March

29, 2011 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLVI No. 6

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today, the Chair would like to welcome some distinguished visitors to the

House of Assembly. The Chair would like to welcome the Mount Pearl Seniors

Independence Groups from the Districts of Mount Pearl North, Mount Pearl South,

and Topsail. The group is accompanied by their co-ordinator, Georgina Smith.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would also like to recognize and

welcome Ms Vicki Carbage who is accompanied by her niece, Cecilia Kent, sitting

in the Speaker's gallery. Ms Carbage is celebrating her 100 th

birthday.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today, the Chair would like to welcome the following

members' statements: the hon. the Member for the District of Conception Bay East

& Bell Island; the hon. the Member for the District of Topsail; and the hon. the

Member for the District of Humber Valley.

The hon. the Member for the District of Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House of Assembly today to acknowledge a special

lady and a significant event in my district. Victoria Carbage celebrated her 100 th

birthday the weekend of March 12, and I had the pleasure of attending a

celebration for her on Bell Island. Perhaps what was most significant and

uplifting was that the celebration she attended went late into the night and she

danced until 12:00.

Mr. Speaker, this inspiring lady was born on year before the Titanic

sank, even before the outbreak of World War I. In fact, she was almost forty

years old before Newfoundland entered Confederation. After leaving school, she,

along with her brother, took over the family business. Upon marrying in 1944,

she and her husband, George, opened their own supermarket, which she took an

active role in operating for the next forty years.

Vicki continues to live in her own home. While she did not have children of

her own, her many nieces and nephews who lived on the island were blessed with

Vicki's loving care as she played a major role in raising them.

Vicki has been a volunteer in the community of Bell Island for over seventy

years within a number of organizations such as St. Michael's Parish, the Special

Olympics, and the Wabana Boys & Girls Club, among others.

Vicki continues to be a kind, warm-hearted, active member of her community,

and is widely respected, admired, and adored.

Mr. Speaker, I would like everyone to join me in wishing Vicki Carbage a very

happy 100 th birthday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mount Pearl Seniors Independence Group.

This is a group that has been serving seniors in Mount Pearl for many years.

They have become such a large group, in fact, that it takes multiple days to

host them in a tour of the Confederation Building and the House of Assembly.

Aside from coming together to celebrate socially, they also work tirelessly

to develop great programs and services for their members. Some of their services

include Snow Clearing for Seniors in Mount Pearl, and odd summer jobs, whereby

students mow lawns, paint fences, and do other tasks needing attention.

They co-ordinate an annual Flu Shot Clinic with Eastern Health, offer a Foot

Care Clinic at the Reid Centre with the VON, an Annual Income Tax Clinic in

partnership with the Chartered Accountants of Newfoundland and Labrador, and a

Caregivers' Respite Centre that is held monthly.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from the District of Mount Pearl North did

yesterday, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the

Mount Pearl Seniors Independence Group for their continued success, and wish

them all and wish them the best as they continue to do good work in the City of

Mount Pearl.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to formally

recognize two extraordinary seniors from the District of Humber Valley. These

two individuals are Sam and Pearl King who, on a volunteer basis, operate the

Food Bank in Deer Lake.

For the past fifteen years since Sam's retirement as Superintendent of Public

Works with the Town of Deer Lake, both Sam and his wife, Pearl, have operated

the community Food Bank from the basement of their own home. They took care of a

community need, and were supported by the community at large.

Recently, the Food Bank moved to a new location at a commercial establishment

in Deer Lake. It is still staffed by both Sam and Pearl who so generously give

their time to provide this service to others.

Mr. Speaker, recently, I was joined by the Minister of Intergovernmental

Affairs and the Minister Responsible for the Non-Profit Sector and we visited

Sam and Pearl at this new location. The minister was overwhelmed by these two

special individuals, with their compassionate hearts and efforts on behalf of

others. There is no doubt that Sam and Pearl care enough about others to do this

extraordinary deed on their behalf.

Winston Churchill once said: You make a living by what you get and you make

life by what you give.

I ask hon. members of this House to join me in thanking two extraordinary

seniors, Sam and Pearl King, for what they give to others.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to announce yesterday's successful transition of 107

CYFS staff and services from the Western Regional Health Authority to the

Department of Child, Youth and Family Services.

The Western Region was the first of four regional health authorities to

transfer to our department. The transfer of the other three will occur this

year.

Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to be at the Noton Building in Corner Brook

yesterday to welcome the staff from the Western Region to the department; all

other offices in Western joined by teleconference.

While in Corner Brook, I also released details about the redesigned

organizational structure for the department, which focuses on strengthening our

core mandate: the protection and well-being of children and youth.

Key elements of the new organizational model include improved administrative

and supervisory supports for front-line social workers. For program areas

including child protection, adoption and youth corrections, the goal is to have

staff work within a standard service delivery team consisting of one supervisor,

six social workers, a social worker assistant, and a clerical support person.

The model also includes a plan to work towards more manageable caseloads for

social workers.

Mr. Speaker, these changes will translate into a more effective and positive

system throughout our Province and will ultimately benefit our clients.

Other highlights of the organizational model include the delegation of

authority to thirteen child and youth care zone managers from the existing five

regional directors which will facilitate increased oversight of cases. This

includes dedicated zone managers for both the Innu and Inuit communities.

Government recognizes the unique challenges in Labrador and we have committed to

developing an innovative service delivery model with the involvement of

Aboriginal leaders to incorporate their perspectives.

It also includes a dedicated training unit already announced in the College

of the North Atlantic, Stephenville Campus.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's transition marked a significant step forward towards

the revitalization of child, youth and family services in Newfoundland and

Labrador. This is, however, just one component of the transformation of programs

and services which started with our new child protection legislation passed

through the House of Assembly last June. This act will come into effect later

this year.

The Department of Child, Youth and Family Services has recognized the

systemic issues that exist and developed a long-term plan to specifically

address these issues, improve service delivery, and ensure a positive transition

of staff to the department. Mr. Speaker, the department has a clear vision for

the future. We have listened to the concerns staff expressed during extensive

consultations and have made the necessary changes to reflect their

recommendations. This new organizational model will better support their work,

which will in turn ensure the safety and well-being of children and youth in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

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 her statement.

Mr. Speaker, this department, which was announced by the current government,

goes back nearly two years. It has taken two years for them to bring on-line one

of the first segments of this particular department, and I remind you that this

is only the very first segment that we are seeing. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it has

taken much longer than any one of us had ever hoped it would take when this

first came about.

In the meantime, what we have in the Province today is a case where over 90

per cent of risk assessments and plans are not being completed appropriately

within Child, Youth and Family Services. We have seen no action by the minister

or by the government in dealing with that critical issue that has been pointed

out by the Auditor General just recently.

Mr. Speaker, we still have a shortage of social workers in this Province.

Right now, we have something like forty-seven vacancies in all of the regional

health authorities, Mr. Speaker, and 68 per cent of those vacancies exist within

Child, Youth and Family Services itself.

It is interesting though, Mr. Speaker, that the first piece of the department

that they set up in the Western Regional Health Authority, from what I

understand, has no vacancies. I guess it was an easier piece to be able to bring

together, so maybe that was the reason that they chose to do that particular

piece of it first.

Mr. Speaker, we look forward to seeing all of the health authorities

streamlined. We anticipate, hopefully, that the department will be established

in the near future. More importantly, Mr. Speaker, we want to see some action

from the government on being able to deal with the critical issues that were

highlighted by the Auditor General in his report.

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 the advance copy of her statement. We have

been waiting a couple of years now for this. We were so proud when we passed the

legislation setting up the department, not realizing how much longer we were

going to have to wait for the actual department to be put in place.

I understand the reasons for it taking one segment at a time of the four

authorities and making the transition, but I hope that we are not going to have

to wait another year or two before all of the authorities are finally giving up

their responsibility and all social workers moving into the new department of

Child, Youth and Family Services. Until everybody is in place, we still do not

have a fully working department.

I am delighted to see the new structure that is coming in place; I am

delighted to see that there is going to be support for each unit of social

workers. This is something that is much needed and we have been waiting for it

for a long time. We all know that the ultimate priority is the children, but we

have to have working conditions for the social workers so that they can do their

work for the children.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Reflective of the nice prices we received for crab and

shrimp this year, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to inform the public and members

present of a series of important initiatives that have been undertaken by the

Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Marine sciences and coastal and ocean

management are extremely important to the future of our Province's fishing and

aquaculture industries. As such, my department has developed a number of

initiatives to attract the interest and support of youth in these important

areas.

In 2010, our government announced a commitment of $14 million towards

fisheries science research, including the establishment of a Centre for

Fisheries Ecosystems Research (CFER) at the Fisheries and Marine Institute of

Memorial University and to charter the research vessel the Celtic Explorer. This

investment allows for our Province to conduct its own fisheries research for the

first time in our history. It also supports up to twenty graduate students on an

annual basis who will be contributing to the centre's research activities.

Mr. Speaker, educating our youth on healthy oceans and sustainable fisheries

is a key component of marine conservation. My department has supported youth

initiatives including the Ocean Net Youth Conference, Friends of the Beaches

Network, Envirothon Newfoundland and Labrador, the Ocean's Day Stream and

Shoreline Clean up Challenge in the Bay of Islands area and a World Ocean's Day

art contest and family day. We also provided funding for students to participate

in the Students on Ice Arctic youth expedition in 2010. The total funding for

these projects in 2010 was $40,000.

