have in my department which constitutes, really,
one-third of all legislation across all government departments. My door - as
long as I am the Minister of Government Services, I have no problem with sitting
down with industry, listening to their issues, listening to their problems and
trying to work through solutions that may be able to address those issues and
make it better for the employees, make it even better for the employers, and
whatever I can do.
When it comes down to wages, well I, as the Minister of Government Services,
will not have a whole lot of influence there as well. You must also remember
that it is private industry. They dictate the wage levels and the salary scales
and that kind of stuff. We, as a government, back in the early part, when we
took government after 2003, made a commitment in regard to the minimum wage,
which we have addressed and moving that forward as well.
I would like to see, as the hon. member across the House, everybody in the
Province in the perfect world making $20-plus an hour. Is that possible?
Probably not, but in the mean time, we have to strive to have each and every
Newfoundlander and Labradorian make a decent wage when they are out there
working on behalf of the public, the industry and whatever they are doing in
their lives.
Certainly, with that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat in the House, then I
will speak again in regard to committee. The comments of my hon. members across
the House is not lost on myself and I would meet in regard to the industry. This
is just a housekeeping piece of work, but I am always cognizant of the total
industry to itself. If I, as the Minister of Government Services, can do
anything to make their industry better when it comes to the employees,
employers, I am all for it.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat in the House and wait for
committee version in a future time.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 39,
An Act To
Amend The Private Investigation And Security Services Act, be now read a second
time?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.
The motion is carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Private Investigation And Security
Services Act. (Bill 39)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 39 has now been read a second time.
When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House, now,
tomorrow?
MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Now.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Private Investigation And
Security Services Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee
of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 39)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, Order
5, second reading of a bill,
An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statue
Law. (Bill 40)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 40, An
Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statue Law be now read a second
time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors
In The Statue Law". (Bill 40)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce Bill 40,
An Act To Remove
Anomalies And Errors In The Statue Law.
Mr. Speaker, this is an exercise that we go through periodically to review
legislation. In every session, not in every session of the House, but
approximately every eighteen months or so we go through this exercise of
reviewing and amending various pieces of legislation to recover anomalies and
errors.
The purpose of this bill is to bring before the House of Assembly matters in
the statute law that require legislative correction as a result of amendments
that might have been made in previous sessions or enactments that have been made
in previous sessions. These amendments are brought to the Minister of Justice's
attention every so often and they are technical in nature, Mr. Speaker, and they
are not matters of policy.
In addition to the amendments, aimed at the correction of errors or
anomalies, the bill also proposed to repeal a number of acts and regulations
that are either obsolete or spent.
As I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, this usually takes place about every eighteen or
so, the Minister of Justice will present this bill, wherein the judgment of the
Office of the Legislative Counsel, enough amendments or enough errors, enough
anomalies, have been discovered to warrant a new bill, a new amendment.
We would not do it, Mr. Speaker, as the anomalies and amendments are
discovered because we would be doing it too often, so we allow a number of them
to build up before this bill is brought forward.
Some of the errors, Mr. Speaker, that this amendment will address will be,
for example, basically simple things, like corrections of errors in
cross-referencing. For example, clause 4 of the bill would amend the paragraph
of the Child and Youth Advocate Act to correct no, I am sorry, it will
correct the Architects Act. Clause 3 of the Architects Act will correct an error
in cross-referencing.
There are also errors in citation, and clause 4 of the bill would amend the
Child and Youth Advocate Act, for example, to correct an error in citation.
There are typographical errors that have been uncovered in legislation.
Clause 7, for example, would correct subsection (5) of the Insurance Contracts
Act to correct a typographical error.
Clause 9 would amend a part of the Lands Act to correct an error in syntax,
for example, and erroneously repeated words, deletion of erroneously repeated
words, would appear for example in paragraph 19 of the Marriage Act where the
amendment would delete erroneously repeated words.
These are things that have been picked up over time, Mr. Speaker, by lawyers
in their duties and their activities, by the courts, or by our own staff and
brought to the attention of the Minister of Justice, and every eighteen months
or so there are enough of them being compiled to bring a bill before this House
for amendments.
