May 3,

2010 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 14

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we call members' statements, the Chair would like to introduce a new

Page to the House of Assembly: Mr. Johnathan McDonald from the Town of Carbonear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

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

the Member for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale, and the hon. the Member

for the District of Ferryland.

The hon. the Member for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I am honoured to recognize the outstanding work of the Gideons. The

Gideons International began as an association of Christian commercial travellers

who banded together in 1899 on an interdenominational basis for the purpose of

mutual recognition and for personal evangelism by distributing the Holy Bible

around the world. They chose to name their association after Gideon, an Old

Testament leader who did miraculous work with only a handful of people.

In 1911, Canadian Gideon members established their own national association

in Toronto and Hamilton. Today, there are over 3,000 Gideons and about 2,000

auxiliary members in 216 Canadian camps. Worldwide, there are more than 190,000

Gideons and 101,000 auxiliary members who ensure that Scriptures are distributed

in ninety-three different languages.

Mr. Speaker, every six days, there are 1 million copies being given out

somewhere in the world, which is equivalent to two copies every time your heart

beats. The bibles are placed in hotels, motels, hospitals, prisons, senior

citizens' homes, boats, waiting rooms, or wherever members of the public gather.

Members of the House of Assembly will see a copy on each of their desks today

compliments of the Gideons. There are special copies given to Grade 5 students,

police, nurses, military, and firefighters.

Mr. Speaker, I invite all colleagues to join with me in applauding the

magnificent volunteer work that the Gideons do, not only in this Province, but

also around the world.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Regina Mundi Cultural Committee of Renews on its

cultural weekend festivities held on March 13 and March 14 which I had the

pleasure of attending. The event included a visual arts display including

paintings, photography, a quilt display, hooked rugs, folk art and carvings from

local artists. The displays showcased quilts and hooked rugs dating back to the

1930s as well as ones done by current quilters and rug hookers who are reviving

the art.

As well, a potter demonstrated the pottery wheel, explaining the workings of

the clay and gave participants the chance to get their hands dirty to shape

vases and other forms of pottery. Participants were given the opportunity to

create rock art mummers using beach rock and natural materials. There were

fifteen artists and artisans in attendance demonstrating their arts form,

explaining techniques and providing the opportunity for the general public to

work along with them.

This was the first time a variety of artists and artisans from the Southern

Shore were gathered in one venue to demonstrate their art and provide the

opportunity for the general public to be involved in art activities under their

direction.

Sunday was a day filled with local entertainment. A festival of singing,

storytelling, recitations, step dancing, fiddle music and entertainers of all

ages.

Mr. Speaker, rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Southern Shore in

general, has an abundance of various forms of art developed over our 500 years

of history and events like those I described ensure these art forms are never

lost.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mary Chidley, chair of the committee

and members of the Regina Mundi Cultural Organizing Committee, including Mike

Chidley, Rita Chidley, Bev Kane, Eugene Kane, Josephine Johnson, Sharon Kane and

Lois Berrigan for the tremendous job they did in organizing this event and

ensuring all forms of culture are celebrated and enjoyed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize Mental Health Week 2010, which

runs from May 3 to May 9. This year's theme is Building your mental

healthOne support at a time . This week will help focus attention on the

importance of promoting and improving mental health.

Mental Health Week is an annual national event held by the Canadian Mental

Health Association to raise awareness of mental health issues and provide

learning opportunities to help all Canadians achieve and maintain good mental

health in their everyday lives.

During Mental Health Week we are all encouraged to look at the state of our

own mental health. At this time I would like to provide my colleagues with an

opportunity to assess the various dimensions of your own mental health, using

the "Mental Health Meter" developed by the Canadian Mental Health Association.

When I became Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker, I made a pledge to make mental

health and addiction issues a priority for me. I am pleased to say today that

this government is proving its commitment to mental health and addictions.

Last month, I was pleased to award one-time funding to several community

groups throughout the Province that focus on mental health and addictions

services, including $80,000 to the Canadian Mental Health Association to develop

a mental health literacy and anti-stigma project.

Mr. Speaker, in Budget 2010 we continued our efforts to ensure that those

individuals who live with mental illness or addiction have treatment options

available to them.

Our significant investments include $2 million for the planning and

development of an adult residential addictions treatment centre in Harbour Grace

that will help meet the needs of individuals who require long-term residential

treatment and those who have more severe, persistent addictions issues.

Our other investments including enhancements to child psychiatry at the

Janeway Hospital, a new psychologist to enhance the eating disorders treatment

program at Eastern Health and funding to support new community-based projects,

with a focus on mental health and addictions issues, among other issues. We are

also continuing the planning and construction of two new residential treatment

facilities for children and youth with mental health and addictions issues.

Mr. Speaker, our government will continue to work with groups such as the

Canadian Mental Health Association and others to help continue to address mental

health issues and provide the programs and services needed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, may I

say that I am encouraged that he has chosen this week to look at the state of

our own mental health facilities and services that we offer here in Newfoundland

and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this government likes to talk about the advancements that they

have made in mental health but the advancements, I say to the minister, have

been slow in coming, if coming at all in many cases. Mr. Speaker, this was very

evident last month when we had psychiatrists in the Province go before the

microphones and talk about the fact that of the sixty-four psychiatrists in

Newfoundland and Labrador, that forty-eight of them were practicing in the St.

John's area, with sixteen serving the rest of the needs in this Province,

leaving a real gap in psychiatry throughout rural Newfoundland and Labrador. In

fact, to the extent in certain areas, like Labrador and the Northern Peninsula,

where there are no psychiatric services at all.

Mr. Speaker, the most recent eye-opener, I guess, on mental health services

in recent weeks at least because we have had many incidents of children and

parents themselves speaking out publicly, crying for help for mental health

services in this Province to get the attention of government. The report of the

Child and Youth Advocate, Mr. Speaker, did indicate, on Friday, that there was a

long line of issues associated with mental health illness in this Province,

especially when it comes to human resources, budgetary restraints, programming

and treatment gaps, and a lack of community wraparound services, as well as

recruitment and retention. So, Minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her time for speaking has expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I could, by leave, just clue up one sentence?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member, by leave.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister: It is good that you are going to continue to work with

the Canadian Mental Health Association because, of recent reports, there is a

lot of work to be done, and I suggest that you get to it immediately.

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

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

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

I, too, am very pleased to see funding of $80,000 going to the Canadian

Mental Health Association in this Province for a mental health literacy and

anti-stigma project.

I think if anything is important, Mr. Speaker, it is getting people, number

one, to understand what mental health is all about and what mental afflictions

are; and to understand that mental illnesses and mental conditions are no

different from any other illness that somebody may suffer. It is extremely

important, in particular, that we get education out there to remove stigma,

which is especially hard on young people who are going through an acute mental

health condition. Very often the stigma they suffer is not just from their peers

but also from adults around them. The stigma and what they suffer because of the

stigma just increases what they are going through with their condition, Mr.

Speaker.

However, given that rural parts of the Province have only half the

psychiatrists that are needed, it means that many people with mental illnesses

are falling through the cracks. So it is not enough, Mr. Speaker, for us to

encourage more understanding of the diseases. It is not enough for us to try to

decrease the stigma. We also have to make sure that, at the same time, the

services required by both young people and adults are increased in this

Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statement by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was pleased to raise the flag

recognizing this week as North American Occupational Safety and Health Week or

NAOSH Week. Joining me was the local

chapter of the Canadian Society of Safety

Engineers and a number of companies who are leaders in occupational health and

safety. This week is very important as it raises awareness on the importance of

being safe at work through injury and illness prevention.

This year's theme is "Safety and Health: A Commitment for Life! How Safe Are

You?" and it challenges all of us to examine our safety practices to see just

how safe our workplaces really are. We need to promote safety and health in our

workplaces and make that commitment not just for ourselves but also for those we

love. Mr. Speaker, safety is not just for workplaces. The practices that we put

in place at work are just as important in our home life and we should make a

concerted effort to practice safety at all times.

Mr. Speaker, I must acknowledge our local

chapter of the Canadian Society of

Safety Engineers who every year dedicates their time to plan and promote NAOSH

Week. In addition to the flag being raised here at Confederation Building, they

have arranged for the flag to be raised at all trade schools in the Province

ensuring that our young people learn how vital it is to have safe and healthy

workplaces. This group was the pioneer of NAOSH Week and their recognition of

the benefits of improving attitudes towards safety quickly turned into a need to

recognize this important issue across Canada, the United States and Mexico.

Our safety professionals have shown that they are leaders in spreading the

message about injury and illness prevention in our workplaces. I congratulate

them on this achievement and assure them that the Occupation Health and Safety

Branch of the Department of Government Services will continue to work hard to do

our

part in making workplaces safe. We are proud to be a participant in NAOSH

Week.

NAOSH Week strives to increase understanding of the benefits of investment in

occupation health and safety and to raise awareness of the role and the

contribution of health and safety professionals. It is our hope that by

recognizing NAOSH Week and participating in the health and safety initiatives,

we will make further strides in reducing workplace injuries and illness.

Therefore, I encourage everyone to participate in NAOSH Week activities to raise

awareness of the importance of health and safety in our workplaces.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement and to say

that we are very pleased to see that the Canadian Society of Safety Engineers

and other companies took

part in the flag raising ceremony with the minister

today. I think this is very important because it was only last week, Mr.

Speaker, we stood here and paid tribute to many who lost their lives while in

the workplace.

As the theme says, "Safety and Health: A Commitment for Life!" and how true

that is because each and every day, regardless of what walk of life you go when

you leave home, you never know what can happen on the jobsite. Promotion and

education is the way to go. I cannot help but think about the ads we see on our

television where the ladder is standing there alone or the table saw without the

safety features. It is very important for each and every one of us to pay

attention.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment announced

last week that there are still approximately 4,000 injuries in this Province

each year. Safety begins at home, and if we do it properly at home, I am sure it

will spill into the workplace.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend all employees for working together and helping

to make our workplace a healthier and safer place to work.

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

It is extremely important that we have a week like the week that we are

celebrating today and that we focus on the issues of Occupational Health and

Safety. So efforts like NAOSH Week and raising the flag in front of the

Confederation Building, all of these things are actions that remind us of the

dangers that are out there.

