PDF Version

November 19, 2013 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVII No. 31

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we start today, I want to welcome to our galleries a very renowned

Newfoundland entertainer, Kelly Russell.

Welcome to our gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we will have members' statements from the Member for

the District of Port au Port; the Member for the District of Bonavista North;

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

District of Conception Bay East Bell Island; the Member for Torngat Mountains;

and the Member for the District of Exploits.

The hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

four cadets from the 2904 Cambrai Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corps in

Stephenville who were nominated for the Major General W.A. Howard Medal. Cadet

Warrant Officers Andrew Patten, Alyshia Chaulk, Stephen Eckert, and Cadet

Sergeant Keisha Ogden were named nominees by placing in the top six cadets in

the Province.

This award is given to the outstanding senior army cadet in each province and

territory who receives the highest overall assessment on the National Star

Certification Exam. During Cadet Week in Newfoundland and Labrador, at their

weekly cadet parade, a special ceremony was held to present Cadet Warrant

Officer Andrew Patten with the Major General W.A. Howard Medal for 2013.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me in offering my

congratulations to Cadet Warrant Officer Andrew Patten and nominees Cadet

Warrant Officer Alyshia Chaulk, Cadet Warrant Officer Stephen Eckert, and Cadet

Sergeant Keisha Ogden, and to all cadets for their involvement in the Cadet

Corps. Also, Mr. Speaker, a thank you to all who make the Cadet Corps a strong

presence in our communities.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

MR. CROSS: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to salute the Town of Carmanville.

The Stewardship Association of Municipalities, SAM, was formed to reinforce

commitment to wetland conservation. In September of this year, SAM was hosted by

Mayor Sam Winsor at Carmanville, which first signed their Municipal Stewardship

Agreement in 1995.

Middle Arm is a highly productive coastal area, and waterfowl use it

extensively in the spring and fall. The rich plant and invertebrate communities

that flourish in the Arm attract birds to the area. Some ducks, particularly the

red-breasted merganser, stay in the Arm and breed on the small islands.

A bird-banding program has been ongoing in this area since 1983. Birds banded

in Middle Arm are regularly recovered along the South Coast of Newfoundland,

Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and as far south as Florida. Information gathered

from such work helps determine each species' range and migration patterns.

Carmanville Pond is shallow and nutrient-rich, and supports extensive growth

of aquatic vegetation and the associated invertebrates.

At the fall conference, Carmanville renewed their agreement. I ask all hon.

members present to support me as I salute towns like Carmanville that continue

to support and protect the environment we inhabit. They extend an open

invitation to all of us to visit their

interpretation centre and to experience

their unique nature trails.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

au Clair.

MS DEMPSTER: Mr. Speaker, Mahatma Gandhi once said, "Champions are made

from something they have deep inside them a desire, a dream, a vision."

George Roberts was one such man. He was from the small, isolated community of

Norman Bay on Labrador's Southeast Coast, and a true leader in every sense of

the word. George spent endless hours spanning decades filling out applications

or writing proposals requesting funds to enhance the infrastructure of his

little town.

A fisherman with a down-to-earth personality, he had a sound grasp on the

needs and issues in his town and region. He was instrumental in acquiring a new

school for Norman Bay. He lobbied hard for a reliable ferry connection and many

other services like groomed trails.

George wanted the best for his family and community. Even though there seemed

little chance of success, with determination and persistence many times his

efforts saw successful outcomes.

It was a sad day in early July 2013, when I travelled on a small ferry with

many of his family and friends to pay our last respects to George.

I ask all hon. members to join me in this tribute to Mr. George Roberts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand in this House today to recognize an outstanding citizen from my

district who needs no introduction when we think of traditional music, the

preservation of our music culture and the teaching of musical talents to the

next generation of traditional musicians.

I speak of Mr. Kelly Russell of Bell Island. While Kelly has taken a

leadership role in a number of community organizations such as Radio Bell

Island, I want to highlight his most recent accomplishment of being named to the

Order of Canada.

Kelly has been a professional musician for over thirty-eight years and has

been a member of some of the Province's landmark groups such as Figgy Duff and

the Wonderful Grand Bank. To me, and I know, the people of this Province, Kelly

is known nationally and internationally as a true ambassador for our culture,

our heritage and our musical talents.

He has been awarded the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council Award for

Music, twice awarded the Tourism Industry Association Certificate of

Recognition, and awarded the prestigious Marius Barbeau Award for his

contribution to Canadian folklore.

I ask all my colleagues to join me in congratulating Kelly as a deserving

Order of Canada recipient.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate

Mr. Gregory Rich on being elected the new Chief of Natuashish.

I also want to congratulate the new Band Council members: John Nui, Mary Jane

Edmunds, Sebastien Piwas, and Nachelle Poker.

Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by Chief Rich's commitment to lead in a positive

manner to create a healthy community for the people of Natuashish. His

willingness to work with everyone in his community to tackle the many sensitive

issues facing them is welcomed news. It is our hope that such a co-operative

approach will lead to a long-term healing plan for the children of Natuashish.

Mr. Speaker, I know Chief Rich to be a very genuine person who will lead with

integrity and determination. His personal experiences with addictions and

tragedies will instill in him an appreciation to do what is right for his

community. I am prepared to work with Chief Rich to ensure a healthy and vibrant

community for his people.

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

Gregory Rich and the new Band Council of Natuashish.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to stand in this House to

recognize Steve Glavine of Bishop's Falls for being awarded a lifetime

achievement award with the Bishop's Falls volunteer fire department.

We are all aware of the commitment of volunteer fire fighters. They are ready

for duty twenty-four hours a day and of course this would not be possible

without the support they receive from their families.

Steve has given his time unselfishly to fire and emergency response for

thirty-two years and his dedication to his community has certainly been

recognized by his peers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in congratulating Steve Glavine for

being awarded a lifetime achievement award with the Bishop's Falls volunteer

fire department.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental

Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to highlight our government's ongoing work towards activating a

Province-wide 911 system throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Just last week, I joined hundreds of municipal officials and

others at the 2013 Annual Convention and Trade Show of Municipalities

Newfoundland and Labrador. There I delivered a presentation about our

government's plan for Province-wide 911, which showed the tremendous progress

that is being made by our new project implementation team.

Mr. Speaker, by December 2014, the Province will have a fully functional

basic 911 service to support the dispatch of first responders throughout

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: This will alleviate the need for residents to remember multiple

telephone numbers to reach the first responders they require when an emergency

occurs.