I am also pleased to report that my department funds two scholarships. We

have actually established our own scholarship program of $1,000 a year to

encourage high school students to learn about our Province's fishing and

aquaculture industries. We also fund the Doctor Wilfred Templeman Scholarship

which provides funding of $5,000 to students pursuing a degree program related

to groundfish research. We also contributed to two private scholarships in

memory of Dr. John Lien and Mr. Sid Hann, on a one-time basis.

Mr. Speaker, the fishing industry is changing rapidly and the aquaculture

industry is an important component of the future of coastal and rural areas in

this Province. We look forward to continuing to engage the youth of our Province

on these very important issues.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

Certainly educating and engaging our youth in any industry is important and

certainly important in the fishery industry as well. It is a very commendable

initiative. I would like to congratulate those graduate students who were

involved in the Centre for Fisheries Ecosystems Research and also those who have

received scholarships.

The minister makes mention of the Celtic Explorer , and I just cannot

let that one pass without speaking to that for a moment. We realize a large

component of the fisheries research is that particular vessel. People might need

to know or do not know that the vessel was actually only leased for about thirty

days or so. I know we had calls to our office for people looking to go work on

her actually from Northern Newfoundland and Labrador. When they found out they

thought it was a full-time research vessel and when they realized exactly what

it was they walked away from that initiative.

I have to wonder whether the minister might be somewhat uncomfortable

standing and giving this fishery statement today in light of the situation that

we have in our industry. It is great to make note of the aquaculture industry

I know it is doing well but my concern is that that does not become the

fishery of the future because it is impossible for that to service the coastal

communities of Newfoundland and Labrador.

When we look at situations of the MOU with the ASP and FFAW, we have SPANL,

we have communities like Jackson's Arm, Port Union, Englee, and so many other

things that are being affected every day by the condition and the crisis in this

industry, then I am looking to see, as the people of this Province are looking

to see, Mr. Speaker, the vision of this government of how they are going to take

the industry forward and how we know that it will be around for years to come as

a sustainable industry.

Thank you for this statement, but I look forward to hearing more in the days

to come from this government.

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.

Obviously, the initiatives that he has outlined in his statement today are

good initiatives and youth should be encouraged to engage in our fishery. We

have to look at the fishery and its potential to be a truly sustainable

industry, with or without aquaculture, Mr. Speaker.

It would be a great benefit for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians if our

fishery were managed properly. I am hoping that our fishery is going to be

around much, much longer than oil and minerals and when they are depleted we

will still have our strong fishery.

People look to the government for leadership on the fishery, Mr. Speaker. It

is really a problem that this government has ignored an 800,308 page MOU that

was put in place. It is not the be-all and end-all. Discussion has to continue,

but this government has to give the leadership, and putting a plan in place and

showing young people that they have a plan for the fishery so that young people

can feel confident in going into the fishery, Mr. Speaker. Not just in research,

it is wonderful to have them in research, but in all aspects. Why would this

government not approve a fair and generous early retirement package for aging

plant workers so that younger people can see a place for them in all parts of

the fishery, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in a scrum outside the House with reporters, the

Minister of Natural Resources grossly exaggerated the rate that energy costs are

rising in the Province. The minister claimed that energy costs are rising at a

rate of 4 per cent to 6 per cent annually; that is double and triple the real

amount, which is just over 2 per cent as anyone can see by doing the

calculations on their power bills.

Mr. Speaker, the government wants people to believe that even without

Muskrat, energy costs are going up. Well, they are, but they are not going up at

100 per cent plus that they will under this particular deal.

My question today is for the Premier: Premier, why are you grossly inflating

energy costs and energy demand in your Muskrat projections?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, we know in this Province that our energy costs are increasing.

What I referred to yesterday was the exercise that we had done to determine what

the future energy costs would be. That is a modelling exercise. Nobody can say

with certainty what the prices will be into the future, but we can estimate what

they will be. It is estimated that energy costs between now and the next five or

six years will increase about 36 per cent or 38 per cent, 4 per cent to 6 per

cent per year for sure, Mr. Speaker, and after 2017, after the period of time

when we have Muskrat Falls on stream, we expect without Muskrat Falls they will

continue to increase exponentially.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have seen the fluctuation of oil prices in this Province over the last

five and ten years, as the minister knows. Even during those periods when oil

went to as high as $150 a barrel, Mr. Speaker, we have seen minimal influx in

the price of electricity, nothing that would reflect the 36 per cent that the

minister claims that we will see over the next five years.

I ask you, Minister: How can you justify your argument, based on the fact

that even in the last five years our rates have never increased more than 2 per

cent or 2.5 per cent on an annual basis?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of factors that influence

the price of electricity. One of them, certainly, is a rate application being

presented to the Public Utilities Board, and there has not been a rate

application to the Public Utilities Board by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

since 2006, some five years ago; point number one.

Point number two, Mr. Speaker, is that the cost of electricity is also driven

by the price of oil. We use international information, information that is used

by all the electricity utilities in the world, to determine what the price of

electricity will be. The forecasting that has been done indicates that the price

of electricity has been increasing and will continue to increase well into the

future unless we bring Muskrat Falls in, which will help stabilize the rates.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Even a calculation that we had done by an accountant that looks at from

August, 2005 to February, 2011, the rate of increase on an annual basis has

never been more than an average of 2.5 per cent. So it is really hard to buy

into the argument.

Maybe the Premier would like to stand up, Mr. Speaker, as opposed to chirping

from her seat, and explain to the people of the Province why she is inflating

the numbers, Mr. Speaker, to the point that we know is unrealistic in this

particular deal?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, in terms of the past, there has not been a

rate increase. There has been subsidization of the rates. As we move forward, we

have to continue to run Holyrood and run Holyrood harder. The demand on the

electricity system is increasing every year. That causes us to run the power

plant more. The cost of oil is going up, and the fact that we are running

Holyrood harder means we have to burn more of the Bunker C, which is why the

cost of electricity will continue to increase.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There has not been a rate increase, I guess, because the utility company has

not felt the need for one, I say to the government opposite. Under your regime,

we are going to see a whole different story; that is quite obvious.

Mr. Speaker, in 1998, when Nalcor looked at building a transmission line

across the Island, they budgeted the cost at $2.2 billion. Fast-forward now

thirteen years later and the Premier says she will build the same line for $2.1

billion. We know that over that time period steel cost has risen by more than

200 per cent, that is not to mention the increase in the cost of labour and

other supplies that go into building the line.

I ask the Premier today: Will you tell us how it is possible to build a steel

transmission line across the Province today for less money than it would have

cost thirteen years ago?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there has been extensive work done on the development of the

Lower Churchill over a number of years, particularly in the last eight years

under this government, under the leadership of Nalcor. Mr. Speaker, we used a

gaited process that took in a very detailed analysis, we received the best

expertise that was available to us in the Province, in the country, and

worldwide when necessary, Mr. Speaker. More than that, Mr. Speaker, we have had

two independent audits of the methodology used by Nalcor to ensure that the

process is as good and the information as good as can be had at this point in

time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If they have had all that work done, there is no reason why the Premier

cannot stand on her feet today and explain to us why there is such a difference

in pricing. We know that steel prices have increased by 200 per cent in thirteen

years; we know that the line you are proposing to build is only twenty-six

kilometres longer, Mr. Speaker, than the line that was proposed back in 1998.

Now that you have all the research Premier, stand up and tell us why your

line is going to be cheaper than it would have been thirteen years ago?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is all over

the place. Everything is going to go up. Labour prices are going to go up,

commodity prices are going to go up. The only thing that is not going to go up,

Mr. Speaker, is electricity. The price of electricity is not going to go up. The

demand of electricity is not going to go up. Mr. Speaker, the least we could ask

from her is consistency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No answers from the Premier; she is out there trying to sell a big deal, Mr.

Speaker, in the Province and she gets up and gets on with such gibberish in the

House of Assembly. Very clear, very simple questions, Mr. Speaker; why is it

that the cost that you are projecting to build this transmission line is cheaper

than it would have been thirteen years ago, Mr. Speaker, given the fact that

everything else has increased in cost including the price of steel? I ask the

Premier to have a little decency and to stand up and explain that to the people

of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if you were to listen to the Leader of the Opposition, you would

think that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is going to develop

Muskrat Falls for a lark, for an absolute lark, for something to do. Mr.

Speaker, we are developing Muskrat Falls because it is the best and cheapest

energy solution for Newfoundland and Labrador. We are building it for the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: That is why we are building Muskrat Falls.

Mr. Speaker, we have developed a methodology that allows us to do this in the

most cost-effective way. Mr. Speaker, we have had those costs and that

methodology audited by independent agencies of worldwide reputation. Mr.