I would just like to share with the House a little story that was told to me

by a parent last night, which I think tells us exactly what prevention is all

about. He was a bit frustrated with the principal of the school his child goes

to because some parents are not obeying the rules about how to park, how to wait

for their children, to not cause danger in front of the school. The principal

indicated: Well, I am sure nothing will happen. If it happens, then we will deal

with it. His answer was: What about if you think my daughter was hit this

morning. What would you put in place so that she would not have been hit? Well,

how about doing that ahead of time? That is what prevention is all about. I

thought it was a great example, to me, to explain prevention.

So I thank the minister for the co-operation of the Province and the

government with the labour movement, with those who are in the workplace, and

with organizations like the engineers.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the minister has already indicated that today is the start of

Mental Health Week. Well, just Friday past, acting Child and Youth Advocate,

Judge Rorke, released his report into the Janeway psychiatric unit. This

investigation was prompted when two children were handcuffed and shipped off to

the Waterford Hospital in our Province. The acting Advocate released a report on

Friday, but today is refusing to speak publicly about it and has declined

interview requests an Advocate, Mr. Speaker, who is not prepared to be an

Advocate.

I ask the minister today: Why would you appoint someone to this role who is

unwilling to stand up, explain their own report and be accountable to the

children and families of our Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is aware of

how the appointment of Judge Rorke took place. The Leader of the Opposition is

the one who defended the former Child and Youth Advocate, but yet we heard no

comment after the acting ombudsman released his report. So it is easy for this

Opposition Leader to criticize.

The Acting Child and Youth Advocate has outlined in his report the review of

the situation; he has made recommendations. I am pleased to say, Mr. Speaker,

that as a government we have already addressed some of these issues. In this

year's Budget we allocated money for the Janeway psychiatry services. Over the

last two years, Mr. Speaker, we have allocated $1.1 million.

As for the Advocate speaking, I cannot control what the Advocate does; it is

an independent office, as the Speaker is well aware. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the

Advocate reports to the House of Assembly, not to the Minister of Health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to remind the minister that there is nothing independent about

being sanctioned by the Cabinet as Judge Rorke was done.

I ask the minister today: In making the appointment, did you also muzzle the

Child Advocate?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would not expect the Leader of the

Opposition to understand concepts of independence because it is something that

requires a common sense approach and also requires, Mr. Speaker, an

understanding of legal principle.

I do know that the Opposition House Leader would understand the importance of

this concept. Essentially, the Child and Youth Advocate under the act is

independent. We appoint judges, Mr. Speaker, but we do not at that point, as she

says, sanction them. An appointment is made; the independence comes with the

office. Judicial independence - independent offices by their very nature, Mr.

Speaker, have to act at arm's-length from government; are given the powers to

make their own findings and comments. One of the ways that we dealt with the

Child and Youth Advocate Office in this Province, Mr. Speaker, is to have the

Child and Youth Advocate report to the House of Assembly.

I am sorry if the Leader of the Opposition does not have the cozy

relationship with this present Advocate that she had with the previous one, who

she went to such extremes to defend.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would not expect a whole lot from this minister other than insults. I

certainly do not expect answers; however I will ask the questions.

It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the minister said that this individual

is accountable to the House of Assembly, because I e-mailed him today and I

asked Justice Rorke for a meeting to discuss some of his findings in his report.

The judge, Mr. Speaker, refused saying that he was not going to make himself

available to any politician in this Province.

So I ask the minister: Who is this individual accountable to?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I can only speak to the legal principles

involved. I know of no principle in law why the Child and Youth Advocate would

jump because the Leader of the Opposition says jump. That is what happened with

the previous Child Advocate, it is not happening here. Independence, Mr.

Speaker, means that the person makes a decision independent of us.

Mr. Speaker, you are aware of the budgetary process, you are aware of the

reporting procedure. Whether or not the Child Advocate decides to speak to

politicians, that is up to him or her. I am certainly not advocating that that

should take place. In fact, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the report, the report

contains very sensible recommendations, recommendations that we are already

acting upon, and I would suggest that if the Leader of the Opposition has a

problem with that she should put her request in writing to the House Management

Commission or to the Speaker and ask for a meeting, but other than that it is

not up to me to determine what Judge Rorke should do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we have an Advocate today in the Child and Youth

Advocate Office that is not advocating, I say to you minister. You appointed

him. You put him there. The people of this Province are paying for him to

operate in that office. He has produced a report that has questions that should

be answered. Who is this individual responsible to, minister? It is not to the

children and parents of this Province, not to the public when he refuses to talk

about his own findings in the media, and not to this Chamber when he refuses to

meet with any politician in the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Actually, I am not sure what the question was. Who does he

report to? He reports to the House of Assembly as an independent officer. The

Leader of the Opposition should be aware, Mr. Speaker, and I would suggest that

it is scandalous that she can simply come into this House and sully people's

reputations with baseless allegations and accusations. Again, that is what she

does.

Back in August, well when she phoned up the Child and Youth Advocate, because

we know she talked to the former Child and Youth Advocate and you started off

with the Labrador incident. Well you caused a lot of trouble there didn't you?

Where were you, I say to you, where were you -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to direct his commentary to the Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: Where were you when the Child and Youth Advocate had that

office in the state that it was in? Yet, I never heard a word from her, Mr.

Speaker, after Mr. Noseworthy's report was released showing what a true state

that office was in and how this government took the right approach and put

someone in place who could do the job. Judge Rorke has provided a report, Mr.

Speaker. We have indicated that we are reviewing the report, we will act on a

lot of the recommendations, and I apologize again to the Opposition Leader if

someone does not jump because she says jump.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, I make no apologies for prompting the report at the

Janeway or prompting the report in Labrador. I will continue to do my job,

minister, to ensure that the children in this Province have half a chance.

Now let me ask you this question, Mr. Speaker. The catalyst of this report

was really the children who were taken from the Janeway in handcuffs and put

away, locked away in the adult mental health facility in this Province. We

understand today that Judge Rorke did not even talk with the parents or the

children who were at the heart of this investigation, prior to issuing this

particular report.

I ask the minister: How can the public have confidence in the Acting Child

and Youth Advocate that you have appointed when clearly he is not performing the

necessary due diligence in this case?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to read the report. I have not studied

it as much as I would like, but on this issue of the transfer, Mr. Speaker,

there was a very poignant comment made where a psychiatrist stated: "I would

much rather be here discussing why the RNC were involved than to be here

discussing a dead patient and why they weren't involved." So, Mr. Speaker, the

judge has reviewed the situation of the transfer, he had indicated at that time

that was the way it had to be done. This is an issue that we can address. We can

look at how this type of situation can be prevented in the future.

Mr. Speaker, what you have to look at is the context of what was taking place

in the Janeway unit at the time. There were certainly a lot of problems, Mr.

Speaker. There were different age groups being held on the same unit. All of the

issues that were brought out in this report are ones that we can address, ones

that will address and some, Mr. Speaker, that we are already addressing.

At that time, Mr. Speaker, the use of handcuffs it is my understanding

was the policy that had to be followed by the RNC under the Mental Health Act.

So as unfortunate as it is, Mr. Speaker, as the psychiatrist said, it is better

to have a person who is alive than wondering why they are dead.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, I did have an opportunity to read the report over the

weekend. There is some good information in there but there are a lot of

questions in there as well, questions that need to be answered and should be

answered by the Child Advocate in this Province.

So, Minister, I would encourage you to unmuzzle the Child Advocate, allow him

to speak to the report that he has tabled in this Province. I would also like

him to answer as to why he did not interview the parents and the children that

were at the heart of this very issue prior to releasing his findings.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a basic principle of independent, or an

independent office, is that the person who makes the decision, whether it is a

judge, or in this case the Child and Youth Advocate, does not have to answer for

their decision. Is the next step that the Leader of the Opposition is going to

propose is that when a judge makes a decision we will allow her to question the

judge as to the basis for his or her decision? That is the principle when you

extend it. That is the extension of the principle.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: The Child and Youth Advocate

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: I hear the Opposition House Leader chirping over there, Mr.

Speaker. He has been quiet for a long time and he should know better. He should

know better, Mr. Speaker.

If you look at the

section of the Child and Youth Advocate Act, it talks

about the role of the Child and Youth Advocate is to protect and further the

interests of children and youth in this Province. Mr. Speaker, it does not mean

that every time the Child and Youth Advocate provide a report that he or she has

to come out and outline why they made their decisions. If the Child and Youth

Advocate chooses to answer questions, that is up to the Child and Youth

Advocate.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition

displays the lack of understanding and knowledge that she has her today, but I

do not really expect anything better.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows that Justice Rorke is not there acting as a judge but

rather acting as an advocate for children in this Province, and it is a job he

is failing to do appropriately.

Mr. Speaker, the environmental disaster taking place off the coast of

Louisiana is certainly a situation that we should take very seriously off our

own shores, especially since the government opposite is an equity partner in

some of our offshore projects and on the hook for any cleanup costs should an

oil spill take place.

I ask the minister today: As an equity partner, what provisions does Nalcor

have in place to protect the people of the Province from both an environmental

and cost perspective?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the situation in the Gulf of Mexico is one

that we are observing very, very closely - the relevant ministers that are

involved. I am certainly watching it extremely closely, from a personal

perspective, to see exactly what is going on.

Our primary concern here in the Province, of course, first of all, is the

safety of the workers offshore; and secondly, the environment. From our own

perspective in the Province, as a government, I can certainly assure hon.

members in this House of Assembly that the necessary policies, procedures and

processes are put in place and are being constantly reviewed as a matter of

fact. We are in the process of even reviewing some of those policies right now.

So we are very, very proactive on what is going on.

I do have some concern as I watch the process as it unfolds in the Gulf of

Mexico to wonder whether the technology is able to keep up with the problem that

is going on. The one thing, I think, that will come from this whole process is

that better technology will be developed. In Newfoundland and Labrador, we are

in the harsh environment of the North Atlantic - extremely high seas and winds

that are factors.

To get to the question directly, it was certainly part of the process when

Nalcor looked at taking its equity holdings, that the equity holdings would be

certainly held in a separate company in separate oil and gas company. From our

own perspective, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador stands behind the

environmental liabilities no different than the Abitibi situation. When

environmental disasters happen, we go to our primary source of responsibility

and then the government, of course, is the backup at the end of the day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have heard environmentalists and professors at Memorial University who

have said publicly that they are concerned that our Province does not have the

necessary technology to cope with a spill. They also stated, Mr. Speaker, that

it is not a question of it happening but when a spill will take place.