The bill, Mr. Speaker, would also repeal a number of acts and regulations
that are obsolete or spent. Periodically, between revisions of statutes and
regulations, as these spent or obsolete acts and regulations come to the
attention of the Legislative Counsel's office, a list of them are prepared,
and either a special repeal act is prepared for consideration of the House or
they can be included in the Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act such as
this; there are two ways to do it. In this case the repealing of the acts and
regulations that are obsolete or spent, we are bringing it in this Attorney
General Statutes Amendment Act.
This is basically cleanup legislation, Mr. Speaker, and I do not anticipate
much debate or controversy on it in the House. I ask the support of all hon.
members in passing this bill.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My comments will be very brief. I would concur with the minister, of course.
These acts are common here. We see about one a year. We pass a fair bit of
legislation as the years pass. Over time, people find out that we have made some
minor glitches and errors. That usually comes about, you find these things, with
the passage of time and the fact that you have actually used the piece of
legislation that you did.
Even the word, even in the title of the act, it is called : anomaly and
errors. So it says pretty clear what happens. It happens with some regularity, I
guess, because that is why we find ourselves back here.
In the explanation clauses that accompanies this act you can see, it says: To
delete erroneously repeated words. In other words, there were some words
erroneously repeated in
an act that did not need to be there, so we are going to
clean it up now and take it out. Likewise, a typographical error, a word was
erroneously left out, a word was erroneously left in. Sometimes it is to appeal
an act and so on. Quite often, something is obsolete or spent and it is no
longer to have it in there.
There is nothing magnanimous about this. There is no big piece of substantive
legislation here such as if you deal with the creation of a Nalcor or when they
expropriated, for example, the Abitibi rights in Central Newfoundland. It is not
a substantive piece of legislation of that nature.
This, in fact, is a piece of cleanup, housekeeping legislation and we will
certainly be having no comment on it. It is necessary; it keeps our statutes
nice and tidy. We have to do it from time to time.
It is good to see that the minister has had his first bill in this House. I
congratulate him, by the way, on his appointment of Minister of Justice and
Attorney General and to see that he will always remember, I guess, that Bill 40,
in this session, was the first bill he ever brought to the floor of the House as
the Minister of Justice. Congratulations to you again, sir, and you have no fear
of any debate from the Opposition with respect to this particular bill.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am happy to stand and speak to this bill, a bill which in some senses is
not substantive because it is, as has been described by the minister, a bill
that is dealing with housekeeping issues in terms of language or technical
amendments that are needed or some changes are substantive in that they relate
to changes in policy. So, certainly, I am not going to be having any problems
with the bill itself and will be voting for it because it is essential.
I would like to refer to one of the clauses in the bill because it is related
to an actual change that is happening because of a change of policy, and I would
just like to take a couple of minutes to speak to that policy. I am talking
about clause 6. Clause 6, of course, is dealing with the Income Tax Act. What it
is dealing with is the fact that in the Budget for 2009, I think it was the 2009
Budget, there was a change and it was a good change. I am not criticizing the
change. There was a change in the income threshold for paying income tax, for
paying provincial income tax. The income threshold was increased from $13,511 to
$15,911 for individuals. So over a $2,000 increase, about a $2,400 increase in
the income threshold for individuals, and there was almost a $5,000 increase in
the income threshold for families from $21,825 to $26,625. That is good. I note
that government noted at the time that it did this in March, that there would be
an additional 22,450 individuals receiving a reduction in their provincial
income tax, and that is good. I am glad it happened, but we all know that the
amount of income tax that would have been reduced for people at that low end of
the scale was pretty small.
Now the change was made by government for this taxation year, the taxation
year of 2009, because they recognized that people had minimum wage increased.
This was to help benefit people so that they would get a bigger benefit from the
increase in their minimum wage. Now we all know that the minimum wage has been
growing at increments of fifty cents each time that it has gone up, and by the
year of 2010 it will be up to $10. I guess the only point I am making is that
when this action took place in the Budget for 2009, it is good that it took
place, but it is pretty minimal when it comes to helping the people in this
Province. What I am asking this government to do and I know this is not the
purview of the Minister of Justice, but the Minister of Finance is here in the
House and I know he is listening to me, that we cannot sit on our laurels and
say when we get next year to 2010, there is nothing else to do now because the
minimum wage has been reached, we now are paying $10 an hour. Well, we are going
to find in 2010, that paying $10 an hour minimum wage is still going to be
leaving people under the low-income cut off. They are still going to be living
in poverty.