Mr. Speaker, over the coming weeks and months as this project proceeds, the

implementation team will engage in consultations with emergency response

stakeholders and the municipal sector. Emergency response zones will be

identified and an educational campaign for emergency responders and the general

public will be developed. Finally, in advance of the December 2014

implementation date, operating guidelines, procedures, and protocols for the new

basic 911 system will be developed.

That will not be the end though, Mr. Speaker. Upon completing the basic 911

system, we will immediately proceed to complete the necessary work to bring Next

Generation 911 online for the Province. We are very much committed to this next

step, which will include a resolution to civic numbering in communities

throughout the Province, and the bringing together of government computer

systems that support next generation.

Mr. Speaker, the basic 911 service is currently available in three areas of

the Province. Residents can also currently access 911 from cellular telephones

in areas where a signal is available. When the Province-wide basic 911 is

activated, all residents will have access on both landline and mobile

telephones. This will be a great enhancement to public safety.

The implementation of Province-wide basic 911, Mr. Speaker, is truly only the

next step in our government's plan to enhance public safety for all residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador. We have already made tremendous investments in

emergency response vehicles, new firefighting equipment, support for ground

search and rescue, enhancements to ambulance services, and other health and

community service investments. We are proud of the impact that each initiative

will have on our residents. When it comes to public safety, our commitment is

strong.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement. Certainly, it is

good news to see that we are moving forward in this much-needed endeavour, one

that this Province has been waiting for, for some time.

I would be remiss if I did not bring up I found it very interesting,

actually, because I have put a lot of petitions in over the last two years

when you look at one of the bottom paragraphs here and we talk about accessing

911 from cellphones, and the fact is we have large portions of this Province

where we do not have cell coverage and we do not have the ability to call 911

large swaths of this Province areas that are covered by members from both

sides.

I have asked the minister responsible if we can ever find out a strategy

towards getting this covered, but I have not heard anything back. I think that

is another place where this government needs to go. We do need to get that basic

cell coverage.

I would also point out that I am looking forward to seeing what the cost of

this is. Again, it is a great service, it is something we need, but we need to

know what it is going to cost to residents of this Province.

I would also move forward to Enhanced 911 it is good to see that we are

getting there with the basic service; however, most areas have already gone to

an Enhanced 911. Again, 911 is synonymous with safety, but we do have a number

called 611 that was supposed to be put in with our provincial health line, the

Auditor General mentioned it last year, and it has not been done. So, I am

hoping the minister can help with that, in conjunction with the Minister of

Health.

I do like in this statement the fact that we are talking about civic

numbering. It is a great idea, we do need to get it done, and I am happy to

speak to it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

statement. At the same time as that, Mr. Speaker, I would have loved to have

heard a little bit more of an update, I guess, for the members of the public out

there who are grossly interested in the 911 system and how far it is gone, to

actually hear how far government has gone in pressing municipalities towards the

civic numbering. I think that is probably one of the most important hurdles that

we have as regards to instituting Province-wide 911.

At the same time as that, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to press upon

government the interest of the other stakeholders that are out there and how

much of an interest that actually our cellphone companies have in getting 911

Province-wide. Knowing that Nova Scotia has province-wide 911 cellular already

available to its people over there, I would like to know exactly how long it is

going to take before this government actually presses the cellphone companies to

institute the same features here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Member for The Straits White Bay North have

leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Provincial 911

was something that was promised nearly twenty years ago, and it is good to see

that it is moving forward.

One thing I will say is that we cannot wait, we need to see the street

addresses mapped in all communities of Newfoundland and Labrador so that people

in emergency situations do not have to describe colours of homes, names of

people, and other generalities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as influenza season approaches, I encourage my fellow Members of

the House of Assembly and the general public to consider receiving the annual

flu shot, which is now available throughout the Province. Combined with regular

hand washing, the influenza vaccine is the most effective way to prevent the

spread of influenza and to reduce complications caused by the virus.

People are encouraged to receive the influenza vaccine before flu season

begins, as it takes about two weeks for the vaccine to take full effect.

Influenza season in Newfoundland and Labrador typically runs from December to

April. This year's flu shot protects against three types of influenza, including

two types of influenza A and one of influenza B.

Mr. Speaker, the influenza vaccine is recommended, and provided free of

charge, for people at high risk for complications from influenza, such as

individuals with chronic health conditions, immunosuppression, and those under

five and over sixty years of age. For a complete list of target groups, please

visit the department's Web site.

Influenza is a common, and highly contagious, respiratory disease. Symptoms

of the flu typically include rapid onset of cough, fever, headache, chills, and

general body aches and pains. Although most people recover fully from influenza,

it may lead to serious complications such as pneumonia and has the potential to

be life-threatening.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to receiving the annual flu shot, practicing the

simple rule of Clean, Cover and Contain is recommended to help prevent the

spread of influenza. Individuals should remember to thoroughly wash hands, cover

coughs and sneezes, and stay home when sick.

For more information on influenza, the vaccine or flu short clinics

throughout the Province, residents may contact their primary health care

provider or call the Newfoundland and Labrador HealthLine toll-free

1-888-709-2929.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

Flu season is indeed upon us and residents should at least consider receiving

this flu shot, particularly those populations at a greater risk of developing

complications from the flu such as our senior population.

This statement does bring to mind the short-lived policy out of Central

Health last year where workers were told if they did not get vaccinated they

would have to go home without pay if there was an outbreak. I noticed that we

sort of stepped away from that. I think encouraging people to get it is fine but

mandating it is also a very tricky question.

I would say that in the second last sentence here we have a great

Newfoundland and Labrador HealthLine. It is a great service. I am glad it is

there, but it is a long number that many people have trouble remembering. We

should have the 611. It was promised. The Auditor General is asking: Why don't

we do it? We should make it easy to remember in case of emergency. I would ask

that we move forward, not only with the 911, with the 611, and I hope everybody

does take an opportunity to get the flu shot.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

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

It is a good thing that the flu vaccine is provided free of charge to those

who are at risk because it certainly does stop one from getting the flu. I think

that is quite proven.

I think we need an upgraded PR program. There needs to be greater education

and PR with regard to the benefits because there are still people out there who

have misconceptions about the flu shot. I hear so many people who say: I am not

getting the shot because I get sick when I get the shot. It needs to be

explained why that might happen the first time you get a shot. We need more

education so that those who most need the flu shot feel free to get it.

We also have to continue the education around hygiene as well. The minister

refers to it in her statement but we especially need it in health care

facilities. We have recent stories which indicate maybe in some health care

facilities we are not doing as good a job around that as we might.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Government of Nova Scotia came out against the Maritime Link

deal. They said the deal provisions are vague and put that province's ratepayers

at risk.