Speaker, they have given us high marks on the information that we have used and

the outcomes that have resulted as a consequence of it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure what lark is doing but I know what their government is doing

and that Premier is doing and that is they are jacking up the price of

electricity going into every single household in this Province, Mr. Speaker. The

Premier, Mr. Speaker, claims they have had all of these audits done; we are

asking a very simple question, Mr. Speaker, give us the information. So if you

have had it done and you have the information that you can provide to the people

of the Province that shows how you, Premier, can build a transmission line today

cheaper than you could thirteen years ago, we would love to see it. So I ask

you: Are you prepared to table the information?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we have provided information upon

information, upon information. We have asked Nalcor to provide information and

they have done that in briefing after briefing after briefing. We will continue

to do that, Mr. Speaker. The problem is they do not know how to interpret or

deal with the information when they get it, but that will not stop us from

trying to inform them about this project, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will let the Premier know that throwing insults over here will not stop us

from throwing questions back. That is what I say to you, Premier. There are a

lot of questions to answer and if you want to stand by your deal, you provide

the answer in the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, in the House we asked the Minister of Natural Resources to reveal

the cost of the contract to Montreal based company, SNC-Lavalin to design and

oversee the construction of the Muskrat Falls Project. Obviously, the minister

would not provide the information to us yesterday.

I ask the Premier today: Are you prepared to give us the cost that is

associated with that contract that you rewarded to the Quebec company?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have costed Muskrat Falls to cost in the vicinity of $6.2

billion. Mr. Speaker, there is some commercially sensitive information. If the

information that the Leader of the Opposition is asking for will not compromise

the project in any way, I will more than happily provide that to her.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am assuming it is not commercially sensitive any longer if the contract has

been awarded. Anyway, I will wait and see.

My next question is for the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services

because yesterday the government did make an announcement. She made a statement

in the House of Assembly today about the transfer of 107 social workers from the

Western Regional Health Authority to the new Department of Child, Youth and

Family Services. We asked these questions yesterday of the former Minister of

Human Resources, or Child, Youth and Family Services but we did not get any

answers, so we will try it again today.

While the transfer to get the department up and running is important, and we

recognize that, we are also aware of the fact that there are 90 per cent of the

risk assessments

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS JONES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to.

My question for the minister today is: In light of the fact that there are 90

per cent of the risk assessments and action plans that are not being completed,

as pointed out by the Auditor General, what is it that your government is doing

to address it?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If there is one thing that is obviously clear, Mr. Speaker, from not only the

AG report, because that is information that was not new to us we did do the

clinical service review, that was a comprehensive review of 400 cases; we also

have the Turner review and if there is one thing that is obviously clear, it

is that status quo for the services of our children in Newfoundland and Labrador

is not good enough.

Mr. Speaker, what we did yesterday was we announced an organizational shift

from where we are. Since 2006, Mr. Speaker, we have put 223 positions into the

department with little impact on the services. It is not about resources, it is

about doing things differently, and that is exactly what we announced yesterday,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We all know, minister, that what you announced yesterday was a streamlining

of the department. It was a transfer of human resources from one side of the

department into another. It was about putting in place the administrative level,

the management level, of what needs to be done.

Let us talk about the front line-level and let us talk about, minister, what

your government is doing to address the critical issue that has been outlined by

the Auditor General to ensure that proper risk assessments and action plans are

now being completed by people who are placed in those positions.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let us talk about what we are doing for the front-line social workers because

that is exactly what we announced yesterday: a new organization.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, the previous minister did extensive consultation

with all fifty-two offices and what we heard is that they needed more supports

in terms of supervisors, more supports in terms of clerical and administrative.

Mr. Speaker, exactly what we announced yesterday is a new case load management

system in terms of one supervisor to six social workers, and, on a provincial

basis, an average of twenty cases per social worker. In line with that, there is

also one social worker assistant and one clerical support person so that it is a

team-based approach, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the AG report, Mr. Speaker, in January of this year, we did

hire six more staff to address the backload of cases to ensure that those FCAPs

and those safety reports were being done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that her government also failed to monitor

the protective intervention program standards. They failed to regularly review

the evaluation for the child care system. This means, Minister, that your

government failed to provide the necessary oversight to ensure that the children

in long-term protection were safe and properly cared for.

I ask you today, Minister: Can you tell us what has been done to address that

particular oversight on the part of your government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition is addressing

is the systemic issues that have been in the system, so when she says our

government, Mr. Speaker, this goes back a lot longer than our government. If she

read the Susan Abell report, Mr. Speaker, she would know that these changes are

going to take five years to implement.

In the interim, Mr. Speaker, a lot of work has been done. As I said, we

recently hired five people to address the backlog of files

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: Just last month we announced a training unit. One of the

things that came out loud and clear in the Clinical Services Review and the

Turner report was that training is an absolute necessity. We now have one

training unit where we will streamline the training. In the very near future,

she is going to hear another announcement around a quality unit so we can check

the work that is being done weekly, Mr. Speaker.

I can go on and on with the list of things that have been done in this

department over the last two years. So, if she wants to keep answering, I will

keep telling her more that has been done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can assure the minister there will be a lot of questions to come. There are

a lot of issues in that department. Talking about the Susan Abell report, maybe

she would like to share with us the report they did on the Amanda Duggan

particular case so we can have a look at that.

Mr. Speaker, the Workers' Compensation Commission has completed an audit on

the Department of Government Services' compliance with their own health and

safety legislation. Shockingly, Mr. Speaker, what that audit found is that the

Department of Government Services and the Department of Human Resources are only

compliant with 50 per cent of their own rules.

I ask the Minister of Government Services today: Why is your department only

following 50 per cent of your own rules, and is that the level of compliance

that is expected or acceptable to you?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, our department welcomes any comments and recommendations by the

Auditor General. Our department has fulfilled most of these recommendations

throughout the years.

With respect to the question that she has asked today, I would like to check

further with my officials and bring back an answer for her tomorrow.

Thank very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is the minister telling the House today that he is not aware of an audit that

was conducted within his own department that outlined the fact that 50 per cent,

Mr. Speaker, of the rules that are in your department, you are not being

compliant with? Is that what I am understanding today, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, that is not the case at all. As I said just a minute ago, I want to get

the accurate information before I respond to that type of question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, not only is the department failing to meet their

own rules, we have also learned on Thursday that they are getting rid of three

co-ordinators who are responsible for safety within the social sector. They

include HRLE, Government Services, Health and Community Services, Municipal

Affairs, Education, Labour Relations, Government Purchasing Agency, Fire and

Emergency Services. So, Minister, maybe you will know the answer to this

question.

Given that your department is clearly not compliant with your own rules, how

do you justify getting rid of staff who are working on bringing up the level of

compliance in your particular department?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the hon. Leader of the

Opposition is coming up with this information, but I am certainly not aware of

the comments she just made. My predecessor, as well, has said he has never heard

of anything like that before, and I just do not know where she is coming up with

that type of information.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: So, Mr. Speaker, the minister is standing in the House today

and telling us that he is not aware that there are three co-ordinators being let

go in his own department who have been responsible for compliance and bringing

the department in line.

Is that what the minister is telling us today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I told the hon. member earlier that I would get

the information for her, which I will do by tomorrow.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that I am standing here in the

House of Assembly questioning a minister of the Crown, asking him if there are

three positions going to be let go in his department on Thursday, and he is

standing here today telling me he does not have the answer.

That is unacceptable, Minister, and I ask you why you would not know what is

happening in your own department?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I say again to the hon. member opposite that I

will get the information for her. I would just like to add, as well, that this

department consists of over 500 employees, and from time to time people do

change offices, things like that. I will get the information for the hon. member

and provide it for her tomorrow.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, for decades, the Town of Englee in my district was proud of the

fish processing heritage of that town; but, unfortunately, when this government

decided to remove the licence in 2004 and transfer it out of the area, it left

the community economically devastated and in limbo. For seven years now the

council members of Englee have struggled and work diligently to find a new way

forward for the town.

In February of 2010, Mr. Speaker, the council of Englee submitted a detailed

proposal to Municipal Affairs for the establishment of a cultural

interpretation

centre. Despite numerous attempts to get this government engaged on this

project, the Department of Municipal Affairs has refused to partner with the

town citing environmental liabilities.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister today -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to pose his question.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister today: Will they act on commitments made during the

election campaign by this government and commit to making this project happen?

If not, can he explain to the people of Englee why not?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to stand here in this House and

inform the hon. member that we are fully into the Budget process and all

considerations will be given to that Budget process. One of the considerations

that I am considering is the one for is that too many considerations?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: One of the ones that are before me is the one in Englee.

Certainly, I will be considering that in the process. I am having a meeting with

you next week and we will be discussing that very matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, I consider it unacceptable that you have to

consider something that this government has already committed to. That was done

during the election campaign, very clearly, in 2009.

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to appreciate the frustration that community has

experienced with the drastic changes caused, in the economy, by this government.

On January 2011, the Mayor of Englee wrote our new Premier outlining again the

town's predicament and pleading again that government would come onside to

ensure this project. He asked for a meeting with the Premier.

I am asking the Premier today: Are you willing to meet with the town

officials to further discuss government's intentions and willingness? If not,

why not? Because they want to get this project moving.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, since early in January I have been travelling

right across this Province to various municipalities, to various regions in the

Province, meeting with all of the stakeholders, mayors, fire departments, and

the same invitation is open to you. If the Town of Englee and the stakeholders

in Englee want a meeting with myself and my officials with regard to any of the

projects and issues that they have within their community, my door is always

open.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have been facing a major shortage of hospital beds because

too many people are stuck in acute care waiting for a convalescent bed in a

long-term care facility. Government announced that it plans to put such

medically discharged patients in the private Chancellor Park facility.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: Is putting

these patients from hospitals into the costly private facility going to be the

permanent solution to the insufficient number of convalescent beds in the health

care system?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the issues that we face in our hospital system is the medically

discharged individual being in an acute care bed. The cost of that individual

remaining in the acute care bed, Mr. Speaker, is approximately $1,500 a day, or

up to $45,000 per month.