So, I would use this opportunity as a moment to remind us of that. That we
are going to have to continue looking at the minimum wage, continue looking at
trying to get as many people up to $20 an hour, as the former minister said when
he was speaking to his bill. Why we think helping people with $10 an hour is a
great thing really surprises me, when we know people are still living in
poverty. So we can up the threshold. We could actually say no income tax at all
from a certain amount down, $30,000 down. There are more things that could be
done but we are still dealing with very small numbers for these individuals
because their income is so small. So I would really impress upon all of us, that
we do have an obligation to make sure that we are all benefiting from where we
are right now in this Province financially.
By changing this and putting the new thresholds into the Income Tax Act
today, let's not think, okay, we have done it now; we have done all that needs
to be done. I would like to think that next year we will be standing here again
and making more changes with regard to income tax for low-income persons.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, first of all, I want to congratulate the Minister of Justice and
Attorney General for shepherding this bill through the House, through second
reading of the House. For those of us who earned our living as lawyers
practising law, it is certainly an honour and a privilege to occupy the office
of Attorney General and Minister of Justice. I know that the current minister is
certainly proud of that fact and I know that he is dedicated to doing a great
job, and I know he will do a great job. I know the Government House Leader is
also a former Attorney General and Minister of Justice and I am very pleased to
see that the first Justice bill has gone through this House and everyone is
certainly in support.
I am standing up today - and the other thing I wanted to do, of course, is
congratulate the new Member for The Straits & White Bay North, welcome him
formally to the House of Assembly. I had an opportunity to meet him earlier and
welcome him earlier. I met him when I was up in St. Anthony doing, I think,
pre-budget consultations at one time, and I dropped over to his business. If I
recall, he gave me some of the water that he manufactures there. I have to tell
you that it is an outstanding, outstanding product. My wife and I have become
customers and we enjoy the product very much and we encourage our friends to
sample it as well, especially when our friends come down from the mainland. We
tell them what their water is like. I told him that I was a little disappointed
the day that the local convenience store near my house where we buy the water
has stopped selling the product. We have complained and hopefully they will, now
that they see it in the House of Assembly, maybe they will reconsider the
decision.
I would like to say a few words in response to the Leader of the NDP, and I
can assure the Leader of the NDP that this government, probably more than any
government in the history of this Province, is certainly concerned about
low-income individuals in this Province. She was referring, I believe, to the
Income Tax Act, the low-income tax reduction. I think the first time that that
was reduced was under Minister Sullivan when he was the Minister of Finance, and
that removed so many thousand people. I do not remember the actual numbers. That
removed people from the tax rolls so that low-income people did not have to
spend any money on provincial income tax in this Province, and I think that was
further enhanced.
I can assure her that this government will continue to look at ways to give
help to low-income citizens, particularly our seniors and our pre-seniors, and
we have done this in things like the Home Heating Rebate. I believe when we
first came into office there were maybe 11,000 people receiving that. It was
$100. Now there are, I think, 76,000 people receiving the Home Heating Rebate.
That is certainly one way to help. The other way is seniors, the low-income
seniors' tax benefit. We made a couple of changes there. I know recently we
increased the amount. I think it was from $400-and-something up to around $800,
and that is a cheque that the seniors in this Province receive every October.
Then I think this past year, in the Budget we recognized that if you have a
couple and then one of them should pass on, that the cost of that single person,
the costs still remain high and it was important to ensure that the single
senior received as much and therefore we upped the amount for the single senior
as well.
There are so many things that you cannot remember them all from memory, but I
want to ensure you that we are not stopping here. I know I used to hear, when
minimum wage was whatever it was when we first came into office, and people said
it was not enough, and now it is going to up $10. It will be $10, I think, in
July. Of course, people will continue to say it is not enough but at least it
was an improvement. It was better than it was, and I can assure the members of
this House that this government will always be conscious of the need of
low-income citizens in this Province.
I cannot help but say a few words about the poverty reduction initiative as
well. I think there is over $130 million-odd a year now being spent on
initiatives to help people as we pursue a goal of taking this Province from
being a Province with the highest rate of poverty in the country to a Province
that has one of the lowest rates of poverty in Canada. That particular program
has been said by many, is a model in the country. I understand the Province of
New Brunswick in their budget, that I believe they are going to bring in
tomorrow, are intending to introduce a poverty reduction scheme, not with as
much money but they are only starting.