I ask the Premier: If this deal falls through, what happens to the $1 billion

federal loan guarantee?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has a terrible time with facts. He

really does, Mr. Speaker, because I certainly do not mind at any time in this

House or anywhere else having a debate upon the facts. We have to get the facts

right, something they consistently refuse to do on the other side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Government of Nova Scotia did not come out against

Muskrat Falls. They made a presentation to the UARB and they looked for eight

points of clarification. We do not have an issue with that. This is a new

government trying to bring themselves up to speed as quickly as they can on the

deal that is before the UARB with regard to Nova Scotia and Muskrat Falls.

They are asking questions. It is exactly what they ought to be doing, Mr.

Speaker. We are confident they are going to get the answers they require to

approve this deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will tell you a fact. The headline actually said that they oppose the deal.

That is one of the facts. Another fact is that we must have a partner in Emera

to have a federal loan guarantee.

The new Minister of Energy in Nova Scotia, as the Premier said, attached

eight more conditions to the deal to better protect the ratepayers in Nova

Scotia. Our Premier has put us in a weak negotiating position because she

prematurely started this project without approval in Nova Scotia.

I ask the Premier: How did it get so bad that this Province is spending $1

million a day and the province of Nova Scotia is responsible for zero? How is

this not a weak bargaining position or negotiating position for our ratepayers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the difference a few months makes. For the last two years

members opposite have been arguing and trying to convince the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador that Nova Scotia is getting their power for free for

free, Mr. Speaker. This is an awful racket for somebody to be kicking up who are

getting their power for free, do you not agree?

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

deal for Nova Scotia. We do not go through the media to find out what is

happening in Nova Scotia. We have a dialogue Premier-to-Premier,

minister-to-minister. There are eight points of clarification they require,

eight points of clarification that they will get.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: I will ask the Premier: If you had a partner that is not

committed would you not agree that you were in a weaker bargaining and

negotiating position because you had started that deal, would you agree to that

or not?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if we had a partner that was uncommitted, we certainly would be

uneasy. We do not have a partner that is uncommitted. There is a solid agreement

between Nalcor and Emera.

We have understood for some time, long before sanction, that this would go to

the UARB. We knew what we had, within the realm of possibility, a number of

outcomes from the UARB, and we have a remedy for all of them. This is a good,

solid deal between Emera and Nalcor. It is a good deal for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador and it is a good deal for Nova Scotia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Not only did the Premier put our Province in a weak negotiating position, she

continues to deny protection for our ratepayers in this Province. One of the new

conditions is that Nalcor and Emera will be responsible for the increased costs.

I ask the Premier: Why are you giving more and more, every step of the way,

to the people in Nova Scotia?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, again, I am amazed at his change in position. How do you do more

and give away more if your position has been, and it has been for the last two

years, that we are giving them free power? Nothing could be further from the

truth.

They are paying fair market value for their power. On top of that, we have

found a residual supply of power that we from time to time do not need in this

Province, Mr. Speaker, which we are also going to sell to them on terms that are

fair.

The negotiation between Nalcor and Emera is done, Mr. Speaker. These are

points of clarification, issues that have already been raised in the UARB. That

information will be shared with the Government of Nova Scotia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I have made it quite clear that for $1.5 billion for the Maritime Link

they will get 20 per cent of the deal. That is what I have always said. What the

minister said yesterday is that these were conditions they were asking for.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier said that the Centre for Law and Democracy

ranked Bill 29 as the third best in the country, but that same Centre said that

Bill 29 significantly weakened the legislation by limiting the power of the

Commissioner and excluding practically all Cabinet documents from disclosure.

I ask the Premier: Yesterday you agreed with the Centre about Bill 29, which

significantly weakens Provincial access to information legislation, do you still

agree with the Centre?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is really interesting that the Liberals who form the

Opposition Party in this House did not have any such standard of openness or

transparency for themselves, none at all. When they were in government for

fourteen years, you could not get any information you could not get any

information.

Mr. Speaker, they are cute. You cannot take that away from them. They are

cute because they introduced and passed the ATIPPA here in the House of

Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: They brought in the ATIPP legislation, Mr. Speaker,

and they passed it. They just made sure that they did not have to live under it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the Premier knows what happened around the dates of that. There were

agencies that needed to be included about the protection of privacy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, in the review of Bill 29 and the Centre for Law

and Democracy, they also said this is a time when the right for information is

on a march around the world. Bill 29 presents a dramatic step backwards.

I ask the Premier: Will you stop defending this legislation and repeal the

bill?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the members opposite understand anything about

the ATIPP legislation. Fifty per cent of the requests, by the way, that we get

at the ATIPP office come from the Opposition Parties; 24 per cent come from the

media. There is only one-quarter of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians looking for

information, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: The people who use the legislation the most, Mr.

Speaker, up to last week, did not understand that Muskrat Falls did not fall

under the ATIPP legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

MS DEMPSTER: Mr. Speaker, commercial users in Coastal Labrador pay the

highest electricity rates in the Province, operating on diesel plants that are

running at full capacity.

I ask the minister: When can those communities expect to see some action on

alternate energy sources as you promised with the development of the Muskrat

Falls Project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have over twenty isolated communities in this Province, both

on the Island of Newfoundland and in Labrador, who because of their distance

from transmission lines, will not be connected to main transmission lines just

by virtue of the fact that the cost of electricity will be prohibitive to them.

To ease that burden, Mr. Speaker, ratepayers on the Island of Newfoundland

subsidize ratepayers in those coastal communities to the tune of over $20

million a year. Individuals in this Province pay the subsidized rates in

isolated communities. We also subsidize rates in these rural communities through

the Labrador Strategic Plan, and we are looking for further ways to reduce

rates, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

au Clair.

MS DEMPSTER: Mr. Speaker, the Northern Strategic Plan states that

Labrador isolated commercial electricity rates would qualify for a rebate

similar to residential rates once the Lower Churchill Project was sanctioned.

Muskrat Falls was sanctioned nearly a year ago.

I ask the Premier: Why isn't there a rebate in place for Labrador isolated

commercial electricity users?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is again a case of getting the facts right. Because what the

energy plan said, was that when Lower Churchill was sanctioned there would be a

review of commercial rates in the isolated communities in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we are preparing to do that review in conjunction of seeing if

there is a way to develop small wind and small hydro in these isolated

communities to relieve the heavy burden of the cost of electricity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

width of blue zone spaces and access aisles. We know that not all new

developments are conforming to this regulation and that certain spaces up on

Stavanger Drive, for example, are smaller than what is regulated.