What we have done here, Mr. Speaker, Chancellor Park has room available. We

have reached an agreement with Chancellor Park to utilize forty beds so that the

ultimate level of care patients will transfer into Chancellor Park. In turn, Mr.

Speaker, there will be more beds open in the acute care setting. What that will

result in is the ability to reduce wait times because now when we have people in

emergency, there will be beds to put them in, when people have operations there

will be beds to put them in.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very good initiative and one that will go

significantly in reducing wait times.

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.

I take it the minister is telling us that it is going to be permanent, the

use of this private facility. I am not impressed, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the new Hoyles-Escasoni facility, which is a public facility

owned by the government, will only provide twenty-six additional long-term care

beds for the elderly and convalescent patients.

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of hundred people right now needing long-term

care in the Eastern region. The situation is so bad that elderly parents are

being brought into emergency wards because it is the fastest way for them to

access a long-term care facility home care bed.

Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Health and Community Services explain how

they are going to deal with the growing backlog that will not be alleviated by

the new Hoyles-Escasoni facility or by the private facility, Chancellor Park?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On numerous occasions in this House, I have had the pleasure of outlining the

investment our government has made in long-term care facilities: the new

long-term care facility in Corner Brook, the new one announced in Carbonear, a

new one in Lewisporte, Mr. Speaker, fourteen long-term care beds in Lab West.

Mr. Speaker, we are building facilities in order to ensure that people have a

good place to go when they are Level III and IV. We also, Mr. Speaker, will work

with personal care homes, we will work with our stakeholder groups with home

care, and, Mr. Speaker, we will work with groups like the Mount Pearl Seniors

Independence Group to keep them healthy, to ensure that they stay active, that

they socialize, as I indicated yesterday, by providing them with a Senior

Wellness Grant. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you one thing, it is probably the best

$20,000 that this government is going to spend this year.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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.

The minister is continuing to deliberately ignore the fact that we do not

have enough beds. He can talk about all of the money he spent all he wants but

we do not have enough beds to meet the need here in this area.

What is he going to do about what have been up to 267 people in need on a

waiting list? What is he going to do about that? Because what he has in place

now is not going to meet the need and he is not telling us.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I had a very good meeting today with the owner

board representatives of St. Pat's, St. Luke's, Agnes Pratt, Masonic Park and

Glenwood Lodge. We discussed the situation as it relates to the provision of

long-term care beds in our city and general area. There are 990 beds in this

area, Mr. Speaker, a number of them supplied by the owner board.

Mr. Speaker, as a government we have to invest our money wisely, the

population is aging. This is a reality of life. It is not something that we have

created, but, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, this government has spent

$256 million over the last number of years in terms of long-term care facilities

and services. Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker, of the fact that we have

put into our nursing homes in long-term care $122.6 million, $90.85 million into

home support, Mr. Speaker. We have put into our system $256 million.

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.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

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

It gives me great pleasure again on behalf of the residents of La Poile and

the people of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou, indeed anyone who uses the ferry

service that runs between Rose Blanche and La Poile.

The petition reads:

WHEREAS the people of La Poile must use the provincial ferry system in order

to travel to and from La Poile; and

WHEREAS the people of La Poile and visitors are required to wait at the Town

of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou from time to time for the ferry services; and

WHEREAS there is no restroom, waiting room area at the Town of Rose

Blanche-Harbour Le Cou where users of the ferry service may utilize washroom

facilities; and

WHEREAS citizens of all ages including men, women, children, seniors and

disabled persons require washroom facilities as a basic human need in the course

of their travels and particularly while awaiting the provincial transit systems;

and

WHEREAS it is an abuse of human dignity as well as health and safety

regulations to allow such degrading and dehumanizing circumstances to continue;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the

House of Assembly to urge Government to immediately construct and operate a

waiting room, restroom facility at the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou such

that all users of the provincial ferry service which operates out of La Poile

may be able to utilize such waiting area, washroom facilities.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, we went through this in this House a multitude of times back

some months ago when the residents of Grey River, Ramea who use the service to

Burgeo had the same problem. Anybody who lives here in Newfoundland and Labrador

knows that our weather is bad enough sometimes in the best of times, but in the

wintertime it is particularly bad.

If you are travelling, for example, and you have been up to Port aux Basques

for a medical appointment or a shopping excursion, and you have to get back to

catch the ferry which goes back to La Poile at 3:30, you obviously have to judge

yourself, given the weather. You do that to be safe and prudent. You find

yourself on the wharf in Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou, the ferry may be delayed,

and you have to wait for her. You cannot get on board to use the washroom.

People in those circumstances actually have to go out behind the bushes, behind

the rocks, behind the old building that is there to actually look after their

human needs. Now, that is just not acceptable in this day and age.

I hope the current Minister of Transportation does not deal with this issue

the way the former Minister of Transportation, the Member for Lake Melville,

dealt with it. When I raised the issue a few months ago, years ago, actually,

for the Ramea-Burgeo ferry, the next day he popped up two porta-potties. Now,

that is the kind of human respect and dignity they were shown down there. Here

is a couple of blue, no doubt, porta-potties, stuck out on the head of the wharf

for people to use in the dead of winter. No toilet paper, nothing else in there,

no hand cleaners, nothing. Now, that is the kind of response this government

took to a degrading problem. Well, they fixed it there, Mr. Speaker, and I

implore the current Minister of Transportation to do likewise and fix it for the

people of La Poile.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will address the motions on the paper first, do first reading.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Justice and

Attorney General to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Sheriff's Act, 1991, Bill 11, and I further move that the said bill be now read

a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded by the hon. the Government

House Leader to have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Sheriff's Act, 1991, Bill 11, and that Bill 11 be now read a first time.

Can the minister have leave to introduce Bill 11, and shall Bill 11 be now

read a first time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, "An Act To

Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991", carried. (Bill 11)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991. (Bill 11)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 11 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 11 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 11 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Justice and Attorney General to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act

To Repeal The Regulatory Reform Act, Bill 12, and I further move that the said

bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House

Leader to have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Repeal The

Regulatory Reform Act, Bill 12, and that Bill 12 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 12 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, "An Act To

Repeal The Regulatory Reform Act", carried. (Bill 12)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Repeal The Regulatory Reform Act. (Bill 12)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 12 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 12 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

and Attorney General to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Repeal

The Subordinate Legislation Revision And Consolidation Act, Bill 13, and I

further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded by the hon. the Government

House Leader to have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Repeal The

Subordinate Legislation Revision And Consolidation Act, Bill 13, and that Bill

13 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 13 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, "An Act To

Repeal The Subordinate Legislation Revision And Consolidation Act", carried.

(Bill 13)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Repeal The Subordinate Legislation Revision And

Consolidation Act. (Bill 13)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 13 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 13 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

and Attorney General, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend

The Proceedings Against The Crown Act, Bill 14, and I further move that the said

bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded by the hon. the Government

House Leader to have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Proceedings Against The Crown Act, Bill 14, and that Bill 14 be now read a first

time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 14 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Proceedings Against The Crown Act", carried. (Bill

14)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Proceedings Against The Crown Act.

(Bill 14)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 14 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 14 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 14 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Resources, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Petroleum And Natural Gas Act, Bill 15, and I further move that the said bill be

now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded by the hon. the Government

House Leader to have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Petroleum And Natural Gas Act, Bill 15, and that Bill 15 be now read a first

time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 15 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill, "An

Act To Amend The Petroleum And Natural Gas Act", carried. (Bill 15)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Petroleum And Natural Gas Act. (Bill

15)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 15 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 15 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

and Attorney General, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend

The Support Orders Enforcement Act, 2006, Bill 16, and I further move that the

said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded by the hon. the Government

House Leader to have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Support Orders Enforcement Act, 2006, Bill 16, and that Bill 16 be now read a

first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Support Orders Enforcement Act, 2006", carried. (Bill

16)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Support Orders Enforcement Act, 2006.

(Bill 16)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 16 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 16 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

and Attorney General, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act

Respecting The Mandatory Reporting Of Gunshot And Stab Wounds, Bill 17, and I

further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House

Leader to have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act Respecting the

Mandatory Reporting Of Gunshot And Stab Wounds, Bill 17, and that Bill 17 be now

read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to have leave

to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting The Mandatory Reporting Of Gunshot And

Stab Wounds", carried. (Bill 17)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act Respecting The Mandatory Reporting Of Gunshot And

Stab Wounds. (Bill 17)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 17 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 17 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 17 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Municipal Affairs to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Municipalities Act, 1999 No. 2, Bill 18, and I further move that the said bill

be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House

Leader to have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Municipalities Act, 1999 No. 2, Bill 18, and that Bill 18 be now read a first

time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

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

Act To Amend The Municipalities Act 1999 No. 2", carried. (Bill 18)

CLERK: A bill,

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

18)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 18 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 18 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Affairs to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Urban And

Rural Planning Act, 2000, Bill 19, and I further move that the said bill be now

read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House

Leader to have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Urban And

Rural Planning Act, 2000, Bill 19, and that Bill 19 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that this bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

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

Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000", carried. (Bill 19).