I know the National Association For Welfare, I believe they recently changed
their name, but I know they have talked about our program as a model for the
country because we stopped just thinking in departments, we stopped thinking in
silos, it is a cross-government initiative or initiatives to help address, in a
multi-faceted way, poverty. That is something that all of us, regardless of our
political persuasion, we all look forward to the elimination of poverty in our
country. I look forward to the federal government, hopefully, joining the
provinces that are doing this in a great fight against poverty in this country.
I know the Premier of this Province is dedicated to this. I know he has shown
initiative in this and I just want to assure the member that this is not the
end. This is, as they say in that movie, this is the end of the beginning and we
will continue, hopefully, given our circumstances, given these tough economic
times, that we will be able to continue to look after the most vulnerable in our
society.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I will urge passage of this bill and take my seat.
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, if he
speaks now he shall close debate.
The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members opposite for their comments, and I
thank the Opposition House Leader for his kind words and also for his
co-operation and the co-operation of the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi in
this debate.
I want to concur with my colleague, the Minister of Finance, on his comments
with regard to the initiatives of this government regarding poverty reduction,
especially the income tax reduction levels. It is probably one of the best
initiatives that this Province has seen in a long time. So in response to the
comments of the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I would like to concur with
my colleague's comments on that.
I also wanted to state, Mr. Speaker, as the newly minted Minister of Justice
and Attorney General both on my right and on my left I have all kinds of
expertise to draw on because I sit between the two former Ministers of Justice.
I can lean in either direction for expertise.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I thank the members for their comments in
debate and urge this bill to go to second reading.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now
read a second time?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law.
(Bill 40)
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: Now, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Now.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute
Law", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole
House presently, by leave. (Bill 40)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, Order
6, second reading of a bill,
An Act To Amend The Law With Respect To The
Definition Of Spouse. (Bill 41)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise to introduce Bill 41,
An Act To Amend
The Law With Respect To The Definition Of Spouse.
The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to "amend various of the
province's Acts and regulations to reflect recent developments in the law
respecting spouses. The principal thrust of the amendments is to change the
language of provisions that currently, either explicitly or implicitly, assume
that spouses must be members of the opposite sex." Within the last ten
years the laws in this country have changed to recognize the equality rights of
same sex, cohabitating couples and the right of persons of the same sex to
marry.
In 2001, Mr. Speaker, this House of Assembly passed
An Act To Amend A Law To
Consider Same Sex Cohabitation Partners In The Same Manner As Opposite Sex
Cohabitating Partners. These amendments were introduced consequent to a decision
of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case entitled, M versus H. M versus H, Mr.
Speaker, is a 1999 landmark decision of this country's highest court on the
rights of same-sex couples to equal treatment under the Constitution of Canada.
Ruling on the appeal of a case originally brought by a same-sex couple in
Ontario, the Supreme Court held that the exclusion of same-sex couples from the
definition of common-law spouse under the Ontario Family Law Act was in
violation of equality rights under
section 15 of the Charter and could not be
justified under
section 1 of the Charter.
This important decision, Mr. Speaker, found that it was constitutionally
imperative under Canadian Charter laws to provide equal treatment for same-sex,
common-law couples and opposite sex, common-law couples. The Supreme Court, in
its decision, called upon the lawmakers of Canada to rectify all Canadian laws
rather than force gays and lesbians to resort to the courts.
In 2004, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the right of persons
of the same sex to marry in a decision entitled, Reference re Same-Sex Marriage.
This case was a reference question to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the
constitutional validity of same-sex marriage in Canada. Prior to this case, Mr.
Speaker, the issue regarding the constitutional validity of same-sex marriage
had been considered by several of the provinces' appeal courts, all of them
holding it as constitutionally valid.
It was not until December, 2004 that two same-sex couples filed an
application in Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division, seeking
a declaration that the civil definition of marriage for civil purposes is: The
lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all other and that a civil
marriage between two persons of the same sex is therefore lawful and valid in
this Province.
Mr. Speaker, the traditional common law definition of marriage is defined in
union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others."
That is representative of the common law definition in Newfoundland and Labrador
at that time.
In this case, it was brought in 2004 to the Trial Division, entitled Pottle
et al. v. Canada in Newfoundland and Labrador, then Chief Justice Green of the
Supreme Court Trial Division confirmed that a civil marriage between two persons
of the same sex is lawful and valid in this Province.
As a result of these court decisions,