I ask the Premier today: If people specializing in environmental protection

do not have a level of confidence today in our current system, how can the

people of the Province be assured that we will not be facing any similar

disasters in the future?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province can be assured

that we will adopt the best practices in the world. As we come to this process

now in the Gulf of Mexico, if there are any new devices or methodologies or

technologies that are developed, we will make sure that they are adopted in our

offshore. From our own perspective, the C-NLOPB is responsible primarily for any

offshore problems. If it comes to any leakages or seepages that come from

tankers or ship transports, then that is the responsibility, of course, of

Transport Canada.

From our own perspective, as recently as this morning, we have looked at just

exactly what the situations are in the North Atlantic. It is a general

understanding that because the offshore sites are significantly offshore and

well east of the Province that the situation that could arise in Orphan Basin or

Jeanne d'Arc or the Flemish Pass is that there is a lower likelihood that oil

would actually come ashore in Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, that is not to say

that it would not.

As well, we are dealing with a heavy crude oil out there, so from a fishing

perspective, there is less likelihood that it would affect the fishery although

it would certainly affect the gear. However, having said that, I am not trying

to minimize the circumstances under any situation, we will make sure that we

monitor this very closely and that we adopt the best practices in the world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, although it may be a lower likelihood of it happening, as the

Premier indicates, it does not mean that we would not be on the hook in a case

of an environmental disaster.

Mr. Speaker, in an interview with CBC, Memorial University biologist Ian

Jones said that this government is not forthright about the impacts of oil

spills and what the impact would be on wildlife. He also stated that a

recommendation to put independent monitors on oil rigs still has not been

implemented.

I ask the Premier today: As part of the regulatory process, why haven't these

particular independent monitors been installed, and is this something government

has been advocating the industry for?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: First of all, with regard to - I did not hear this

particular interview, so someone's opinion on whether they are being forthright

or not, I do not know, I cannot gauge it, I cannot respond to it.

Having said that though, I can tell you that any information we have will

certainly be made available to the general public, as well as the members of

this House. I think the immediate and the largest impact from any offshore oil

spill, of course, would be on the birds. We are told that would have a

significant impact on birds in the Province because, obviously, they are

significant distances offshore and they are all around the coast of our

Province. As I have said before, there is an indication that the fishery would

certainly not be impacted as heavily because of the viscosity, I guess, of the

oil that we are dealing with in our offshore.

From a perspective of the regulations, that has to be done by the C-NLOPB. We

are constantly in contact with the C-NOLPB. Our officials have been discussing

these issues with them over the weekend and as recently as this morning. So, as

I said before, if there are any pieces of technology that would be better suited

to our offshore, then we would certainly be recommending them to the C-NLOPB and

we would be in constant contact with them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, court documents filed by AbitibiBowater indicate that it will be

seeking $500 million in compensation under a NAFTA lawsuit for its assets that

were taken by the Province under Bill 75. Preliminary costs associated with the

environmental liabilities have been estimated at $200 million.

I ask the Premier: Did we obtain legal title for the mill property through

the cancellation of timber rights and lands in

section 3 of Bill 75, or did we

accidentally expropriate the mill under sections 5 and 6 that were used for the

other assets such as Star Lake?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what was not an accident.

It was not an accident that we decided to take a bold move, as a government, and

decide to step up and fight for the rights of the people of Central

Newfoundland, in the Grand Falls-Windsor and other surrounding areas. What we

did was unprecedented in this Province, and we are extremely proud of what we

did. We took the bold move of going in, after Abitibi had broken their promise

to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we took back our timber, we took

back our land and we took back our water, and when we did that we are very proud

of it because it puts us in an extremely strong position. So that was a very

deliberate move. As a result of that, we are now in a position, that because of

the environmental problems and liabilities that have been caused by this company

that really does not care about Newfoundland and Labrador, we are now in a

position where we have these assets that have value. Not only have we taken

pride in repatriating them, they also have value. So we can now use the value of

these assets to deal with the environmental liability, which we would have been

responsible for because they intended to go bankrupt in the first place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will ask the Premier again if he could answer my question. For example, Mr.

Speaker, the legal title of the mill property, was it obtained through the

cancellation of title or was it obtained through the expropriation clauses?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in order to secure the most valuable asset

that Abitibi held in the Province, which was actually the hydro-electric asset,

which is the water rights, we in fact described in the process an area which

included a piece of the mill, which included the hydro-electric assets.

Inadvertently, the mill had been included in that, and the Opposition is trying

to make hay over the fact that a mistake was made by a bureaucrat in government

and therefore that is a huge embarrassment to government.

Well, the bottom line at the end of the day is that we do own the assets, and

not only do we own the land and do we own the timber and do we own the water, we

now own the mill and we own Grand Falls House and we own the manager's house,

which are the three most valuable pieces of real estate in the community of

Grand Falls, and we are now in a position where we have complete and full

control of these assets. Ultimately, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

- if Abitibi walked away from their responsibilities and if Abitibi went into

consumer protection - would have been left holding the bag. The people of

Newfoundland and Labrador would have been left holding the bag on the

environmental liabilities. Now we have the assets which we are in a position to

be able to keep or dispose of as we see fit, and I can guarantee the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, that at the end of the day the value of those assets

will exceed any liabilities that arise from this transaction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify that the mistake of this deal is

not on the back of a bureaucrat, Mr. Speaker, but on the backs of a government

who signed off on this and did so saying that we have the world's best advice,

Mr. Speaker. That is where the responsibility really lies. Mr. Speaker, it is

important to know the facts of this particular mistake, I say to the Premier,

because if it was made through

section 3 of Bill 75, government may have also

inadvertently cancelled all land rights that were given to other people on

surrounding properties within the community dating back to 1905.

I ask the Premier today: Can you give the assurances to the people of the

Province that no other properties besides the mill, the mill manager's house and

the Grand Falls House has been affected by this accidental mistake?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the people of this Province

that we have done the right thing. I can assure him and assure them that we have

taken their assets and we have protected those assets. Those assets would have

been lost to an irresponsible company that did not give a darn about the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador, the people of Central Newfoundland and Labrador.

They would not - they would have walked away from their responsibilities. They

either would have gone into consumer protection, they would have gone bankrupt

or they would have done what they were in the process of doing, and that was

trying to sell off those assets to somebody else.

So what we have done is protected the interests of the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador. Now the hon. members opposite agreed with that in principle; they

were present that day, they were fully informed. If a mistake occurred - it is

irresponsible of the hon. members opposite to try and say now that as a result

of that minor mistake, which actually happens to give us the most valuable piece

of real estate in Grand Falls, that that is now saddling this Province with the

environmental liability. That is absolutely untrue and erroneous. Now I do not

how far I can go with regard to parliamentary protocol as to what I can say

AN HON. MEMBER: Misleading is (inaudible) the word.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Is misleading okay?

AN HON. MEMBER: Misleading is okay.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: You are misleading the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I say to the Premier, that misleading is unparliamentary and I ask the hon.

the Premier to withdraw the remark.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: (Inaudible). I got bad advice, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw

the remark.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Did the hon. the Premier withdraw the remark?

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Yes I did.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier knows full well that assurances were given to the people in this

Province that the mill was not a part of any expropriation exercise and that any

liabilities on the environment would be a zero balance at the end of the day

with Abitibi as a result of the payment of assets. That was the assurance, that

was the wording, that was the lingo, that was the message that was used by the

government, Mr. Speaker. Now we find it is a completely different situation. We

already know from court documents that AbitibiBowater is seeking the $500

million in compensation for the assets, a number that we were told was at about

$300 million when we were briefed by the government.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier today: Is the accidental

expropriated mill and associated assets included in the $500 million price tag,

and is the fact that you took control of the mill the real reason for the claim

to jump by $200 million?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member opposite and her

government are not representing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. No

wonder, no wonder we gave it all away when the hon. crowd opposite had

government, Mr. Speaker. So she is going to write off three hundred for

environmental liability, then she is going to write out a cheque for $500

million. Well I can tell you right now, that is not going to happen while we are

in the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, because we do not believe in

giveaways.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, what she fails to point out is in the

appeal which was filed by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, that the

judge, who is the hon. Gascogne, or whatever he is, Gascon or whatever he is,

the Great Gatsby or whatever his name is, anyway, at the end of the day is in

the Quebec Court, is obviously not too

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I do not care; I could not care about something like

(inaudible).

The hon. judge in Quebec obviously has no time for Newfoundland and Labrador,

and what he has done has gone beyond his constitutional competence. Because if

you read the appeal, which was filed by the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador, he did not have the statutory or constitutional competence to do what

he did, and he made palpable and overriding errors of fact. You can rely on him

if you want to, I would not.

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, workers at the Voisey's Bay mine site have been on strike since

August, 2009. That is nine long months, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in September,

2009, the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment told the House that

government was committed to reviewing anti-replacement worker legislation and

that a review was underway and legislation would be pending once the review was

complete.

Mr. Speaker, could the minister give this House an update on the review

process?

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I would have pointed out back when that question was first posed is that

we do have a committee that is in place that is directing that particular

process. It is a committee that is made up of business, of labour, and of

government. As I said at that time, should they bring forward legislation to us

then we are certainly willing and ready to consider that.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at the makeup of that committee however, we should

all be reassured that they are very concerned about the employment relations

climate in this Province. We have members from labour, Mr. Speaker, particularly

Lana Payne, the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour.

We have members from business, very, very concerned about the employment

relations climate in this Province, and we have people from government there.

When they have legislation that they feel is worthy of us looking at, then we

certainly will.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The foot-dragging of this government is now becoming suspect, because the

minister refers to somebody who is on that committee who published a letter

asking this government to bring in anti-scab legislation. That was done by the

President of the Federation of Labour last fall. That letter is out there in the

public, so we know where Ms Lana Payne stands.

Communities in our Province are being negatively impacted by this strike, and

the Province is losing revenue. The lack of real consultation, and no sign of

the bill coming up in this session, seems to show that government is allowing

Vale Inco to act with impunity in this Province by attempting to impose Third

World working conditions on the workers in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, when is this government going to deliver anti-replacement worker

legislation to this Province, as they have been asked to do by the labour

movement?