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000.

(Bill 19)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 19 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 19 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 19 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Finance and President of Treasury Board to ask leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act, Bill 21, and I further

move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded by the hon. the Government

House Leader to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Revenue Administration Act, Bill 21, and that Bill 21 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 21 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act", carried.

(Bill 21)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act. (Bill 21)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 21 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 21 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

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

An Act

Respecting The Practice Of Medicine In The Province, Bill 22, and I further move

that the said bill be now read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded by the hon. the Government

House Leader to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act Respecting The

Practice Of Medicine In The Province, Bill 22, and that Bill 22 be now read a

first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

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

bill, "An Act Respecting The Practice Of Medicine In The Province", carried.

(Bill 22)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act Respecting The Practice Of Medicine In The

Province. (Bill 22)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 22 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 22 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 22 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we will return now to second reading of bills on

the Order Paper. With that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to call Order 6, and we will

continue second reading of Bill 7.

MR. SPEAKER: The continuation of second reading of Bill 7,

An Act To

Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to get up in this hon. House

today and consider second reading of Bill 7,

An Act To Amend The Municipalities

Act. Certainly, I will be giving it some consideration in my closing remarks. It

seems like I have that word on my brain here today.

I listened carefully to the hon. members who spoke to this bill yesterday.

They certainly brought forward some points in regard to the importance of this

bill and all the amendments that are proposed under this bill.

Just to reflect back on that bill, as I mentioned, and my hon. colleagues

mentioned as well, these amendments were not just developed within Municipal

Affairs itself; they came forward as resolutions, most of them did, at the MNL

AGMs by municipalities, by mayors, and by councillors because they are the

actual stakeholders when it comes to municipal government in Newfoundland and

Labrador. So, we took them back as resolutions from MNL and then we developed

them. We looked at their content and also made sure that when we were to

introduce an amendment to the actual bill, to the act itself, they would have

the desired effect that the municipalities were referencing.

There are a number of amendments that are referred here. Some of them are

housekeeping amendments in regard to clarity in the act, bringing red tape down

to a minimum, and also with harmonization to other acts that you find right

across Canada and right across all jurisdictions.

I just want to point out again, in closing, some of the very important pieces

that are here in this act that have been, as I said, put forward by MNL on

behalf of their membership. One of them is the pension and group benefits act,

which I spoke to yesterday and some of the others members as well spoke to.

There are municipal councillors and also mayors who serve long periods of time

in the communities that they live in. They really, essentially, serve on a

volunteer basis. Very few receive a stipend or any remuneration in regard to

that piece of work that they do on a daily basis on behalf of the municipalities

and the people who live in them. Sometimes that is lost on people, the amount of

work that goes into running a municipality. They are there, yes they are, mainly

365 days of the year, other than when they travel outside of their municipality,

dealing with issues and dealing with challenges that make their communities

work.

I think that each and every municipality should be given the right and

authority to consider investing in a pension or a group benefits package for

their particular councillors given the time frame that some of them actually

serve in the councils they have been elected to serve on.

Grants and charitable causes, I would like to just touch on that again. I

think it is very important that we give that authority to the particular

municipality. These are all responsible people who have been elected by the

members who live in their communities. They handle their dollars well, and they

should be able to make up their own minds whether they have the whereabouts and

the financial means to help someone else out. I think that is for them to

consider and for them to decide rather than have to come to me, as the minister,

and get write off in regard to that piece of work. I know under the amendment

that they will have to have two-thirds vote of all the councillors in office in

order to do that, and I think that brings accountability and transparency to

that piece of work as well.

Minimum property tax has been referenced in regard to vacant land and

non-residential buildings on a piece of land. That is a real good piece as well

because it allows a municipality to develop really four minimum taxes. Under the

Municipalities Act that they have right now, they have one for residential, one

for commercial. Now, they will be able to develop another one for a vacant piece

of land; number two, with land that has a building such as a tool shed or a

wharf on it. That might not be of great value when it is assessed by the

assessment people in that now instead of having to pay, because of the Supreme

Court of Newfoundland and Labrador ruling, they will not have to pay the minimum

tax for residential or commercial, which could be 50 per cent of the actual

value of the land. Now, the particular municipality can develop a minimum tax

that would reflect the actual value of that piece of property.

I am giving all these amendments careful consideration, Mr. Speaker, as we go

through this and I will be considering them during Committee period. I will be

considering any questions that might come forward from the members of the

Opposition and my hon. colleagues across the House.

There are other pieces there; the tax sales in regard to somebody who is in

arrears in their taxes for a municipality. Now, the municipality will be able to

sell that piece of property and not move the actual liens along with the piece

of property. In other words, the person who is buying it would not be

responsible for any back taxes in regard to that land, the person who previously

owned it, it would remain with them. That way, the municipality has an

opportunity to actually recover all or some of the taxes that is owing.

I also want to point out as well that if the sale of the land is more than

the actual amount that is owed by the municipality, that amount will be taken in

regard to the taxes outstanding. The rest will be sent to court and then

dispersed to any other parties that have liens against that particular person,

that particular piece of property. They will be paid out in due order by the

court.

As well, we have response to emergencies; now we are giving the right to

municipalities to determine what type of emergency response that their fire

departments may respond to. If you have a high angle type emergency, rescues,

cold-water rescues or whatever, they will be determined from the municipality

level instead of having to come to Municipal Affairs and get that type of okay

to go forward.

As well, as was mentioned by one of my hon. colleagues across the House, was

the disposal of municipal property. What this does now in regard to disposing is

it actually reverses the Public Tender Act where it will be very transparent and

accountable in regard to that transaction. Anything under $500, they can go out

and actually sell, but over and above the $500 area they will have to go through

the tendering process and then take the highest amount in regard to that piece.

In other words, it prevents a municipality from selling a piece of equipment for

less than its value and it makes them accountable and transparent to the

residents they serve.

Municipal budgets, I think that is very important. Right now under the act,

municipalities have to present a balanced budget. Now they can actually reserve

or have a surplus that will be put into a capital reserve that they can use for

future issues and challenges without requiring ministerial approval. The audit

of financial statements is quite clear. They would require annual financial

statements and they have to be consistent to the standards of the Public Sector

Accounting Board.

Mr. Speaker, I have gone down through most of it. Another important one is

the report on insurance coverage. It has happened in the past that

municipalities did not have enough insurance to offset the replacement value of

the equipment they have on their books as a municipality. Now there will be a

reporting process where we can evaluate that to make sure they actually have

enough insurance in place to address the value if something were to happen to

that piece of equipment.

Approval to borrow is also important. As the hon. member, one of my

colleagues across the House mentioned, what was happening in regard to their

financial accounting process was that some municipalities were entering into

long-term leases, and those long-term leases were not accountable under the

accounting process. Now they will have to report to, as well, and making sure

and ensuring that long-term borrowing financial commitments receive the proper

ministerial approval.

Debt collection mechanism; now they can use any type of debt collection

process that is available to the municipality to collect their taxes. That is

very important as well, because we all live in these municipalities and I

believe that all the people living there should really pay their taxes that are

due. If you do not, then the municipality has issues in regard to their

survival, how they provide and what they provide as services to their citizens.

If there is somebody in arrears for whatever reason, I think the municipality

should have every chance to recover those taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have really covered most of them. I think this is a

great bill in regard to the amendments put forward. I believe the MNL will be

very supportive of all those amendments because they really brought them forward

in a resolutionary factor on the floor of the AGM each and every fall. I

apologize that some of them took a little bit longer than was expected to bring

to the floor of the House; but, then we have a lot of legislation that goes

through this House. I believe, on average, we have been bringing forward thirty

to forty pieces of legislation each and every session that this House has sat

since 2003. I do not know what the real numbers are, the final numbers in regard

to those pieces of legislation, but there has been a lot of work done in this

House when it comes to legislation over the years.

These amendments here in Bill 7 are equally as important as all of the other

pieces of legislation and amendments that we have brought forward in the past. I

certainly welcome any other comments that my hon. colleagues may have, or

questions, in regard to this particular act when this goes to committee stage.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I think I have covered most of everything that needs

to be covered on closing. I will take my seat in the House of Assembly and wait

and see if there is any other further clarification needed when we go to

committee stage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 7,

An Act To Amend The

Municipalities Act, 1999, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 7)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 7 has now been read a second time.

When shall Bill 7 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MS BURKE: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999", read a

second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by

leave. (Bill 7)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Order 7, second reading of

Bill 8.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Finance and President of Treasury Board, Bill 8,

An Act To Repeal The Law Reform

Commission Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 8,

An Act To Repeal The

Law Reform Commission Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Law Reform Commission

Act". (Bill 8)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to introduce Bill 8,

An Act To

Repeal The Law Reform Commission Act. The Law Reform Commission Act was enacted

in 1971. What it did, Mr. Speaker, it created a body known as the Law Reform

Commission for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, it should

be noted that even though the act was enacted in 1971, no commissioners were

appointed until 1981, ten years after the act was first enacted. It was not

until 1981 that the Law Reform Commission of the Province commenced its

activities.

Mr. Speaker, the Law Reform Commission was established to inquire into and to

consider matters that relate to the reform of laws in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador. The law commission could do that on its own

initiative, to do research, to do studies, consultations. It was a body whose

prime responsibility was to do the groundwork, preparation and consultation

leading to law reform in the Province. In addition to acting on its own

initiative in this respect, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice could also

refer matters or any subjects to the commission for further study.