I ask the minister: What is your department doing to enforce these

regulations?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service NL.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation is very clear; the regulations are very clear.

We have inspectors out there on a regular basis, enforcement officers on a

regular basis, checking into exactly what the hon. member just referred to on

the opposite side.

Mr. Speaker, if anybody has any complaints, our team is more than welcome and

more than happy to investigate any complaints along these lines.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Speaker, last year government made changes to the

30, 2012.

I ask the minister: Over a year later, why are these signs still absent from

some public buildings, including hospitals?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service NL.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL: Mr. Speaker, again, in Service NL we do take this

responsibility very seriously; enforcement officers take this responsibility

very seriously. Any complaints and anybody who has any issues out there in the

public, Mr. Speaker, please call our offices. We will investigate and we will

find out exactly what is happening with specific incidents.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Cystic fibrosis is the most common fatal genetic disease affecting Canadian

youth. In July 2012 and again in May of 2013, the Minister of Health said

newborn screening for cystic fibrosis was under consideration. The latest update

from a few weeks ago was the department said they were still considering it.

I ask the minister: When will you announce a decision on whether or not

Newfoundland and Labrador will follow suit with the rest of the Western world

and include CF in newborn screening?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite knows, because we have had some

discussion around this, cystic fibrosis screening is available for any baby who

is referred for that particular screening; it is simply not an automatic

screening. We do have cystic fibrosis screening within the Province.

There are a number of discussions underway right now to consider whether or

not we need an automatic screening. As soon as we have concluded those

discussions, we will make a decision around whether or not we will do that.

I want to assure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, that

if they have a child who they feel requires screening, they ought to be in

discussions with their medical provider. That screening is available for people

who need it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: I thank the minister for the answer. I am fully aware

that there is screening available upon referral. Everywhere else in the Western

world is getting screening for newborns. A referral in some cases is not for

months and years after and it is affecting the quality of life.

Nova Scotia starts screening in 2014. Because New Brunswick and PEI

screenings are conducted in Nova Scotia, advocates are hopeful babies in all

Maritime provinces will benefit. That leaves us and Quebec as the only holdouts.

I ask the minister: What is the hold up?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, again whenever we embark on any new program, we make sure that

we do the necessary consultations and we make sure that we do the necessary

reviews. That is precisely what is happening right now. The Department of Health

and Community Services, in collaboration with the provincial newborn screening

committee, is in fact engaged in those discussions.

I really want the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to understand that

screening is available, Mr. Speaker. Screening happens when a child is referred,

and that does happen. In the meantime, our committees are meeting as we always

do when we are embarking on newborn or any new enhancements to our health care

services. We will make a decision and when that time comes, we will announce it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I have been asking questions in this House

for two years, and advocates have been asking questions for a lot longer than

that, on when are we going to get newborn screening for infants with CF? I keep

getting the same answer: We are considering it. We are considering it.

I ask the minister: When will you do this? Please commit to a time for these

families.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, he continues to ask the question and I continue to give him the

answer. The answer is that when we have completed all of the investigation that

we need to do, we will make a decision. We have committed to doing that and we

have committed to ensuring that if anyone requires the screening, they will be

screened.

As soon as we have completed the work that is involved, we will have an

answer as to what our intentions will be and we will announce that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, yesterday government announced it will update

its antiquated aquaculture strategy. Unfortunately, the department has reduced

its consultation to a simple questionnaire format that limits public input and

allows government to control information and the message.

I ask the minister: Will he make this process more inclusive and accessible,

and commit to hold public consultation sessions throughout the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that antiquated strategy has grown an industry of $185 million

this year on the South Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: I will tell the hon. member what we are going to do. We

are going to take this over the next three weeks, the period of time for

consultation on this strategy, we are going to improve it, and we are going to

continue to build this industry on the South Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is what we have done to date. That is what we are going to continue to do.

If there are folks out there who want to make representation to the

department, to the Office of Public Engagement that is holding these

consultations, we are certainly open to it. They can do it through the Internet,

they can do it in the sessions, and also certainly written proposals or

documentation they want to send into the department. We are open, looking

forward to the consultations, and looking forward to renewing our strategy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the people of Nova Scotia are provided an

opportunity to attend twenty public meetings held by an independent panel that

was appointed earlier this year. Their concerns will then be brought forward to

round-table discussions before a report is presented.

I ask the minister: Why are our people being denied full input into such an

important public policy issue?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is nobody being denied input here. The hon. gentleman

again is I do not know where he is coming from with his negative attitude and

pessimism toward the aquaculture industry. We are open, we are having a

consultation.

This industry has done quite well. There are some challenges. As we move

through the consultative process, we certainly want to hear from all

stakeholders out there. If there is somebody or if he wants to present, come

along, send in some information, and let us know what you want to do. We are

happy to hear it.

We believe in aquaculture. We believe in the South Coast and other areas of

the Province where we are growing this industry. This is the same gentleman who

wanted to tear up CETA negotiations where we had a $4 million fund to build our

industry on the wild side and certainly in the farming industry as well.

So we have no intentions. We are moving it forward. It is a great industry

for this Province. The fishery is important for this government and we are going

to move it forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the multiphase process of public

and shared stakeholder consultation, the Nova Scotia aquaculture panel is headed

by two lawyers and will be assisted by an advisory committee and a scientific

advisory committee.

I ask the minister: Will he protect our communities, the environment, and

taxpayers like they are doing in Nova Scotia and hold a comprehensive review of

the regulatory systems and options going forward?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I recited in the House on a number of occasions the investments

we have made in our biosecurity and the containment measures in terms of the

industry. Our investment in St. Alban's, over $8 million in terms of our

facility; our building and veterinarian inventory; work with industry through

the industry association; work with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency; work

with the federal Department of Environment, and officials locally in my

department.

We build a great cluster in terms of this industry. We are going through a

consultative process now to review the strategy that has been so successful in

terms of building that industry. I will listen to all the public out there. I

would encourage all to become involved and let us hear what you think of the

industry and how we can move it forward. Again, it is a good industry. It is

doing quite well and we support it as a government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the City of St. John's had requested implementation of photo

radar on its streets as a traffic calming measure. They have spent considerable

money on calming methods but speeding continues to be a major problem on

residential streets.

I ask the minister: Why has this Province refused to allow the City of St.

John's to implement photo radar as an effective means of traffic calming?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question. As we have said many times on behalf of

government, we are always willing to work with municipalities. My colleague, the

Minister of Municipal Affairs, said yesterday that we are always open to a

collaborative relationship, trying to move forward and making decisions that

benefit municipalities.