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The first thing I would like to point out is that this government has great

sympathy for the workers in Voisey's Bay. We absolutely understand the situation

that they are in. We absolutely understand their concerns. We have been

listening to them.

Mr. Speaker, the Labour Relations Agency continues to work, continues to

support those workers, continues to be available to them. The bottom line on

this, though, is that the parties need to get back to the table. The parties

need to resolve the issues that are there. Let's look at what the main issue is.

The main issue there is the nickel bonus, Mr. Speaker. They need to get back to

the table, they need to discuss that particular issue, and the people at the

Labour Relations Agency are more than willing to sit with them to help them work

through that issue.

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.

This weekend we learned that Vale Inco spent $2.5 billion U.S. acquiring oil

rights in Guinea, indicating the labour impasse in Voisey's Bay is not about

money for Vale, but about strike breaking, Mr. Speaker, and maybe even union

busting.

Mr. Speaker, how long is this government complacently going to sit by and

continue to let Vale Inco walk all over our workers who have been out there in

the cold for months and months?

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the question is: How long before the two

parties decide to sit down and negotiate this? That is the question that is at

hand here.

We have suggested to the parties, over and over again, they need to be at the

table if they want to solve this strike. We have consulted with the parties; we

have made our people available to the parties. Business is concerned, labour is

concerned, government is concerned, but absolutely the only solution that is

going to be found to this problem is when the two sides sit down and actively

negotiate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Topsail:

WHEREAS innumerable women throughout history have suffered many forms of

violence, and far too many continue to suffer today despite all the efforts to

curb violence against women; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has been proactive in preventing violence

against women and promoting non-violent behaviours through a range of

initiatives, including the ongoing Violence Prevention Initiative, the Family

Violence Intervention Court, support for transition houses and women's centres,

and other measures; and

WHEREAS violence prevention initiatives are most effective when individual

citizens, families, organizations and communities take an active role in

condemning violence against women and promoting non-violent behaviours at all

ages;

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House expresses its support for the

government's violence prevention initiatives and urges all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians to do their

part in making our society safer by taking

responsibility to condemn violence against women and promote non-violent

behaviours at all ages.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answer to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today we will call from the Order Paper, Order 4.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation, that Bill 5,

An Act To Provide Liability Protection On

Portions Of Pedestrian Trails, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 5,

An Act To Provide

Liability Protection On Portions Of Pedestrian Trails, be now read a second

time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Provide Liability Protection On

Portions Of Pedestrian Trails." (Bill 5)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly an honour for me today to stand in the House for the second

reading of

An Act To Provide Liability Protection On Portions Of Pedestrian

Trails. (Bill 5)

Mr. Speaker, what I usually do when speaking on a bill, I like to read into

the record the Explanatory Notes that we have in the front of each bill. I guess

that gives us a quick rundown of what the bill is all about. The Explanatory

Note here is quite simple. "This Bill would provide liability protection to the

Crown and to owners or occupiers of land whose property forms a part of a trail

that is designated under the Act.

"The minister would be given authority to make regulations to establish

criteria and set out the subject areas for which the minister may set standards

that shall be complied with before a trail can be designated under this Act."

Mr. Speaker, it is a very simple bill but certainly a very serious one, and

one that we as a government thought important enough to bring to the floor of

the House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, as the bill says, the main purpose is

certainly to guarantee liability protection to land owners and to the Crown.

Mr. Speaker, as most people in this Province know, historically - regardless

of what part of the Province you lived in - people who owned property had very

little problem with people accessing trails. You know, many times there were

wood paths. Many times there were people berry picking. Even in my hometown, Mr.

Speaker, very often than not we cut through the woods or cut through someone's

garden to get from A to B, and it was quite common. Occasionally you would get

in a little bit of heat. If you walked through a fellow's set-out vegetables you

might get a bit of a telling off, but generally speaking you were allowed to go

through unapproached'; and, whatever you do, don't go taking the turnips. That

was a lesson I learned very quickly, that you were not to touch the person's

property on your walk through the trail.

Mr. Speaker, like I said, there is traditional access that was always granted

and there was very little problem with it; but, with time, quite a bit has

changed when it comes to trails in our Province. Significant changes, I might

add. We now, for example, have a formalized trail system here in the Province:

trails that governments have funded; various trail development groups who built

trails throughout the years. Of course, we use it for various sources. We have

used it as a source of employment for people in particular in rural communities

through our Municipal Affairs budget. As well, Mr. Speaker, of course, we use it

for attracting tourists. There are quite a few tourists from around the globe

now, actually, who come to Newfoundland and Labrador to hike trails. They come

for different reasons. Some of them are very much into the outdoors and like the

easy going, Mr. Speaker, but some more are in for the adventurous trail hiking.

That is quite a product that we have developed over the last number of years.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, when I had the privilege of representing

the Province recently at an event, one of the people, one of the volunteers

there was a young lady who told me that she had planned to come this summer to

Newfoundland and Labrador to investigate hiking. She was a seasoned hiker. She

planned to hike the trail system in Gros Morne National Park. She was also

inquiring about the East Coast Trail; a trail that is known to be a little bit

longer and a little bit tougher and one that is certainly designed for the

seasoned hiker.

Mr. Speaker, she was very curious about our trail systems. I was more than

happy to fill her in on my knowledge of the East Coast Trail, as well as Gros

Morne of course, and explain to her how knowledgeable we are in the trail

business now and how there are so many B and Bs, especially up the Southern

Shore for the East Coast Trail. There is an industry in itself, Mr. Speaker,

around the tourism piece.

Mr. Speaker, the reason for this and what happened over time, as I mentioned

a little earlier, is that we had a situation whereby our trail system that was

once a traditional path, if you will, a place that people walked without

permission, now, all of a sudden, we have tourists coming to our Province. We

have a lot of people who take their hiking very, very seriously. Many of them

have become organized trail systems, as just referenced with the East Coast

Trail, and of course, there became concerns about liability issues.

All of a sudden, Mr. Speaker, if you were to walk across somebody's property

on the way to utilizing a trail like the East Coast Trail and were to injure

yourself, whether you trip in an old fence, you trip in a rock, you fall in a

hole, anything is possible. All of a sudden, homeowners, and rightly so, and

landowners, were saying they are getting nervous about people accessing trails

through their private property. In today's world you can sue anybody for

anything pretty well now. If you watch some of the commercials on TV from the

United States, you will see they advertise quite regularly: If you have any kind

of a problem, come and see us. So, of course, we had to address the liability

issue to make homeowners more comfortable and go back, really, to a traditional

way it was in Newfoundland and Labrador where landowners did not have any reason

to worry about somebody crossing their property to get to a trail.

Mr. Speaker, the East Coast Trail approached us because of this. It was the

East Coast Trail that drove this piece of legislation in the beginning. The East

Coast Trail system is really a world-class trail system.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more evident - we have had recent accolades in

CNN on-line, as well as Travel + Leisure magazine and others around the

globe have discovered the beauty of the trail. In particular, just to give you

an example, the East Coast Trail put out brochures to access the mapping and so

on of their trail system, which is significant now in number. I think it is some

125 kilometres, if I recall correctly, of trail systems along the Province. It

is certainly significant - no, I think I am mixing that up. I do not think it is

as high as that. My colleague from the Shore might know how long the trail

system is it is a significant amount of trail system, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) about 450 kilometres.

MR. FRENCH: So, Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues says it is 450

kilometres. So that would be a significant piece of real estate.

Mr. Speaker, this has been covered now, and I was talking about the guide

that they put out. They actually put out a guide in German as well because there

are so many German tourists that come here to this Province just to access the

East Coast Trail. You have to give the people at the East Coast Trail credit.

These are a group of volunteers that have managed this over the years. I

certainly take my hat off to them.

Mr. Speaker, this is definitely a provincial gem in our tourism sector. Like

I said, it is an industry now all to itself. It goes through thirty communities,

and like I said, the industry now is around B&Bs, stores, break areas where

stores have popped up selling water and one thing and another - meals. So it is

certainly a significant piece of our tourism product here.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing that places like trail systems does, in

particular, the East Coast Trail, is that it extends the tourism season for us.

So no longer are we doing a summer event, no longer is this a winter event.

Trail systems are something that, of course, they are very popular in the

summer, but hiking has become very, very popular in the fall and in the spring.

Of course, you can walk the trail in different seasons, and every time you walk

them you get a different feel for them, especially with the changing of the

season. So the East Coast Trail, although people hike it and stay over on the

trail in the summer months, it is certainly a good trail to walk in the fall, in

particular, and indeed in the spring as well.

There are another couple of pieces, with our ambitions, with our healthy

lifestyles, with our health and wellness plans, with our seniors and aging

policies now, Mr. Speaker, we have encouraged people to hike and to walk and

stay fit. Like I always say, the health care system that we have today, if we do

not soon get some of our chronic diseases under control in this Province, then

we are going to be in big, big trouble as we go on down life's road. The service

that we had today will not be there years down the road. So certainly, the whole

lifestyle piece, although it is great for tourists, and we need the tourists to

come in here and make the coffers of the Province better, it is certainly just

as good for people here at home.

I would just like to also say that the government supports this trail

development, particularly the East Coast Trail. The funding

part is from the

Department of Municipal Affairs; Human Resources, Labour and Employment;

Innovation, Trade and Rural Development; and of course, Tourism, Culture and

Recreation.

Mr. Speaker, this act will certainly enable non-profit groups to grow

pedestrian trails in the Province and remove the liability from the private

homeowners and, indeed, the Crown. Mr. Speaker, it has no financial impact on

the coffers of the provincial government.

Mr. Speaker, other trails that may take advantage of this, there currently is

the Skerwink Trail, which is a beautiful trail system recently written up, I

believe, by National Geographic as one of the must-see trails in North

America. This is the kind of attention that trail systems are getting. As well

as the International Appalachian Trail, which starts down in the United States -

and I believe my critic might be familiar with that one. It is a trail that will

certainly be run through his district, run through the Appalachian Mountains,

and indeed into Newfoundland and further up, hopefully, to Labrador eventually.