Mr. Speaker, the making of laws is often a tedious and laborious affair,

activity. It involves a lot of deliberation, a lot of consultation, a lot of

toing and froing with respect to the use of proper wording, with regard to

interpretations, with making sure provisions are properly worded so that the

proper

interpretation that is intended is given. They are not made easily, and

they are not made quickly.

It is not always an innocent, exciting process, either, Mr. Speaker. In fact,

it is said that there are two things that you should not observe in the making.

One is sausages, and the second, the laws. So they do not have very good company

with respect to interesting accomplishments, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Law Reform Commission were appointed by

Cabinet, by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and they were appointed for

three-year terms, of which terms were renewable. They were not obliged to

present an annual report, rather, they reported on matters as they deemed

advisable, based on the progress of the work that they had done, or they

reported when they were requested to do so by the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, the Law Reform Commission did some good work and provided some

good reports and good information. A lot of it, Mr. Speaker, found its way onto

the floor of the House of Assembly. They published some significant papers over

the years. Papers on issues like the limitation of actions, for example, on

advance health care directives. Joint tenancy was another one they reported on;

enduring powers of attorney, Registration Of Deeds Act, Mechanics Lien Act. So

they did a lot of papers and working papers and studies over the years, Mr.

Speaker. In fact, resulting out of the work of the Law Reform Commission, the

Province did enact two laws: the Limitations Act in 1995, and the Advanced

Health Care Directives Act in 1995 as well, directly as a result of the work of

the Law Reform Commission.

The Minister of Finance had provided the funding for the commission, on the

request of the Minister of Justice, out of general government revenues. So,

basically, Mr. Speaker, the Law Reform Commission sat for about ten or eleven

years, from 1981, when the first commissions were appointed, until 1992. In

1992, Mr. Speaker, in the Budget Speech, the Finance Minister of the day, the

hon. Hubert Kitchen, announced that government would no longer be funding the

Law Reform Commission because of fiscal restraint.

The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, was not the only

Province to do that. As a matter of fact, between 1983 and 2006 there were five

respect to law reform commissions. Prince Edward Island disbanded its law

foundation in 1983 and the PEI Law Foundation is now responsible for reform

activities. New Brunswick disbanded its law foundation in 1993 and the

Legislative Services (Branch) of the provincial government's Department of

Justice is now responsible for reform activities in that Province. Quebec

enacted legislation to create a Quebec law reform institute in 1992, but to date

disbanded its Law Reform Commission in 2006 due to fiscal restraint.

Mr. Speaker, the other provinces which have law reform commissions are in a

little bit of a different situation, like the Province of British Columbia, for

example, and Alberta. They have law reform commissions, Mr. Speaker, that work

in tandem with the law schools in their jurisdictions. For example, the Province

of British Columbia works in tandem with the University of British Columbia law

school, Alberta works with the University of Alberta, and Saskatchewan with the

University of Saskatchewan with the law schools in these provinces. That

provides these commissions, Mr. Speaker, with access to academics, scholars,

legal specialists, and so on.

Mr. Speaker, in this Province the last appointments were made to the Law

Reform Commission in 1990. They would have been made for a three-year period.

Since they were not reappointed, Mr. Speaker, they would obviously have expired

three years thereafter.

AN HON. MEMBER: Never got a letter.

MR. F. COLLINS: It is my information, Mr. Speaker, that my colleague, the

current Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, was at one time a

member of the Law Reform Commission of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, even though the government of the day in 1992 did disband the

Law Reform Commission, they did acknowledge the importance of ongoing law

reform. Law reform is an ongoing process and continues, and the government of

the day acknowledged the importance of these issues. What they did instead of

funding the Law Reform Commission, they continued funding for a dedicated staff

person attached to the Department of Justice who would be responsible for the

ongoing issues of law reform.

It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that at that time the Executive Director

of the Law Reform Commission, who had been the former Executive Director of the

Law Reform Commission, was brought into the Department of Justice at that time

for the purposes of pursuing law reform issues. That person, Mr. Speaker,

initiated justice policy initiatives within the Department of Justice and his

responsibility was to address emerging issues in the Province with respect to

law reform. His obligation also, Mr. Speaker, his jurisdiction was to encourage

input from groups like the Law Society of the Province and the Newfoundland

branch of the Canadian Bar Association.

As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, the process of law reform is ongoing.

The Department of Justice continues to conduct law reform activities to this

day. In my department alone, justice officials actively carry out justice policy

initiatives and they address reform issues which include ongoing legislative

reviews of the some 100 pieces of legislation we are responsible for in my

department. The same can be said, Mr. Speaker, of all my colleagues, ministers

as witnessed today and the last few days by the hon. House Leader as she

introduced bill after bill in this House.

Today, as a matter of fact, just from my department alone, I think there were

probably seven or eight new bills, new pieces of legislation coming before the

House. So the whole business of law reform is ongoing. These bills, Mr. Speaker,

these laws range from bills such as the one we are talking about today, Bill 8,

which is really a housekeeping bill. They range from bills like that to very

significant pieces of legislation; for example, in last spring session of the

House my department introduced the Human Rights Act to replace the old Human

Rights Code, which was a very significant piece of legislation which will govern

human rights activities in this Province for the next twenty-five years. Very

shortly, Mr. Speaker, we will be introducing the Corrections Act which is also a

very significant piece of legislation that will be brought before this House.

The process of law reform does not stop just because the Law Reform

Commission of this Province was disbanded as indeed it has not stopped in other

jurisdictions as well.

Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Justice I meet annually with members of the Law

Society of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Newfoundland branch of the Canadian

Bar Association. We discuss a number of justice issues including law reform.

They bring to my attention, the attention of my department, things that they

observe in the legal fraternity and in the administration of justice that they

would like to see changed or amended or improved upon.

A lot of these issues that are discussed at these meetings, not only in my

meetings, Mr. Speaker, but in meetings that the Ministers of Justice before me

have held with these associations have found their way to the floor of this

House. The Department of Justice has a good working relationship with these

organizations and will continue to discuss law reform with them. From my part, I

certainly intend to keep the door open for dialogue with these associations and

these groups in the interest of ongoing law reform in the Province.

its Law Reform Commission in 2006, again due to fiscal restraint. What happened,

Mr. Speaker, Justice Canada now provides funding to a body known as the Uniform

Law Conference of Canada. That is a body, Mr. Speaker, that provides a unique

forum that brings representatives from federal, provincial, territorial

governments together, along with judges and members of the private Bar,

academics, law reformers, to discuss legal issues and produce quality reports

that eventually lead to law reform. These reports and papers are delivered to

all of the jurisdictions in Canada. Again, these reports, as I mentioned, will

find there way, in a lot of cases, down to the floors of the local Legislatures.

Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, is a member of the Uniform Law

Conference of Canada and, as such, can contribute annually to the law reform

activities of this organization.

Mr. Speaker, with the elimination of the Law Reform Commission, as it was

disbanded in 1992, the Uniform Law Conference of Canada that I just referenced

fills the gap. It fills that gap and has become one of the primary engines, Mr.

Speaker, for driving law reform in this country. The Uniform Law Conference of

Canada has produced and continues to produce a significant body of work that is

of immense value to this country and to this Province.

Mr. Speaker, even though the Law Reform Commission of this Province was

virtually disbanded in 1992, law reform in the Province is alive and well, as

witnessed by the activities of this House today. As well as the initiatives of

the various government departments in enacting new legislation and new

initiatives combined with the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, the process of

law reform is ongoing.

Mr. Speaker, having said all of that, the Law Reform Commission Act remains a

law of this Province even though the Law Reform Commission Act has not been

active in the Province since 1992. Accordingly then, this government proposes

that the Law Reform Commission Act be repealed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I have just a few words on the Law Reform Commission Act. There are basically

two sections here we are dealing with today in Bill 8. It is pretty

straightforward. One says what the name of the act is; it is called the Law

Reform Commission Act Repeal Act. The second clause of the bill says, "The Law

Reform Commission Act is repealed." If one were to read on the surface, of

course, anybody who is not familiar with how these bills work, they would say:

Well, what is that all about? You have a two-liner in the piece of legislation;

it is pretty short and sweet. I am sure my buddy, Joe, would have a problem with

that one.

We take the minister at his word. He has given a very good explanation of why

he is proposing to get rid of the old Law Reform Commission Act. We had it,

basically, and we did not make use of it. From 1971, when it was created, to

1981, nothing was done with it. From 1981 to 1992, it was a bit active, but not

overly active. We had some good work come out of it during that period of time.

Then, it fell into disuse. It probably would have continued; however, because of

the fiscal restraint, as the minister alluded to in 1992, the funding was cut to

the commission, as was done in many other jurisdictions in this country. So, it

was no longer followed up on.

I got a bit of a shock when I heard the minister say, though, that the

current Minister of Finance was a member of it but he is expired. I am sure he

has not expired, we see him here every day. He may have expired in that role,

but he is certainly here with us today.