The issue that is referenced here, I am not aware of it at this point in time

but I am certainly prepared to have a look at it, if it is something that the

city wants to pursue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I met with the Minister of Service Newfoundland

and Labrador and the Minister of Transportation about three months ago and

brought this issue to their attention. It should be on the government's radar.

Photo radar has been implemented in other cities in this country for over

twenty years, Mr. Speaker, and it has been effective.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE: It has been challenged, Mr. Speaker, and it has been

effective. It is an effective way of calming traffic.

I ask the minister again: When will this Province do what other provinces

have done and implement photo radar for cities that require it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are some jurisdictions in Canada, in the United States and other parts

of the world that apply different technologies to enforcement events and also to

traffic calming measures. Technology has been evolving. I know other

jurisdictions had faced significant challenges in implementing such

technologies.

The Department of Transportation and Works, and also Service NL, I can tell

you, is keeping an eye on potential technologies as they evolve. When a

technology arises and an opportunity arises to make improvements with

enforcement and working with our police services in the Province, we will take

advantage of those opportunities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Photo radar has been challenged on a technical and constitutional basis, even

up to the Court of Appeal in the Provinces of Alberta and British Columbia;

however, with proper legislation, the issue of photo radar has withstood all

appeals and petitions.

Cities like Edmonton, Calgary, and now Saskatchewan have photo radar in

place. Alberta has had it in place for twenty years, Mr. Speaker. I do not

understand why the minister feels that there would be challenges to this; it has

been proven in other areas.

When will this Province bring photo radar in and free up police to do other

important work?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the member opposite for his insightful comments. I am glad that he

agrees with some of the comments I made, because that is what I heard him say

over there, Mr. Speaker.

Contrary to what he believes, it actually requires more resources to

implement these types of technologies. They can be labour-intensive, they can be

very costly as well, and you have to weigh that with the benefits that provide

opportunity from them.

Mr. Speaker, we are investing significantly in policing services in

Newfoundland and Labrador. We are investing significantly in the RNC and the

RCMP to provide traffic safety throughout the Province. I tell you, I, for one,

believe they are doing a great job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

Mr. Speaker, last April, the final report of the Baie Verte asbestos miners'

registry was presented to government. The report confirms that most Baie Verte

miners received more exposure to asbestos fibres in a matter of months than the

law permits for a lifetime.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Will she support the call for the Workplace

Health, Safety and Compensation Commission to immediately exempt all former

employees of the Baie Verte mine from any restrictions on claims for all

asbestos-related diseases, without exception?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service NL.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL: Mr. Speaker, the Baie Verte Miners' Registry is one of the

first of its kind in Canada. Mr. Speaker, it is something that we are very proud

of.

The commission has a strong partnership that it has developed with the

community groups in Baie Verte, as well as the United Steel Workers, Mr.

Speaker. They have worked very closely together to get this registry up to speed

and in place. As well, the commission will be using this registry in future

adjudications. It is going to be a tool that they are going to be using in a

very productive way. We think this registry will move the claims further and

faster in a process that is going to be satisfactory to all.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

We all understand that it was great having the registry; however, it is not

working at this moment.

I want to ask the Premier if she will investigate why the commission has

approved claims for only 36 per cent of the Baie Verte registrants with

medically verified, asbestos-related diseases.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service NL.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL: Mr. Speaker, again, the commission is continuing to

adjudicate these claims on a case-by-case basis. These cases are based on the

adjudication. It is based on scientific and medical evidence. They will continue

to do so. They will use this registry as a tool in doing that adjudication, Mr.

Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

If they are using scientific methods, I am asking the Premier to investigate

why the commission refuses to include gastrointestinal cancers and chronic

obstructive pulmonary diseases in the list of asbestos- related diseases,

because science says they are probably related to the asbestos.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL: Mr. Speaker, again, I reiterate the best scientific and the

best medical evidence is what we are going by. Probably does not come into the

equation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I point out to the minister that precautionary principle does, and that is

what should be brought into play here.

Mr. Speaker, we hear today that the federal government's cross-country CETA

good news tour is not coming to our Province. Mr. Speaker, why is the Premier

not demanding that federal Cabinet ministers explain the CETA deal in our

Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we went through a period in consultation with the federal

government in regard to coming to the conclusion on the CETA agreement,

Newfoundland and Labrador. We are certainly very delighted with the outcome of

that; one being, as we all know, the agreement we had in regard to our fishing

industry and getting access to the EU market, 500 million people, over $17

trillion from GDP.

With that as well, through the Premier's efforts and our government, we were

able to negotiate a $400 million package to bring the fishery to a new stage in

Newfoundland and Labrador. That is a $400 million investment in a $1 billion

industry. It is probably unprecedented in a country of Canada that would be

negotiated. We are very proud of it.

I understand at some future date the federal government may be here to talk

about that, but certainly we as a Province are proud of what we negotiated. If

the federal government wants to come, we will certainly welcome them.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, is $280 million the price the Premier was willing to take from the

federal government to stifle local opposition regarding the secret CETA deal, I

ask, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing secret about the documents that are available

online to everybody in this Province. We are prepared to table them here in the

House. There have been eighteen public meetings with ministers across this

country. We expect that they will come to Newfoundland and Labrador, but if the

Leader of the Third Party is asking me if I am prepared to forgo $280 million

for a visit from a minister giving information that we could get online, yes, I

am.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, the Town of Victoria wrote the minister outlining

their very real concerns

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: about the rise in crime in their communities, speeding, drug

related crimes, ATV violations, vandalism, and harassment of seniors; all

arising from what they say is a lack of front line policing in their community.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: What is he going to do about this?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, a very good question. The short answer is I am going to continue

to do, with the support of the Premier and government, what we have always done,

and that is invest in front line policing services in this Province.

I remind the member, it is to the tune of more than $900 million over the

last ten years and somewhere in the area of 140 new police officers. We get

representation every day, Mr. Speaker, from communities that have concerns. Most

of them do not make political issues of it, like the member opposite is doing

today by raising it in the Legislature where it just shines a light on a

community for criminals and others to have a look at.

Most people come to me privately and they talk to me through the RCMP and the

RNC who have particular jurisdictions, and we do it in a professional manner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

I would ask the member to ask a quick question without

preamble.

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, is the minister still clinging to the weak

assertion that cutting $4.3 million and the loss of fifty-five positions to the

RCMP will not affect policing services in rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice, for a quick response.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I am clinging to two assertions. Number one, that

the member opposite is playing political football because there is a by-election

in Carbonear District; and, number two, I am clinging to the assertion I have

from the RCMP that there have been no cuts no cuts to that area of the

Province in front line policing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice under Standing Order 11 I shall move that this

House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, November 21, 2013.