Mr. Speaker, that is a significant piece of trail system. There is a program

in the United States. They have a group set up there. They have now set a group

up in Newfoundland to move this and again, this would be more for the

adventure tourism business. I am thinking that most of this trail would not be

of a leisurely walk. We will talk about a bill here in a few minutes about the

Grand Concourse Authority, but I think most of these trails would be for the

ecotourism piece. Certainly, that is a piece of our tourism industry that we

have been trying to capitalize. I have had some great success on it and,

certainly, continue to have it. So, Mr. Speaker, the whole purpose of this is,

like I said, so that we will grow the trail system and non-profit groups will be

interested in becoming involved in the trail systems in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, as I referenced earlier, we certainly realize and recognize the

importance of the trail system. I just talked a minute ago talked about chronic

disease. Well, when I was in the Department of Health and Community Services I

had the opportunity of working on some different files there, in particular the

wellness file and the seniors file as well. In all of our strategies, whether it

is for health and wellness, or whether it is in seniors, or again for rec and

sport, in our department, keeping people active in this Province is something

that we have a stretch on.

I speak from personal experience here. Every young person in the Province is

not necessarily an athlete, meaning they are not necessarily involved in sports.

Some of us love sports and some more do not, so if you are not involved in a

sporting community and you are not into soccer or softball or hockey, then we

have to have something for you to do to stay physically active. I guess hiking

or jogging or biking on our trail systems, Mr. Speaker, is probably where we

have to go with it. Although you might not be into a sport, if the resources are

there, there is no reason that you cannot be physically active.

Mr. Speaker, let me say that not every trail in the Province can be a

designated trail. This piece of legislation we are moving here today is about

designating trails. There are trails of different standards but we have to put

some rules and regulations in when we designate a trail.

Mr. Speaker, what we have decided as a department to do, is that we are going

to go out there now and educate people on the requirements of having a trail

designated. Mr. Speaker, some of the requirements to designate a trail, and I

will just touch on some of them that we are going to be responsible for. For

whoever the minister might be of the day, they will have authority to designate

a trail within the regulations.

Mr. Speaker, here are some of the things that they are going to have to be

certain of; ownership of the trail. They are going to need ownership and if they

are using somebody else's property, then they will need a letter to the effect

that it is okay for them to use that piece of property to use the trail, to get

on the trail or to end off the trail. Of course, Mr. Speaker, liability

insurance; the people responsible for the trail will be encouraged to have the

appropriate insurance. Signage; we do not want people getting out on a

designated trail and getting lost. So there would need to be certain signs,

whether that is mileage signs, directional signs and so forth, and terrain signs

that would point out danger ahead and that sort of thing. Of course, it would

have to give people some idea of how physically active you would have to be to

last some of the trails of this Province, in particular, probably some of the

ones in the mountainous terrain.

As well, Mr. Speaker, we will be carrying out inspections to make sure that

the designated trail was kept up to the appropriate standard. Of course,

maintenance; we would expect trails on a designated trail to have maintenance

schedules where they would keep the trails in good shape. Again, you could just

go around the St. John's area and see what the Grand Concourse has done here,

their trails are absolutely beautiful.

As well, Mr. Speaker, before I clue up on this bill I would just like to say

for the benefit of the House and benefit of the people watching, we are in the

process of doing a trail strategy. That started, if I am not mistaken, within

the last year or so. Because of the interest and because of the number of people

out there developing trails, we have started a trail strategy. It is multiple

government departments, Mr. Speaker. Its purpose for coming up with this trail

strategy is to enable people to get funding, to let them know the designs and

the appropriate things to - when you want to designate a trail, as I listed

above, you would have to meet certain criteria.

Mr. Speaker, the interesting thing about trails now is that and there are

only a couple I think now in the Province, I know the East Coast Trail is, in

particular they are on GPS, and I am sure that the Appalachian Trail system

will also be on GPS. If we want to attract the adventure tourism business that

is certainly a way we have to go. That is one of the things that the trail

strategy is looking at, is how we get all these points on the trail system so a

way finding is relatively easy for those who are familiar with GPS.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is the nuts and bolts of that bill. Like I said, it is

certainly important to government. I am going to ask for some more speakers

there now. I know there are some people interested on this side of the House to

say a few words. I am sure my colleague opposite might have a couple of concerns

or a couple of questions or a couple of points he would like to make as well.

Mr. Speaker, without further ado I will take my seat on that one.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to interrupt the debate on this

particular bill, however, I would like to make a point of order on the fact that

when we did the private member's motion it was my intention to ask for leave so

the minister could introduce the private member's motion. I also understand that

there is sometimes some confusion under Standing Order 63 as to whether or not a

minister can do a private member's motion. So, Mr. Speaker, I would just like

your ruling on that if we need to have leave in order to introduce that motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader raises a good point.

Ministers cannot introduce a private member's resolution. A private member's

resolution, which we set aside each Wednesday of each week, is exactly that, a

private member's resolution. A Minister of the Crown is not a private member.

Ministers can take

part in debate on the private member's resolution but in

order for a minister to put forward a private member's resolution it can only be

done with leave of the House. If the hon. Government House Leader would like to

ask for leave for the hon. minister to put forward a private member's

resolution, then we can allow that to happen.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With that, we would ask leave so that the hon. minister is able to put forth

the motion as read earlier this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs have leave

to introduce a private member's resolution to be discussed on the next private

members' day?

Leave has been given.

The hon. minister's private member's resolution is accepted.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words with respect to Bill 5. This

is the first bill, of course, in this session that we have dealt with in terms

of legislation as such. The balance was dealt with dealing with the Budget

Speech and monetary issues, Interim Supply and so on. Now today we have switched

gears as it were, and we are going to talk about some pieces of legislation.

I say, by the way, congratulations. I believe this is the Minister of

Tourism's first piece of legislation that he has brought into the House, I do

believe, or second one. So, hats off to the minister.

Of course, there are some questions, and this is what we call second reading.

I think there are some very good questions which need to be posed to the

minister here in second reading so that hopefully when we get to the committee

stage we can have some answers to those questions, because despite all the good

stuff that the minister said about trails and how valuable the trails are to our

Province as a tourist attraction but also to people who are into fitness

generally, there are a lot of questions that still remain to be answered and I

am not certain if this particular bill answers those questions. I will get into

some of the detail as to what I mean by those concerns as we go forward, because

we certainly would not want everybody out there in this Province to think that

once this bill passes today you have no worries if you break a leg on a trail,

or the associations who run the trails, for example, have no more concerns

should someone use a trail that they built. Where is the liability to? Is it on

the association? Is it on the Crown, and so on?

Also, of course, it is very relevant as to whether the trail is located in a

municipality or if it is out in the wilderness. When you talk about trails, for

example, within the City of St. John's, the Grand Concourse, which we are going

to deal with later today in Bill 12, it is a different situation all together

than when you talk about trails that this member is familiar with, in my

District of Burgeo & La Poile. What do you do with a trail, for example, that is

located between Rose Blanche and Burnt Islands and it was built by a regional

association of some kind? They are not covered by any insurance policy that

would exist in Rose Blanche, Harbour Le Cou. They are not covered by any

insurance liability policy that might exist in the Town of Burnt Island because

it is physically located between the two communities on Crown lands.

Now how it got there, of course, was over the years people wanted to enhance

the tourist things they have in their Province to attract them. Like, for

example, in that neck of the woods we have the famous Rose Blanche lighthouse.

So to add to that you try to develop your trails, have some kind of tourist

interpretation centres and so on. So we have one, and I just throw that one out

as an example to the minister. There is one that runs from Route 470 between

Burnt Islands and Rose Blanche and heads inland to a beautiful waterfall. The

question is - it was built there by one of the local tourist associations a few

years ago.

Of course, we often find in this Province that MHAs, when it comes summertime

and fall, you are looking for job creation money to help those people who were

not fortunate enough to get enough time to get their unemployment. The

experience has been, in many districts and parts of this Province, that

associations often have accessed these funds and they have used these funds to

build trails. That is what a lot of them did with it.

So it was not built by the Town of Burnt Islands or the Town of Rose Blanche,

but the trail got built; used government money to build it, usually. Usually it

was provincial government money that was given through the job creation funding

that normally came out of the Department of Municipal Affairs, and the trail got

built. It was a great initiative, and added to the tourist infrastructure that

existed in an area, but that was ten years ago. The association has since become

disbanded, for example. The trail, particularly the woodworks on the trail, has

become rotten. The question is now, if you stick a sign up, if someone sticks a

sign up on Route 470 and says: Use at your own risk. Now, we do not know who

put the sign up; we do not know what legal effect that has: Use at your own

risk.

The fact that you built something and then you abandoned it, does that get

rid of your liabilities? If someone visiting from Massachusetts, for example,

were to stop their car at that site, go on the trail and break their leg when

they cross one of the wooden bridges that were built ten years ago, what does

this bill do to that? What does this bill we are dealing with here today, Bill

5, do to protect the association who built the trail in the first place? What

consequence does it have for the person who incurred the injury? Do they have

any legal recourse? Will they be saying you, as an association, should have kept

that bridge maintained?

Never mind passing a bill in May 2010 exempting somebody from liability, the

Crown included. We have to deal with the fact that you put the structure there

before you passed the bill. So you cannot come back now, in May 2010, and say we

are going to absolve the Crown of any liability - or anyone else, owners and

occupiers of liability -

whereas you built the structure before you passed the

law. I think you are going to have a problem with that.

Those are the kinds of questions on which I would like to get some

explanation from the minister or someone in the Department of Justice to say

what, exactly, are the ramifications of this. I will come back in further detail

to those concerns. I just flesh that out; that is just a background of where I

am coming from, and giving an example of the types of concerns that exist.

I am sure every member here has these trails in their district. The Member

for Gander, for example, anything that is within the confines of Gander, nine

chances out of ten he is probably covered off by the municipal insurance of the

Town of Gander. Likewise, anybody in St. John's, for example, is probably

covered off by that municipal insurance piece. The Member for Kilbride, for

example, if he has trails, is probably covered off - the Member for CBS and the

Member for Topsail but there are a lot of places in the Province where we are

not covered off by municipal councils; we are not even covered off by local

service districts. There is nobody; somebody built it in no man's land. I will

come back to that, and when I do I will mention another well-known trail in this

Province and that is the Wreckhouse Trail which runs off the Trans-Canada

Highway. I think technically is in the district of the Member for Stephenville

East. It was built there by an association that has operated in her district for

many, many years and continues to operate. I will come back to that example,

just a next-door district to this member.