My only questions and I raise these in second reading because that gives

the minister an opportunity to give us an answer by the time we get to the

Committee stage. There is nothing earth-shattering here. I know the minister

consults on an annual basis, as do all Justice Ministers and Attorney Generals

with the Law Society, for example, usually on an annual basis at least if not

more often, to decide what issues are current in our Province and decide if

there are any suggestions or any issues we need to address by way of legislation

and so on. I am just wondering, notwithstanding those consultations which are an

annual thing between the minister in his office and the Law Society, did the

minister specifically consult with the Law Society as to what do you think of us

repealing the Law Reform Commission Act? Also, the Canadian Bar Association

which we have in this Province, or members of the judiciary, they would often be

at least consulted on some of these things and have input over the years.

I am just wondering, just for a comfort level if nothing else, when these

members vote here, if we know that the minister just did not take it upon

himself to say we are going to get rid of this, albeit it is very legitimate

reasons, just to know that he did indeed consult with these bodies. We would not

want a situation where we did something only to find out tomorrow or the next

day that members of the Law Society said: Well, that is pretty rude. They are

going to make a major change, withdraw the Law Reform Commission Act, and pass a

piece of legislation and never even ran it by us. So, just to know the answer to

that, I guess, for a comfort piece would be good.

There are other ways. It is unfortunate that we do not live in a jurisdiction

that has a law school. I am quite familiar with what the minister says, for

example, in UNB, which was my alma mater; there was quite a co-operation there

between levels of government, the academia within the law school, to deal with

these issues. That makes it more front burner, shall we say. You have the

academic people to call upon when you get into these major issues like human

rights amendments and human rights codes, for example, which we do not have

here. That is another reason, I guess, that it never ever fulfilled what its

true destiny was supposed to be.

A lot of our laws today, we do not deal with the major - other than the Human

Rights Code, which as the minister can attest to, it took years and years and

years of review, consultations, to get to the point where we brought in the new

Human Rights Code into this House last year. That took years to get that done.

Most of the laws now in the Province, quite often, are responsive laws. If

something happens in society, it is pretty widely known and accepted that we

need a law to deal with it and we deal with it. For example, snowmobile

regulations, if something happens regarding snowmobiles, accidents on trails,

people not wearing helmets, people protest, it gets known through the social

media as being an issue, government responds.

We had it, for example, in Sunday shopping, years back. We had it in the case

of smoking laws; we are dealing with one of the smoking laws here in the

Province in this session actually. We dealt with it and will deal with it again

later today.

So, a lot of these bills are responsive. There are some times when government

has promised to do stuff as well that they do not do, for example,

whistle-blower legislation. We know that the government of the day promised to

do the whistle-blower legislation back in 2007, on the eve of the election; did

not do it in 2008, did not do it in 2009, did not do it in 2010, and this is the

last session before this session ends and there is an election in October. It

will be very interesting to see if they are going to keep that commitment, and

that is a case where they did say we will bring in a law. You do not need any

reform to it; you just need a new one. It will be interesting to see if the

government actually proceeds with that particular piece of legislation.

Other than those comments, Mr. Speaker, it is a consultation piece. I am

assuming that by saying the Law Reform Commission is no longer going to exist,

albeit it did not function, who is doing that type of work now? Is there much

consultation, other than the annual meeting, between the Law Society and the

minister? This will, as per no choice, have to be dealt with by lawyers in the

Department of Justice. I am not saying we disagree with it, but we would just

like to have a comfort level of knowing where the minister and who the minister

consulted with in order to come to the conclusion that we should now at this

time do this.

It is easy to say we have not used it; therefore, we should get rid of it. Is

it a possibility that we should have used it and it only ever stopped because we

did not have the proper funding to do it? Was any consideration given to that

possible option? That yes, it was a valuable tool, yes, it could do what we need

to get done in terms of law reform, and yes, we ought to give some consideration

to funding it again. Was that looked at or was it just a one-option deal where

we said, no, we have not used it, we do not need it? Because maybe there are

lots of people in this Province - maybe the Law Society would be quite

interested in having a Law Reform Commission. Maybe the judiciary might be quite

interested in performing and continuing with the Law Reform Commission, but they

have not because it has not had the funding, therefore it has not existed.

That is why the consultation piece is so important, because if you just

assume - and you know what they say about assumptions and what is ahead of you

and me. If you make certain assumptions and you say, well, we do not need it

because we have not used it. Well, the reason we have not used it is because you

never funded it, and because you did not fund it, nobody was interested in going

on it. Does that mean we do not need it anymore? I would like the minister to

address it in that context too, because that is a pretty easy answer and a

pretty easy justification to get rid of something. To say we have not used it,

so therefore we do not need it anymore. Maybe it is a valuable tool. I always

thought it was a valuable tool.

The Minister of Finance over there indicates that it did some great work. He

was certainly a member of it back in the 1980s. The only reason it ever stopped

was because of the funding. So, I would just like to know, in the context of

consultation, what it was the minister did to determine that eradication by way

of repeal was the right choice rather than consulting with people to say: If we

were to fund this, if we were to keep this going, would it be a valuable tool to

our system? Even any cost analysis approach as to what would it cost to do it?

Because I do not think it is legitimate just to look at it in terms of cost.

I cannot imagine that having a Law Reform Commission who is to say people

would not be prepared to do it voluntarily? Was that option ever fleshed out? I

do not mean for the minister to tell us: Oh yes, I chatted with the Law Society

or the president of the benchers over coffee one morning and we did not talk

about it, so therefore I assumed it was not good enough. I would like to know

specifically if the Law Society particularly asked: What do you think of the Law

Reform Commission? Do you think it is a valuable tool? Do you think we should

keep it? Even solicit your members to find out what you think we should do and

the judiciary, because just saying to get rid of it because we have not used it

for twenty years is not a valid answer when the reason we have not used it is

because governments have not funded it. I think that is a pretty legitimate

question. Other than that, if that is acceptable by the law societies, by the

judiciary, by the legal aid commissions, by the people in this Province - even

the professors, for example, at the university, a lot of these people have and

want input into our system of justice. You do not have to be a lawyer just to be

concerned about what the laws are. You do not have to be a judge just to be

concerned about what the laws are.

It goes beyond consultation with those who partake of the legal system by

working in it. What about the John Howard Society? What about bodies like that

who might have had some input if they knew that government was prepared to

consider that we can make some funds available or we would even like to continue

it, but let's get it reactivated? There are lots of political associations

around that might be inactive for years but that does not mean you get rid of

them. You bring them out of the closet, you beef them up again and away to go.

I am just wondering, what focus was put on the evaluation of the merits of

the Law Reform Commission? It is very easy to say we have not used it, sweep it

under the rug, or throw it in the garbage can. We would not know anything about

it here in this House of Assembly. We would not know if the minister had

consulted with anybody because we did not even know he was thinking of getting

rid of it until he brought in Bill 8, and then we are told we are going to

repeal it. Nobody in this House of Assembly would have known about that. I am

just wondering who else in this society of Newfoundland and Labrador would have

been consulted by this minister about it? What options were looked at, and so

on? I would like some specifics, not just general answers about: Oh yes, we

talked to several people. I would like to know what groups in particular the

minister talked to in order to come to the conclusions that he did because that

is important to know. If we are going to stand up here, not that we do not take

the minister at his word, we certainly do, but taking someone at their word and

having the information from them directly as to how they came to the conclusions

that they did is always so much more comforting.

We have had cases in this House of Assembly before where you rely upon people

and you find out after the fact that the facts are not the facts. I will give

you a perfect example, and that is Abitibi, of course. We came in here, Mr.

Speaker, and because we were told to take everybody at face value we did not

raise the question. We found out after the fact, we had a paper mill we did not

want and so on. There were consequences to our actions that we took here. In

fact, it cost the taxpayers of Canada somewhere to the tune of $130 million

because of that, and we cannot, no matter what the bill is, if it a Law Reform

Commission Act we are talking about or whether it is an expropriation bill, or

whatever the bill might be, we have an obligation as members here to ask these

questions.

I am sure there are people there who never, ever knew the Law Reform

Commission existed, but that does not excuse us from having to ask the questions

about: What is it, and why are now proposing to get rid of it? I have been down

that road. I took this government at its face once before, it did not work out

the way that we thought. I am not saying it was deliberately misleading. I do

not think the government did, actually. I just think the government told us what

they knew at the time about Abitibi. The problem was they did not know what they

should have known. They can only tell you what they knew. It was only later that

we found out we acted in such haste that we made mistakes. The Premier admitted

it here, the former Premier admitted it. The current Premier, who was the

Minister of Natural Resources, stood up and admitted it at the time. We have to

avoid those kinds of incidents.

Again, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice, if he gets an

opportunity, I am sure he will. We can either go back and forth in second if he

wishes - usually that is done in committee, it is pretty straightforward. There

are only two clauses to debate in committee. It says what it is and it says we

are going to rid of it.

I will take my leave at this time, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to the

minister, once he has an opportunity, to provide the information that has been

requested.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

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

I am glad to have the opportunity to stand and speak to Bill 8. I have to say

that when we received this bill last week here in the House and I looked at it,

I had to ask: Well what is this all about? What is it that Bill 8 is repealing?

In the information that we received in the bill, there really was no

explanation. It was a bill to repeal and the explanation that was given was that

the Law Reform Commission Act was being repealed. Obviously, we had to do some

digging in the couple of days that we had between receiving it and now standing

to speak to it. That is when I learned the bit that I do know now about the Law

Reform Commission. As the minister said, a commission that had been in place and

that was cut from the budget by government in 1992.