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

not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. Thursday, November 21, 2013.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that the Minister of Health and

Community Services will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Repeal

The Health Care Association Act. (Bill 26)

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS government has a responsibility to ensure that Internet access is

broadly available so people have a right to be able to access the Internet in

order to exercise and enjoy their rights to freedom of expression and opinion

and other fundamental human rights; and

WHEREAS Great Brehat still remains without broadband services; and

WHEREAS residents rely on Internet services for education, business,

communication, and social activities; and

WHEREAS wireless and wired technologies exist to provide broadband service to

rural communities to replace slower dial-up service;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to

assist providers to ensure Great Brehat is in receipt of broadband Internet

services in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first I presented this petition. There are a

number of communities in my district that do not have access to broadband

Internet, and we must bridge that gap. We must look at mapping adequately where

the gaps are and using the best technologies, whether it is a wired or a wire

line, wireless service, or whether it is using cellular service under the Rural

Broadband Initiative to make sure that more communities get broadband Internet

access, including Great Brehat, which is a short distance from the Town of St.

Anthony.

It can be in winter a significant gap with weather conditions when it comes

to riding bus services. If you are able to access cellular coverage, it does not

have any cellular coverage in this area, so if you have a cellular technology

you can also tap into a broadband service, up to five megabytes per second.

There are opportunities to use a combination of technologies to make sure

residents, especially in geographic areas that are very rural, have access to

some form of broadband service to bridge those gaps.

I am looking forward to working with the Minister of IBRD and other members

to make sure a community like Great Brehat does get service.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, a petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of

the undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS there is no cellphone service in the Town of Trout River, which is an

enclave community in Gros Morne National Park; and

WHEREAS visitors to Gros Morne National Park, more than 100,000 annually,

expect to communicate by cellphone when they visit the park; and

WHEREAS cellphone service has become a very important aspect of every day

living for residents; and

WHEREAS cellphone service is an essential safety tool for visitors and

residents; and

WHEREAS cellphone service is essential for business development;

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

House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to partner

with the private sector to extend cellphone coverage throughout Gros Morne

National Park, and the enclave community of Trout River.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, given the government's intentions to introduce a 911 service

throughout the Province, which is an excellent initiative, I would suggest that

this petition is timelier today, even than it was yesterday given the

government's statement.

Clearly, for a 911 service to work, streets have to be named, roads have to

be named, numbers have to be applied to houses, and for sure people should have

cellphone service. If people are in the area, imagine if you say to a tourist,

if you venture forth into Trout River, fine, but you will not get any 911

service. The reason you will not get any 911 service is because there is no

cellphone service here.

Mr. Speaker, given that the government is finally moving forward with 911

service, which is generally expected to be available in most of the modern world

wherever roads are, for sure wherever emergency vehicles can go, you would

expect to find 911 service for sure in build up areas

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: in towns where there are businesses. Maybe not in

absolutely remote locations, however, certainly in towns and built up areas

where you would expect to have a 911 service, you would also expect to have

cellphone service. They go hand in hand. Mr. Speaker, this is even a more

pressing reason why government in implementing its 911 service really should

move on the cellphone request.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay not

Fortune Bay, Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: A third time is the charm, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I am getting close.

MR. A. PARSONS: I have a petition. To the hon. House of Assembly of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of

the undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS residents of the Southwest Coast must travel the TCH between

Channel-Port aux Basques and Corner Brook for work, medical, educational, and

social reasons; and

WHEREAS Marine Atlantic ferries dock at Channel-Port aux Basques at various

hours on a daily basis resulting in extremely high volume of commercial and

residential travellers using this

section of the TCH; and

WHEREAS the world-renowned Wreckhouse area is situated along this

section of

the TCH; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador initiated a

twenty-four-hour snow clearing pilot project in 2008 that excluded the

section

of the TCH from Channel-Port aux Basques to Stephenville;

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

House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to include

the

section of the TCH from Channel-Port aux Basques to Stephenville in the

twenty-four-hour snow clearing project.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, actually, this is the second time this week that I have

about what I stood up in the House and did today. I think people appreciated it

because the response that I received from constituents not only in my district,

but the adjoining districts, people who are not serviced by twenty-four-hour

snow clearing, was absolutely tremendous.

There are a couple of things I wanted to bring up; I brought up a lot of

important points yesterday about the work side and the fact that it affects our

medical care. One group, in particular, that really are affected by this are our

ambulance drivers, our paramedics. The fact is that just about anything major in

our health care system has to go over the highway into Corner Brook, and I am

talking about appointments with specialists, I am talking about anybody you

cannot have a baby on the Southwest Coast; you have to go into Corner Brook.

The fact is many of these people are travelling in off hours. It is not like

you can dictate when you are going to do this. You have to travel in all hours

of the night, in all weather conditions, and there is nothing you can do to stop

it. It is affecting our quality of life. Yet we send ambulances all over the

highway without twenty-four-hour snow clearing.

I am asking that we be given fair and equitable treatment. I am asking that

we be treated as we should be treated. Again, the fact that we have to travel

for routine appointments and we are sending seniors across the roadway in

inclement weather without getting that service when it is between Port aux

Basques and Stephenville and I am also talking not just about Port aux

Basques, not just about the Southwest Coast, I am also talking about the

residents in the Codroy Valley. I am talking about Flat Bay. I am talking about

all these areas where we have to travel for anything, yet we have to go over a

road that is not given twenty-four-hour snow clearing.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to present this, and I am sure that the

constituents in my district and everywhere else are going to continue to support

me in doing this.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

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

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS as a result of a recommendation in the Green report about wrongdoing

in the House of Assembly, there is now legislation that protects anyone who

speaks up with evidence of financial abuse or other impropriety in the

legislative branch; and

WHEREAS it is unfair for one group of civil servants to be protected by

whistle-blower legislation when another group is not; and

WHEREAS Justice Green stated that the financial wrongdoing in the House of

Assembly might have been discovered sooner if whistle-blower legislation had

been in place; and

WHEREAS the Cameron inquiry into ER-PR testing found that problems with tests

would have come to light sooner, therefore lessening the impacts on patients, if

whistle-blower legislation had been in place;

WHEREAS the task force on adverse events recommended an amendment to the

Regional Health Authorities Act to provide legal protection for employees

reporting occurrences or adverse events;

WHEREAS whistle-blower protection is in place elsewhere in Canada and the

provincial government promised similar legislation in the 2007 election but has

not kept that promise;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge government to

enact whistle-blower legislation to protect public sector employees in

provincial departments and agencies, including public corporations, regional

health authorities, and school boards.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy once again to stand in this House to present this

petition on whistle-blower protection. As a matter of fact, I have been

presenting this for over a year in this House, and people across the Province

want it.