Speaking of the trails, of course, I had the benefit this week I do not

claim to be a fitness nut or anything, but - I had the benefit this weekend of

travelling on three trails. I did not do it because I thought I would get

prepared and have a first-hand experience for today. I just did it; I was in

town for the weekend and decided to do this. I wanted to do the East Coast

Trail, or one piece of the East Coast Trail, because it is a massive, massive,

piece of infrastructure.

Saturday morning, despite the snowfall we had overnight, I trekked the trail

from Cape Spear to Blackhead - partway, I should say. I had a visitor with me

who was not quite as prepared as I was, and had the proper footwear. Given the

snow and the wet ground and whatever, and some of the slippery boards that were

there, they had to come back. They got cold and so on, and had to give it up.

She managed to get back, and she got warmed up and so on, but she promises to

in fact, we did not discourage her because she did another one the very next

day, yesterday, when we trekked around Signal HillQuidi Vidi. I, albeit coming

here for years and years, have never appreciated nor experienced the trail

systems that exist here on the Northeast Avalon. I have done some. I have done a

lot of the Grand Concourse piece within the city, but in terms of the trail

systems outside the city, like out in Cape Spear and so on, I had not done it. I

had done the Signal Hill one a few years ago, as well, and they tell me after

that I did the easy part. I went from Cuckold's Cove, up the hill; then I went

down again and out around the Cabot Tower. They say if you are any kind of hiker

you start at the other end, you come up over Signal Hill and then go to

Cuckold's Cove. Anyway, that is the challenge I have for next weekend, to go

that way.

It is a beautiful trail system, but I saw and experienced yesterday, without

even realizing we were dealing with this bill today, some of the concerns that

people have. By the way, I met, both in Cape Spear on Saturday and yesterday,

people who were obviously not from Newfoundland and Labrador. They were

visitors. In fact, on the Signal Hill one I would say there were a good sixty or

seventy people that we encountered yesterday that you could tell were not

locals. They were from away and they were out trekking, different nationalities

and so on. One couple we had seen out in Cape Spear, as well, were not up for

the snow that was on the ground. I think one was from India and one was from

China, so they were not particularly up for the snow that was out in Cape Spear

on Saturday morning. They stuck to the lighthouse rather than the trail. Anyway,

they acknowledged that it is certainly beautiful scenery and that if they had

been properly prepared, of course, they would have done the trail.

I point out, for example, in terms of liability again, when you come to

bridge 15 because all of the bridges are numbered on the Signal Hill trek. I

guess that is a pretty smart idea, too, because if you have a problem and you go

out and someone notices that there is an issue, there is a board broken or there

is a rail gone, when you come back to try to explain to someone where it was, it

is pretty simple because you can say on bridge 15, which is all numbered, there

is a board missing or a rail missing.

I found it a little bit scary yesterday, actually. I think it is on bridge 14

or 15 - I am not certain - there seems to be quite a bit of erosion. In fact,

two of the boards were gone. That is where this issue comes up. What happens,

for example, on the Signal Hill trail, should someone twist a foot or hurt

themselves under that circumstance? What is the consequence of this bill that we

are passing here today? Because, I am assuming that it is either the City of St.

John's or the Signal Hill National Historic Trust that deals with that issue.

They have existed for years and years and I am sure there must have been

injuries, in the past, of people twisting their feet and so on. What is the

consequence of this bill on that type of situation that we have?

I noticed, as well, for example, on Cape Spear now, I know we have the East

Coast Trails Association. Maybe the minister can tell us, in the course of

second reading or in responding to closing out debate on second reading, maybe

the minister can find out: Does the East Coast Trails, for example, have an

insurance policy that covers them off should someone get injured on their trail?

We realize that they are operating on lands that are not particularly within any

municipality. I know on the trek from Cape Spear to Blackhead, I mean there are

no municipalities there. They might be within a municipal boundary, but I doubt

it. Are they within the City of St. John's even? Do the boundaries of the city

extend that far? Those would be nice questions to have answered. The Member for

Kilbride was a former member of city council, I am sure he has had to deal with

some of these questions in the past as well.

You talk about the benefits of it all. I come back to my own district again;

we have an area called Grand Bay West with beautiful beaches. Unfortunately, we

have North Atlantic temperatures in the water, but in terms of the beauty of the

beaches and the shoreline and the coastline, it rivals anywhere I have ever

seen. I have been to quite a few destinations. Burgeo as well is in my district.

The Sandbanks of Burgeo are world famous. If we only had the Hawaiian

temperatures with the beaches in Burgeo, we would not be able to (inaudible)

hands with the tourists that we would be getting here for resorts and so on. It

is absolutely fantastic.

In the case of Grand Bay West, we have built over the last few years and are

still building up to last fall a trail system throughout. Again, the question

arises because the minister in this bill talks about designated areas, and that

is where I think the crux comes into all of this stuff. It says in clause 3, "A

trail that meets the prescribed criteria may be designated by regulation to be a

trail to which this Act applies." So the first logical question is: What are the

prescribed criteria? Now I realize a lot of times you do not always have all the

information you need when you pass a piece of legislation. Surely the minister

must have some information, now at this point when he is getting ready to do the

bill, as to what is going to be the criteria, the prescribed criteria, in order

to have a trail such that you would be designated to have this act apply to you.

It is not much point in us passing this piece of legislation - every person I

would say who runs a trail in this Province, if they already have not been told

about this happening here in the House today, once they find out about it

through the media, they are going to be running to the minister's office and

saying: Okay, what is the prescribed criteria? Are we going to be able to get

that fixed up in time for this year's tourist season? Are we too late, because

this is May month? That is the kind of questions that people are going to have

and I think the minister should and can be helpful to all of us if he gives us

that type of information now.

It says - and again, the definition of a trail is pretty wide open here. In

section 2.(

c) it says: "trail" means a trail designated by regulations" Now

that is pretty wide open. That does not tell us too much of what a trail is. So,

is there any idea now before we pass the legislation that the minister could

give us to help us understand it, number one, and hopefully enlighten the public

as well as to what is intended here, because God forbid if we do not ask these

questions.

We have had the government ministers in the last two or three weeks pounding

us because we did not ask enough questions about Bill 75 when they took Abitibi.

So, God forbid if we do not ask all the questions, even though we are told that

it is a national emergency that we have to do this and it has to be passed by

this afternoon, even though they had tons of lawyers working on it and whatever

else. Somehow or other the Opposition were remiss in not asking all these

questions about that Bill 75. So, God forbid if we do not ask the questions and

pose them.

I just put some of that stuff out there for the minister, that what appears

to be just an innocuous piece of business we are dealing with here is not so

innocuous. Because if you do not understand what it means and the consequences

of it, why should we pass it and what are the consequences of it? So that is two

questions.

This new law by the way, and it is a new law, it stands alone. It is not an

amendment to something else, some other piece of legislation that exists. It

says this is

an act. This is not

an act to amend somebody; this is,

An Act To

Provide Liability Protection On Portions Of Pedestrian Trails. So, when you read

it, there are five sections to it. Number one says we are going to call this the

Pedestrian Trails Liability Protection Act. Pretty straightforward, that only

names it. Number two, gives you

definitions. They tell you what minister deals

with it. They tell you what an owner or occupier means and they say what a trail

is, and a trail is whatever the minister says it is.

When you look at number three, it says: "A trail that meets the prescribed

criteria" which again, I have already said I do not have any idea what that is,

and nobody in this Province right now has any idea of what it is going to take

to be a prescribed trail. If you have that and you meet those criteria, you may

be designated. Not going to be, you may be designated by regulation to be a

trail to which this act applies. So now we are three clauses in and there is

nothing definitive here or specific as to what we are talking about. We are

pushing all this out to somebody to make these decisions.

Then in number four it talks about liability. Now I presume we are getting

down to the nuts and bolts of it here because it is called the Liability

Protection On Portions Of Pedestrian Trails. Now when you read

section 4, which

I would take to be the pith and substance, they call it, of the legislation. It

says, 4.(1) "A person using a trail voluntarily assumes all risk, as against the

Crown, that may be encountered on the trail when using the trail, whether the

person is on the trail or not." Now that is a mouthful. A person using a trail

voluntarily assumes all risk that may be encountered on the trail when using the

trail, whether the person is on the trail or not. So I guess we are not only

talking about what happens on the trail, we are talking about if something

happens off the trail. It might be in a parking lot. You might have stepped off

the trail to get a drink of water, slipped and broke your back. That covers this

as well, so it is not only covering the trails. I would assume that those

circumstances, are they going to be enumerated somewhere in the regulations,

because what constitutes on or off the trail, or not?

Again, all of that only talks about as against the Crown. It only talks about

the Crown. So what happens to the trail, for example, between Rose Blanche and

Burnt Islands that was put there by the associations in the past? We know the

Crown is going to be off the hook, after we pass this. I am assuming it is Crown

land that it is built on. I cannot imagine that the trail that I am referencing

here that goes into the waterfalls in that area, like the Wreckhouse Trail, for

example, which goes from the Trans-Canada where the old famous Wreckhouse, which

Lauchie McDougall lived in, the human wind gauge, goes on into the mountain and

goes up the side of the mountain, the hills overlooking Tompkins, that was built

there by an association.

Now, it is fine for the Crown to say we are going to be off the hook, but

what about the association that put it there? Are they off the hook? If they are

not, my suggestion to the minister would be: If we are going down this path, why

shouldn't we include bona fide associations who build the trails? We are not

talking about private interests here where somebody builds a trail and there

should be some expectation of if I did it on my land and I offer it as a

business initiative. If I put a mini golf course on my property, for example, I

am expected to have insurance for it. If we are going to go down this road, why

would we only give the Crown exemption from liability? Why wouldn't we say while

we are at it anybody who has a trail you might want to go back and put some

prescribed conditions on it to bring it up to snuff, that is okay, but why

wouldn't we give some protections for these non-profit, non-municipal, volunteer

bodies and groups that have built these trails over the years?

Also in clause 4.(2) it says, "An

owner or occupier of land that forms a part of a trail, including the Crown,

together with his or her agents, employees and servants, does not owe a duty of

care to a person who is using the trail or that person's property whether that

person is on the trail or not."

The question is: Who is the owner here? Is the association the owner or is

the Crown the owner? That is where we would just like some clarification as to

exactly what are the ramifications of clause 4.