I understand that right across Canada there were a number of commissions that

languished in the 1990s. Some of them funding was lowered, some of it funding

was stopped altogether, some of them commissioners just stopped being appointed,

and some of them sort of died a slow death because of that. What we have here

today is a government saying that happened here except it did not languish; it

was actually just cut from the budget almost twenty years ago.

Since then, government has, through the Department of Justice, really had the

responsibilities that the Law Reform Commission had. It seems to me the Law

Reform Commission had an important function to perform because it considered the

state of laws that were made; made recommendations and proposals for legal

changes or restructuring of laws that we had here in the Province. The Law

Reform Commission also went into revising versions of confusing laws, preparing

consolidation of versions of laws. They did quite a bit of work that was related

to what government was doing because it had to do with the laws that government

was making or laws that government had made. It was an outside body that was

taking a look at those laws and was involved with government in the discussion

of those laws, and then in making decisions about recommendations of how these

laws needed to be changed, or redrafted, or repealed or whatever.

The minister has said to us, and I certainly accept it and I know it happens

that the Department of Justice and the minister do consult with the Law

Society here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It would seem to me

that consulting with the Law Society would be different than having a Law Reform

Commission that is appointed by government with a very particular focus, for

nothing else but to look at laws and to deal with those laws. It is a big

difference between that and having consultations with the Law Society of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

While I am a layperson, certainly when it comes to legal issues, but as a

layperson, I do have questions about the fact that we do not have a Law Reform

Commission. I know, as the minister has said, that the Province is a member of

the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, which was an initiative of the Canadian

Bar Association back in 1918. Certainly, the Uniform Law Conference of Canada

does look at laws of the provinces and the territories, and, where appropriate,

federal laws as well, but it still does not have the same direct relationship to

the Province that a law reform in the Province would have.

So, I do have questions. I heard my colleague, the House Leader for the

Opposition, raise questions, and I have some of the same questions, maybe worded

in a different way. It seems to me that a Law Reform Commission, while it is

appointed by government, is an independent body and it has a much larger measure

of independence and objectivity than an in-house department does. So, the

ministry certainly has expertise the ministry has legal people who are part of

the Ministry of Justice, but the ministry itself is part of government. So it

seems to me that the Law Reform Commission, when looking at laws, might have an

even more objective position than people who are working inside of government in

the ministry.

So, that is one of the concerns that I have; that who monitors the legal

heads, the legal minds that are inside of the Ministry of Justice, and that is

what a Law Reform Commission is all about being outside with, I think, a

broader vision. Also, all ministries are affected by the political reality of

just being a ministry. There are ways in which ministries are affected by

whoever is in government, and that would be my concern, that you have political

realities that also affect the notion of independence and objectivity. That

gives me concern as well.

Now, I know the minister has said we have done without it since 1992 so we

are talking nineteen years but does that mean we did not need it? That is the

bottom line. Does that mean we did not need it?

I would like to know, and I know this has been asked by the Opposition House

Leader and I am asking it as well: What exactly was the consultation? I did do

some digging and through my office we did do some talking with people on a

national level as well in terms of looking at some of the other provinces. In

some places where the commissions were dropped in the 1990s they have been

brought back. For example, both Ontario and British Columbia are examples of

places where commissions have been revitalized. I do know, at least I have been

told in the discussions we have had, that you had groups like law societies,

non-governmental organizations who are dealing with justice issues, as well as

governments themselves looking at the issue and saying: We do need to have a law

reform commission back in place.

I am a bit surprised that we have this coming to the House and we do not know

if widespread consultation took place. We have a lot of groups in the Province

for whom something like a law reform commission would be important. Was there a

broad consultation? If there was, it was not public. This government has been

priding itself over the last few years on its public consultations, but I do not

remember hearing any kind of a public consultation in relationship to whether or

not we need a Law Reform Commission.

In speaking to some people who are dealing with commissions, they do think

that independent commissions provide a unique perspective from the outside, as I

have said. It is not just that there is a sense that what is happening inside of

a ministry is not right or what is happening inside of a ministry is not

objective. With an outside body like an independent commission you do have a

unique perspective. They are not inside of the operations; they are outside

looking in. With any issue, the observations of somebody outside of a situation

always bring a different perspective. It would seem to me that I would agree

with those who have said to me that a law reform commission does that. As some

people have said to me who are involved with commissions, in-house government

reviews really cannot duplicate the work that a law commission does. I find that

very interesting.

I am sorry that instead of having a consultation a broad consultation, not

just the ministry talking to the Law Society, but a very broad consultation of

many groups that are concerned about legal issues in the Province, that are

concerned about how are laws are made, that are concerned about maintaining our

laws in a way that is there for the good of the people. There are many

organizations and individuals who have that concern in the Province.

I am really sorry if we have this decision being made by government and being

made without that kind of a consultation, then I am not happy to be repealing

the legislation. I would rather like to see a real consultation done. Of course,

our process here in the House of having to deal with a piece of legislation

after it has been done, the decisions have been made by the minister, and the

government says this is the way the piece of legislation is going ahead and we

only have the opportunity to stand in the House and do what I am doing right

now. We were not even involved in any kind of discussion or consultation, which

is something, that, of course, I would like us to do in this House, to be able

to sit together and really work on pieces of legislation together, which we do

not do. I do not consider what we do, that, unfortunately.

While I am getting the opportunity to put my concerns out and to ask

questions, I know that there is going to be no change to the decision to repeal.

I find that very sad, Mr. Speaker. Policies that are developed inside of

government, that is good. Government has the right and the responsibility to

make law and to make regulations and to continue to be in a process of change,

but inside of government is not where all the wisdom is, and that is where a Law

Reform Commission comes in.

Mr. Speaker, I am so sorry that we are not following the lead of the

provinces that still have law commissions, some of whom brought them back:

Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia. I would like to

say to the minister, Mr. Speaker, that I really do not think that they have Law

Reform Commissions just because they also have law schools, I really do not

think that. Having law schools certainly adds to the benefit of a law

commission, but having law schools, I do not think, is the reason why there are

Law Reform Commissions in these provinces.

I, too, would like to hear from the minister more information about the

consultations. I mean, unless I have been missing the boat, I do not think it

was a public consultation. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there

are more points to make, only to say that I am not happy with the repealing of a

commission without there having been a widespread consultation really giving us

true justifications and reasons for why we should not have a Law Reform

Commission.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to rise today to take a few minutes to speak to Bill 8, An

Act To Repeal The Law Reform Commission Act. As mentioned by my hon. colleagues,

this is a fairly straightforward piece of legislation that would repeal the Law

Reform Commission Act itself.

It would be interesting and worthwhile, Mr. Speaker, to take a few minutes

today to talk about the Law Reform Commission Act, a little bit about its

history, where it came from, and how we have reached where we are today. This

law was first enacted in 1971 and the idea was to enable the creation of a

commission to inquire into and consider matters relating to the reform of the

law in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, what I have learned is that even though

the act was brought forward in 1971, there was actually a ten-year period that

passed; it was 1981 until anyone was actually appointed to the Law Reform

Commission. In 1992, just a short time, eleven years after that the commission

was disbanded by the government of the day, officials within the Department of

Justice were then tasked with addressing emerging issues relating to law reform.

This is the process that continues to exist today where staff officials in

the Department of Justice who are tasked with law reform continue to work on law

reform, also in consultation with other departments. So, if new laws are

emerging in other departments in government, it is quite regular that the

Department of Justice and the staff engaged in law reform would work with those

departments in bringing forward the new legislation.

It was in 1992, actually, in the Budget Speech where the government of the

day announced it would no longer be funding the Law Reform Commission and that

was due to fiscal restraint. That is very similar, Mr. Speaker, to the

very similar reasons; however, Justice Canada continues to provide funding to

the Uniform Law Commission of Canada, which has been referenced here in this

House today, whose organizations include representatives from all provincial

Departments of Justice whose mandate is to include law reform activities in the

form of uniform statutes, which are adopted and recommended for enactment by

relevant governments in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, what takes place today, when it comes to law reform, is that the

Department of Justice in Newfoundland and Labrador participates in the Uniform

Law Conference of Canada. The Uniform Law Conference of Canada was first founded

in 1918. The Uniform Law Conference of Canada operates in two sections: one

being a criminal

section and the second being the civil section. Its work is

done by delegates who interestingly enough are sometimes referred to as

commissioners, very similar to commissioners under the Law Reform Commission,

and these commissioners are appointed members of governments. This is a process

that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as other provinces and

territories, participate in today.

As well, in Newfoundland and Labrador, when law reform is being considered

and being discussed, the Department of Justice and the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador carry out law reform in consultation with the

Newfoundland and Labrador Law Society. As well, not only the Newfoundland and

Labrador Law Society but the Newfoundland and Labrador branch of the Canadian

Bar Association participates in law reform in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, it has been referred to as what some other provinces do and how

they do carry out their functions in law reform. In certain provinces where

there are law schools such as British Columbia, the Law Reform Commissions are

operated in consultation with the University of BC. In Alberta, it is the

University of Alberta; Saskatchewan, with the University of Saskatchewan. In

Ontario, there are several universities that participate. Some of these are

funded in part by their respective provincial governments and also through

various grants from provincial law foundations and law societies and university

law faculties, which, of course, in Newfoundland there is not a university law

faculty.

In New Brunswick, it disban