What I find so interesting, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that it is proven time

again that adverse events, criminal wrongdoing, safety issues, could have been

prevented had we had whistle-blower legislation. Again, the government in 2007

promised this it was one of their promises, and again it seems to be another

in a line of broken promises.

It makes no sense why this government is not taking action now to enact

whistle-blower legislation. All that it will do is offer more safety and more

protection to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. If we can have it in

terms of financial wrongdoing, why would we not have it in terms of other

aspects within our working public? It is a no-brainer, in fact, Mr. Speaker.

This is something that is par for the course in provinces across the country. It

is a safety issue, and there is no reason now not to do it. It is the right

thing to do.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS Labrador-Grenfell Health employs a nurse practitioner at St. Anthony,

able to take appointments and operate a full scope of practice for which nurse

practitioners are licensed to operate; and

WHEREAS Western Health at Port Saunders and Norris Point on the Great

Northern Peninsula have similar nurse practitioner practices; and

WHEREAS nurse practitioners have advanced education and training beyond the

registered nurse level and provide comprehensive care, ranging from health

promotion and prevention to diagnosis and treatment, including ordering

diagnostic tests, prescribing pharmaceuticals and performing procedures within a

legislated scope of practice; and

WHEREAS nurse practitioners are alleviating physician shortages in rural

areas across Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador, by operating clinical

practices in collaboration with physicians and other health practitioners,

leading to better access to services and shorter wait times;

WHEREAS residents from Eddies Cove East to Reef's Harbour deserve to have

regular nurse practitioner clinics that are available to other residents of the

Great Northern Peninsula;

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

House of Assembly to urge government to ensure that a nurse practitioner

clinical practice be established at the Strait of Belle Isle Health Centre to be

fully integrated with the clinical practices of physicians.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, the Dr. Ross report had highlighted the importance of the nurse

practitioner and the role that they play to improve wait times in collaboration

with a team approach. It is very disturbing to see that one health authority can

have double standards within its own authority of offering a nurse practitioner

clinic that can operate in a full scope of practice in collaboration in a place

like St. Anthony, and not offer a similar service at other clinics where it

would operate, such as the Strait of Belle Isle Heath Centre or the White Bay

Central Health Centre in Roddickton, for example.

So we need to see better standardization so that we get better health care

outcomes, so that people are provided with the services, and this is something

that really should be looked at. I have had a number of discussions with the

Department of Health and Community Services and Labrador-Grenfell Health on such

matter, and I urge that this be a service that be implemented.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Motion 3, to ask leave to introduce

a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 2, Bill 13, and

that the said bill be now read the first time.

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

Service NL shall have leave to introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend The Highway

Traffic No. 2, Bill 13, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

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

introduce Bill 13, and 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'.

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 2", carried.

(Bill 13)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 2. (Bill 13)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. KING: Tomorrow.

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.

MR. KING: Thank you.

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

Conservation, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Labour

Standards Act, Motion 4, Bill 17, and I so move that the bill be now read the

first time.

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

Justice shall have leave to introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend The Labour

Standards Act, Bill 17, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

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

introduce Bill 17 and 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'.

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill, "An Act To

Amend The Labour Standards Act", carried. (Bill 17)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act. (Bill 17)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. KING: Tomorrow.

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.

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 7, second reading of a bill,

An Act Respecting Food Safety In Food Premises. (Bill 22)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service NL.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Service NL, Bill 22 I am about to speak to. We

are very proud of Service NL's Environmental Health Officers, who are highly

trained individuals. They are well educated, professional, and nationally

certified inspectors. They maintain the highest standards for inspection and

enforcement of food safety legislation.

Mr. Speaker, when our food premises inspections identify areas which need to

be corrected, in many cases the issues are addressed right on the spot. Less

serious issues are given a period of time to be addressed. In the rare cases

where there may be a potentially significant concern, our inspectors are

authorized to exercise their professional judgment and either work with the

operator to address the matter or, if necessary, to close an operation until

corrective measures are taken. That is very rare. It is a great comfort to know

that the closure of food premises as a result of health concerns does not happen

very often and that reports of food-borne illnesses involving licensed premises

are extremely rare.

Service Newfoundland and Labrador has undertaken a number of improvements to

its food inspection programs over the years. Most recently, Mr. Speaker, last

year we introduced a new online information service which provides consumers

with the latest food inspection reports from all registered food establishments

in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The existing Food and Drug Act has not been significantly amended for more

than seventeen years, and there are sections of the act that have not been

amended in decades. Officials with the Department of Health and Community

Services, in collaboration with officials from other government departments with

food safety responsibility, including Natural Resources, Fisheries and

Aquaculture, and my own Department of Service NL, recognize the need for a

review of the existing Food and Drug Act and recommend a number of revisions. It

had been determined that modernization legislation is needed to allow food

safety officials to adequately regulate the food industry in this Province.

The new act will not place any new requirements on the industry, but will

provide the legislative authority for the continued safe manufacturing process

and sale of food in Newfoundland and Labrador. However, an example of

improvement from Service NL's perspective is that this new legislation will

provide clear, unambiguous definition of food that is unfit for human

consumption. Food that has been identified as such must not be sold or

distributed in the Province.

The enforcement capacity of our inspectors will also be enhanced under the

new legislation. A more clear definition of their authority has been included,

and they have been granted an equivalent level of authority to inspectors under

other health protection legislation. These changes will further protect

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and our already thorough food premises

inspection program will certainly continue.

Mr. Speaker, I am confident the Food Premises Act will play a significant

role in protecting the health of the public who purchase and consume food from

food premises. There are over 4,000 food premises in Newfoundland and Labrador,

and inspectors from Service NL conduct more than 6,000 food premises inspections

every year. As previously mentioned, the results of these inspections continue

to be made available to the public on Service NL's department Web site.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is good legislation. We will be supporting it, and I

look forward to other comments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

I am very pleased to be able to stand and speak to Bill 22. An important

bill, because it has to do with making sure the general public is safe when

people go outside from their homes and eat, whether they go to restaurants,

establishments that are big businesses. Even to eat in places where food is not

usually served or prepared, the kinds of things that happen with not-for-profits

when people have various bazaars, not-for-profit organizations, church groups,

et cetera. So that we are covering everything from restaurants to tents in the

bill we have before us today.