It is somewhat confusing. I would like if the minister could explain to this

to me. I will read again, for the minister's benefit, because if you read clause

4.(2), which I just read, it says, "An owner or occupier of land that forms a

part of a trail, including the Crown, together with his or her agents, employees

and servants, does not owe a duty of care to a person who is using the trail or

that person's property whether that person is on the trail or not." Does not owe

a duty. Then, in subsection (3) it says, "Notwithstanding subsection (2)" - in

other words notwithstanding what we just said - "the owner or occupier of land

that forms a part of a trail owes a duty of care to persons using the trail not

to create a danger with the deliberate intent of doing harm or damage to the

person or the person's property."

So maybe if we can get some education around exactly what the consequences of

those two clauses are because I cannot imagine, for example, that anybody who

builds a trail deliberately sets out the cause of danger. Then you are into

trapping, you are not into tourism and trails, you are into trying to

deliberately cause harm. I would think anybody who deliberately does something

to cause somebody harm, there is going to be some liability down the road to you

in any case when you deliberately set out to hurt people. That is what it says

here, "a danger with the deliberate intent of doing harm..." I would not think

anybody in this Province, any municipality, any agency, or any association ever

built a trail for that purpose.

Then we come to number five and it says, "The minister may make regulations

(

a) designating a trail; (

b) establishing criteria and prescribing those subject

areas with respect to which the minister may set standards that must be complied

with for a trail to be designated under this Act; (

c) describing a trail using

the licence to occupy number assigned under the Lands Act by the minister

appointed under the Executive Council Act to administer that Act, or by some

other method" - if someone could educate me on what that means; an explanation

of that would be helpful as well - and,"(

d) defining a word that is not already

defined in this Act for the purpose of this Act" What is the purpose of that

section?

Trail is an important word. We already dealt with that back in

section 2.(c).

We said a trail was whatever the minister says a trail is. I guess a trail

designated by regulations. So, I guess, the minister can say today a trail is

one thing, tomorrow he can say a trail is something else. What is going to be

the consistency here of what a trail is? We might, for example, think that the

Wreckhouse Trail is a pretty good trail but when you start comparing it to

trails that have been done by the eastern association down here or the Grand

Concourse, there is probably no comparison in terms of how well they are

constructed, the materials used and so on.

So, some consistency of what is a suitable trail, and I think there ought to

be some discussion of it here because what you say is an acceptable trail in

Labrador, for example, Lake Melville area, might not be what you would do in the

centre of St. John's. I think there should be some consistency that we are not

setting a standard here as to what a trail is that some can meet and others

cannot. So, some information as to what is going to be a trail and what is going

to be the prescribed standards of a trail.

The other piece about this which comes to mind is: Where is the minister in

terms of fitting this piece of legislation and the regulations to come in with

what already exists? I mean we have at least twenty years of trail construction

projects that have gone on in this Province. Some in national sites like Gros

Morne, as I say, Signal Hill. We have the East Coast Trail Association. We have

them inside of municipalities. We have them outside of municipalities like the

Starlight Trail I referred to and the Rose Blanche trails.

Where are we in regard to the impact of this piece of legislation on the

trails that exist? I know, for example, of circumstances where associations have

disbanded, people have left them simply because they did not want to get hit

with the possible liability for being a member of an association that might be

held responsible for a trail. They have had those - people worked on these

associations, they were either naturalists themselves or concerned citizens,

wanted to take part, wanted to beautify their areas for example, all of a sudden

they get their trail built - and you never heard too much about this first.

First going off in the 1980s and such, oh my God, that is a great idea. They are

really going to spruce up the town or the area, great for tourists and great for

the locals who want to stay in shape. All of sudden you started hearing this

insurance piece and people said: My God, if you are on a tourist association and

you built that trail and somebody comes here from away and falls down and breaks

their leg, somebody is getting sued.

Governments, of course, did the prudent thing. The Minister of Tourism of the

day, he sent out a notice when all this stuff started to come about. The

minister said - and I refer to a press release that came out of the government's

Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation Tourism Product Development

Division. It does not have a date on it right here, but it talks about trail

development and information for project sponsors. It says right in here in terms

of liability, paragraph two, "We suggest that you consider any liability issues

surrounding your project and consider whether your organization needs to arrange

for suitable liability insurance." So, government says: Well, we are not

recommending you go ahead, obviously, if you do not look after these issues.

That has been the pat answer from the Department of Tourism for years on the

liability issue. So how does this legislation, Bill 5, square with that trail

development information package that was put out some time ago?

The thing you have to remember, too, is the cost. It might be okay, for

example, if you are in a city and you have lots of users who want to throw in a

few bucks as a volunteer piece, and the association uses that to buy an

insurance package, but I am not aware of any tourism association that could ever

get insurance. I am not aware of any insurance company that is prepared to bear

the risk of these associations and give them insurance. If you do, of course -

everything in the insurance world is based on actuarial calculations - you are

certainly going to pay through the nose to get it.

That kind of information, if the minister could come back with some of that

stuff to fill us in; because everybody should have a sense of comfort here as to

what we are doing, and the public is going to want to know: Okay, why did these

people spend all this time talking about this in the House of Assembly and we

know diddly-squat about it now compared to when we started?

I view these legislative sessions here as a great opportunity for the

minister to explain the bill, to explain the pros and the cons of it, because it

is not all about getting it done. You are going to get it done. Of course, there

is an expectation and certainly a need to do it right. There is no point in

passing a piece of legislation that we do not understand.

Even the minister, I am sure, likes to know what he is doing. He wants to

keep himself informed, and anything that he learns about and explains to us here

in the House, he is going to have it whenever he speaks anywhere else, to be

able to explain to anyone else. So when he goes out around the Province this

summer, taking

part in the culture events and the tourist events and the come

home years and everything else, he is going to get this question put to him. He

is going to get that ten, fifteen or twenty times maybe. It is not like he is

not going to hear it from someone else other than us in the House. He is going

to hear this; he is probably going to be sick of hearing it. So, just for

personal development reasons and information, it is going to help the minister,

I say it is going to help the minister - to be informed about this stuff so

that he can answer anybody. I am sure John Grant down in Burgeo is just dying to

ask him, and will ask him, as soon as he steps foot in Burgeo.

The other piece is not only the liability thing referenced in the trail

information package I referred to. That was a pretty comprehensive package, by

the way. It talked about signage policy on the trails. It talked about

environmental assessments on the trails, water permits, trail standards and

other trail considerations, a pretty comprehensive kit. Now, some have said to

me that the reason, of course, the Department of Tourism put that out was

because, if you do not know how to deal with an issue, and you do not want to be

responsible for what might happen, the best defence to that is to go on the

offence and tell everybody what you have to do in order to get sanctioned.

When you look at this kit that is exactly what the government did here. They

said, in the case of liability, go get your insurance; check it out. The

signage, you have to get permits from the local Government Service Centre

regional office if you are going to put any signs on any trail that you might

have. That drags another department in right away.

Then, you talk about environmental assessments, it says: A provincial

government environmental assessment for walking trails is required. Now we have

another department involved, Environment and Conservation.

We are talking about a piece of legislation here that is emanating from the

Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, and we already know from this

pamphlet that department has out that they already require, under their policy -

whether it is law or not, under their policy - you have to go to Government

Services to get a permit, you have to go to Environment and Conservation to get

a permit, and they tell you go check it out with your insurance company to see

if you can get insurance. By the way, you also have to go the Department of

Environment and Conservation if your trail comes anywhere near the water. There

is a pretty good chance, if you build a trail in Newfoundland and Labrador, in

the great outdoors, there is a pretty good chance you are going to come in touch

with a body of water, or pretty near. You are going to have to build a bridge

somewhere, of some kind.

That is to say nothing of standards, by the way. The government already has

this policy telling you what standards - you have to have certain standards.

While no standards exist on a provincial level - so they tell you right off

there are no existing standards - groups are encouraged to engage the services

of a consultant or experienced trail builder. Many provincial trails are in a

state of disrepair due to improper design and construction, and lack of a

maintenance plan.

I would like to know exactly where Bill 5 sits in terms of all of this. We

know the government tells you to get environmental approval on two counts. You

know you have to go to Government Services to get a permit. They are not telling

you what the standards are, but they recommend you go see a consultant. They are

telling us now this bill is going to deal with liability protection on portions

of a pedestrian trail. I wonder if the minister could tell us why the words "on

portions of" are used. What is the significance of that? Are we passing a piece

of legislation here that is only on portions of? If we are only going to do it

piecemeal, what pieces and why those pieces? What pieces of the trails and why

only those pieces are we dealing with? Because it would be a shame if at the end

of the day all we have done here is have the Crown exempt itself from liability,

but we have not done anything for anyone else.

Maybe that is the goal; maybe that is the sole motivation and purpose of this

bill. Maybe it is only to protect the Crown. There is nothing wrong with that,

if the government acknowledges that is the case and gives their reasons as to

why we are only concerned with the Crown here. If that is the case, I would just

like a more full, complete answer as to why only the Crown. Maybe it does, in

its language, and I am missing something here; maybe it does help all these

other groups like the associations and people who build these things.

Some education on those things would be very beneficial. Usually you give a

hint, when you are in second reading; especially if you are the critic for a

department, you usually say: Well, we find no problem in agreeing with this

bill, and we will be supportive of this bill, or we will be against this bill,

just so the minister usually has a heads-up: Is this going to go through? Not in

terms of numbers, because obviously the government has the numbers to put it

through. This is not a numbers game. This is about forcing something down

people's throats, if they do not understand it.

This member, I cannot honestly say which way I am going to vote on Bill 5.

There are just so many problems; I do not know about problems, but there are

just so many things unexplained about it. I cannot honestly say, in second

reading, whether I am supportive of it because I do not fully understand it. I

have read it, I have re-read it, I read all the department correspondence that

came with it, did our research on it, and yet I am at a loss for someone to tell

me in layman's language what exactly Bill 5 reads.

Now, maybe some of the members opposite - they took time over the weekend, I

am sure, too, to hike a trail and read the legislation, and they know all about

Bill 5 - maybe some of them would like to get up and explain it. Maybe the

minister does not have to go figure this stuff out.

Those are the concerns that we have, and I think they are very legitimate

concerns. I would be remiss, of course, if I did not mention as well that we are

going to be talking later on today about Bill 12, which is the Grand Concourse

which runs in the capital city region. I believe it might even go out to Mount

Pearl; I am not quite certain. I know some of the trails lead towards Mount

Pearl. I am not sure if the Grand Concourse is a part of the Mount Pearl city.

The Member for Mount Pearl indicates that it is. Now that is certainly a valued,

important piece of infrastructure to our Province; no question about it. I must

say, I went back and checked because someone said it was the Johnson Foundation

that made a major contribution towards it. There was a whole bunch of other

people who put money into it: cities, ACOA put money into it, the provincial

government put money into it, and the federal government put money into it. Of

course, the dreamer who came up with the idea was Paul Johnson, and I have heard

that name so often. I never, ever met the gentleman. I did not know what it was

about, but he is a noted philanthropist in Newfoundland who was the architect of

the Grand Concourse not technically the architect, but the creator, shall we

say, of the concept.

There is the person who puts his money where his mouth is. It is unfortunate

that we do not have someone like him for the rest of Newfoundland to develop our

trail systems because they have done a fantastic job in what they created in the

course of the concept. This is the same gentleman, of course, who put millions

of dollars into the GEO CENTRE up on the top of Signal Hill. It was a marvel,

not only because of the construction and how it was constructed down into the

granite, but again where it is located, right adjacent to Signal Hill of course.

It takes advantage of the 700,000 or 800,000 people every year who visit Cabot

Tower and Signal Hill. So he is well noted for his achievements, in fact, duly

honoured in 2004 as one of the first recipients of the Medal of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

I will not deal with it at this point because I do not want to confuse things

between the Grand Concourse legislation and Bill 12 and what we are dealing with

in Bill 5, but there are questions that will come up when we deal with Bill 12,

when I will ask the minister: What is the difference between the two? There are

some terms that are mentioned in one that are not in the other and I am just

wondering why? I will ask those questions at that time as to why we deal

differently with the liability issues in the Grand Concourse than what it

appears to be what we are putting forth in Bill 5.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my leave at this point. That is all the

comments I have to make with respect to Bill 5. I look forward to the minister

giving some information to the questions that I have posed. Again, of course,

when we get to committee stage we can go back and forth if we wish on the

particular sections of the bill.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Member for the District of

Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to rise in the House today and speak to Bill 5,

An Act To

Provide Liability Protection On Portions Of Pedestrian Trails.

Mr. Speaker, all of us know from across this Island and certainly in

Labrador, there are a lot of trails and traditional trails that evolved over the

years. I know for my area, being quite familiar with it, growing up in a small

community in Mobile, a lot of the trails that were there were used by people for

firewood, to hunt. It was a big part of their livelihood. Most rural communities

are like that, no doubt, Mr. Speaker.

What has happened over the years in terms of accessing that beauty, for

everybody, for people here in the Province as well for people who visit our

Province, is that they have access to the unlimited coastlines we have. So we

celebrate the beauty we have, and no doubt it is a huge attraction to our

Province, that we have that coastline and everything that goes with it, whether

it is icebergs, whales, ecological reserves, you name it. It opens up an

adventurous experience for anybody. As well, as the minister mentioned earlier

in some of his discussion, in terms of promoting healthy lifestyles and being

active, and gives tremendous infrastructure to be able to do that.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, as has been referenced, looks at providing liability

protection to the Crown and as well to owners or occupiers of land whose

property forms a part of that trail, and that is designated under the act. As I

said, a lot of this has evolved over the years in terms of historic trails,

community trails, you name it. Now they have evolved into designated trails or

may be designated trails in the future. (Inaudible) in terms of what happens in

terms of something happens on the trails, those types of things. So this act

looks to deal with that, in terms of whether it is Crown land or whether it is

indeed private property.

Mr. Speaker, my area, the District of Ferryland, is blessed with a great

number of trails. It is a big tourism draw. A number of people are involved with

the East Coast Trail, which runs pretty well through my district, from Petty

Harbour, Maddox Cove south to Cappahayden. The whole trail I think encompasses

about 540 kilometres, I do believe, starting at Pouch Cove and coming right down

south along the Southern Shore.

We talk about volunteer groups that have gotten together; I think it was in

1994, if I remember correctly, the East Coast Trail, a non-profit group got

together. Even prior to that, volunteers got together in upgrading trails that

had been traditionally used, and in many respects are still traditionally used,

and formed an association to upgrade, identify that coastline area, and look for

funding to enhance those trails. It is what has evolved today, Mr. Speaker, in

terms of the amount of people who use the trails. We know that trails have been

written up, the East Coast Trails around the world, in terms of those who

vacation to walk trails around the world and a few experiences around the world;

that is second to none. On this side of the water and in Europe as well, has

been written up and is designated and is well-respected in terms of what the

traveller can explore and the quality of trails.

Again, in my area in particular we have ecological reserves. We have

abandoned communities that the trails take you through, viewing of wildlife as

well border the Avalon Wilderness Area; lighthouses. There is a full gamut of

experience for those who walk the trails; the Mistaken Point Ecological Reserve,

the Colony of Avalon. With that and with those trails - what is in those various

communities, it makes the experience complete. It is not only that, Mr. Speaker,

it is the spin off in terms of the communities, whether it is B&Bs, just general

stores, or people staying over. Some would come for a week or longer or a day,

stay overnight and experience many parts of the trail to get the full

experience.

I see it in my communities. I spoke to a B&B owner last fall. I remember it

was on the shoulder season, it was not right in the middle of tourism season,

but a couple was staying there from New York City. They stayed for a week and he

had asked them why they picked Newfoundland and Labrador. They said they had

seen it on the Web site in terms of the East Coast Trail; the beauty, pristine

nature of what you would experience. They said they had to come and stayed a

week in Fermeuse in a B&B, and travelled back and forth, north and south in

terms of the trail; a wonderful experience. Again, as I indicated, it is a

tremendous asset in terms of where it is and how it is developed.

This legislation looks at, in regard to all of that, Mr. Speaker, in terms of

protection through a liability protection act, that unfortunately we have -

these trails are on Crown land as well as private land and we want to ensure

there is protection there for those who access it. Then, as well, those people

where parts of the trail is on private property, they have concerns in terms of

if something were to happen, who is liable and what liability is there. This

alleviates some of their concerns in terms that the trail access is not denied;

the trail access now is there. This legislation addresses that and allows it to

continue and the good work that is being done with it continues to be allowed.

That is what this piece of legislation will attempt to do and much needed.

I know some time ago I had some representatives of the East Coast Trail come

in and see me specifically for this purpose in terms of discussing the

requirement of this on a go-forward basis. I understand there is similar

legislation in Prince Edward Island, as well as Nova Scotia, in terms of trails

and pedestrian trails legislation. So it is something that has been done in

other jurisdictions, and it is just that we are, I guess, getting up to scratch

in terms of what is needed here in addressing the particulars on this.

I mentioned, in terms of an infrastructure like this and to have it, and some

of the exposure you give certainly around the world in terms of people coming to

visit. This government in 2008 I do believe, if I remember correctly, in that

Budget, invested $500,000 over five years to do investments. As I said, the East

Coast Trail was started in 1994. It needed upgrades and maintenance and that was

part of recognition of the importance of it. So it was carried through and that

work is underway now and continuing. There is always expansion of the trails,

certainly updates, maintenance, and those kinds of initiatives because it is

used extensively. So, with that use comes some required maintenance. As well,

the nature in terms of the difference seasons and so forth and so on, Mr.

Speaker, and that is required and carried out as well.

Along the route in my area, you have La Manche Park, you have camping

facilities and you have RV access as well in terms of La Manche Park and other

areas. The club itself, the East Coast Trail provides guided tours and a whole

range of initiatives in terms of whether you are a starter or whether you are an

experienced traveller. They are rated differently and you can access them on a

need basis as required.

One of the great attributes is certainly the old community of La Manche which

was hit by a tidal wave, I believe, in the late 1960s. The East Coast Trail,

through initiatives over the year, replaced a fifty-metre suspension bridge. It

is quite an experience, Mr. Speaker, if anybody gets a chance to go experience

and to travel that part of the trail. It is certainly a tremendous piece of

infrastructure that puts in and certainly highlights the beauty of the area and

the historic part of the community.

The other thing I think is important in terms of these trails, especially

this one in terms of the East Coast Trail and it runs through a community, I

mentioned how it was tied historically to the communities. It is always good and

I think it is important that we recognize that it was built by the forefathers

of the communities. It was built for a number of reasons: to access fishing

sheds, for hunting, to the basic staples of life to ensure that they could live

in rural communities. I even relate back - I know some people were lost at sea.

I know a gentleman from the neighbouring community where I grew up was lost at

sea down duck hunting one evening. So I think it is important to remember that

as we move forward and these trails are developed for everybody, it is always

nice to look at it historically and see how they were part of the community and

certainly celebrate it. Today, we are part of these rural communities. They

played a key role in those communities and I think it is important, as we move

forward, that is not forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation, as we know, will look at, as I said,

protections that are required for private owners as well as for the Crown in

terms of liability, much needed in terms of where we are today and where we need

to go in the future. I know there is a bill coming up, an additional bill, Bill

12, which deals with the Grand Concourse Authority. As well, in my particular

area, in the Goulds region, the Grand Concourse looks at the Bidgood's Park. The

Bidgood family donated a huge parcel of the land in the Gould's area for that

purpose. It is certainly a tremendous gesture in terms of donating that

property. That falls under the Grand Concourse and that has been worked on as

well through that organization. I know there is a separate bill that will be

debated here today that speaks to that as well.

Mr. Speaker, the essence of this, I think, as we move forward, there are

questions in debate that we will talk about as we go through and items that

people want to bring up and talk about. I think as we move forward as a

Province, in particular, in my area we look at the East Coast Trail and the many

communities that it runs through, it is something we certainly have to look at.

It is much needed. Those that are involved recognize that it is needed. It is

something that has come of age in other jurisdictions. We are certainly looking

to step up, make sure we are in line with other jurisdictions and make sure that

we can provide the protection that is needed.

With that, I will conclude my comments, Mr. Speaker, but I certainly

congratulate the minister on bringing it forward. It is certainly well needed. I

am certainly interested to hear the rest of the debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 5,

An Act To Provide

Liability Protection On Portions Of Pedestrian Trails. We really are blessed

right now in the Province. The more I travel around the Province I realize it is

the Province. We are really blessed with pedestrian trails being developed all

over the place. They really are wonderful for lots of reasons. Of course, one is

because a