It is important. The whole point of the bill is making sure that

establishments are perfectly safe and we do not have a health problem resulting

because of food not being prepared in sanitary conditions, and that food which

is not fit for eating is not served.

It is an important bill. That is why I think it is extremely important that

this bill has in it a

section which is called protection from liability. It is

section 17. In actual fact, what

section 17 is, it is protecting individuals who

may report "to an inspector or peace officer a violation or suspected violation

of this Act."

I think it is very, very important that a bill such as this recognizes that

people have a responsibility to the public. It is a public service

responsibility to report when something is not right, when people are not

preparing and serving food under the conditions that are outlined in this bill,

or when food that in and of itself is not safe is being served.

The fact we are concerned about people's health, the fact we want to make

sure people are safe is very much, I would suspect, at the base of having a

clause in this bill, a whole

section actually in this bill protecting people who

report an infraction. It is interesting to note, this is the fifth it will be

when it is brought in and put into the act. We will have five acts that have a

section in it dealing with reporting to people who have responsibility within

the act.

There is a common name for this; it is called whistle-blowing.

Whistle-blowing is recognized as being essential. This legislation recognizes

that whistle-blowing is essential. It protects the person who does the

reporting, who does the whistle-blowing. The person who does that will not be

allowed to be dismissed or suspended. They will not be allowed to be

disciplined. They cannot be demoted or harassed or in any other way penalized

because they reported what they reported.

If the individual is acting in good faith, we know you could get somebody who

might whistle-blow from a nuisance perspective. One would hope people would not

do that, but it takes for granted that the person who is doing the

whistle-blowing and who cannot be penalized in any way is acting in good faith,

and on the basis of reasonable belief that in going to an inspector or peace

officer, they are doing it from goodwill and have good reason to believe that

there has been an infraction. They may not have complete proof but have good

reason to believe.

The person also has to be acting in good faith and on the basis of reasonable

belief will have reported "or stated an intention of doing

an act that is

required to be done in order to avoid having a person contravene a provision of

this Act or the regulations." In other words, they are trying to stop an

infraction from happening. That is extremely important as well. What we have

here is a description of protecting somebody who wants to make sure that this

act is honoured.

In this act being passed and of course we are going to be voting for this

act we will have in the legislation dealing with food premises a piece of

legislation that offers whistle-blowing protection. The other four acts that we

have in our legislation that have similar clauses, the Environmental Protection

Act so if anybody were to in any way go against all the things that are

covered by the Environmental Protection Act, if they in any way were to break

any regulations that are part of the Environmental Protection Act and somebody

reports that, the reporter is protected under the Environmental Protection Act.

I think it is extremely important that there again we are talking about an

area that it is important to have people who are monitoring and who can freely

report if they see something. Once again with environmental standards we are

dealing with something that is there for the good both of people as well as the

environment that people live in. That probably in many cases has to do with

people's health as well. I see a connection with why we have the whistle-blower

clause in the Environmental Protection Act with the act that we are dealing with

today.

We also have whistle-blower protection under our Labour Standards Act as

well. That would be very important also because labour standards have to do with

protection for people in their workplace. Just as this act is looking at

protection for people in the workplace, so would the Labour Standards Act.

Having whistle-blower protection there is also understandable.

We also have it under occupational health and safety. In the Occupational

Health and Safety Act, there is also a whistle-blower clause. As also in the

fifth act that has it, and that is the Personal Health Information Act.

We have five acts that have in them clauses that protect people who make sure

that if they see somebody who is violating the act, that they report it. They

report it in good faith and they report it because the act is so important for

the common good.

It begs the question, Mr. Speaker, and it is a question that must be asked:

Why is it that we have whistle-blower legislation in these five acts, yet we do

not have it in other acts? I think it is a question I want to put out here

today. We know that in other jurisdictions outside of this Province

whistle-blower legislation does exist and it exists in a general way. That there

is actually whistle-blower legislation in and of itself, which covers a broad

range, not just particular areas as these five acts do but a broad range of the

life of people in a province or in the country.

It is really important that we look at why we only put it in certain acts and

not have a piece of legislation

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member Bill 22 is not about whistle-blower legislation. It may

be embedded in the act, so I would ask the member to confine her comments to the

bill before the House.

MS MICHAEL: Will do, Mr. Speaker, thank you.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will say that it is extremely important that this

act recognizes that whistle-blower legislation is needed in this act. I will

confine my comments then to this act. I am glad that it is here. I am glad that

we recognize people have to be protected. A whistle-blower is not a bad person.

A person, for example, goes into an establishment and sees that the

establishment is not clean or they go to a restaurant and they get sick in the

restaurant and they can probably say very definitely they became sick because of

eating in that restaurant, or if people know that establishments are operating

without permits, they cannot see any sign of permits around, allowing them to

operate, that there are all kinds of things that are infractions of the act. It

is so important that people realize that reporting it is not a bad thing. It is

not a weasel thing. It is actually

an act of responsibility.

That reporting that an establishment is not operating under the act,

reporting that to either the inspector or a peace officer is something that is

being done for the common good. We need to build up that mentality that if we

see something that is an infraction of this act, reporting it is for the common

good, and that is what is so important. That is why it is so important for us to

recognize the need to have the protection for somebody who does that.

Sometimes, especially if it is a worker in an establishment and a worker sees

a manager who is not managing under the regulations that are attached to the

Food Premises Act, that a worker has to be protected. The worker has to know

that if they go and report to the inspector, even if the inspector does not tell

the person who has been reported, who has done it, who has done the reporting,

maybe the manager can guess that the worker has to have protection, they cannot

be penalized.

I am so glad that this act recognizes that somebody should not be penalized.

We have to build up that mentality of people having a responsibility to report

infractions. If we are going to make sure that an establishment or

establishments work according to

an act that people take seriously, that having

clean premises and making sure that everything about the preparation of food

part goes along with the regulations that are attached to the act, then if we

are going to have better food premises in our Province people need to know that

they can report what they see and what they find.

They need to be protected in doing it. It is for the common good so that

people will not get sick, because that is why we have this act. That is why we

are beefing up what we have here so people will not get sick. They can go out

and they can be safe.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I do support the act. We will be voting for

the act as my colleague, the Member for St. John's East and our critic in this

area has said. I am very glad to see that it does include in

Part IV the

provision for the protection from liability for anybody who does report an

infraction.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. CORNECT: Merci, Monsieur le Prsident, ce me fait un grand plaisir de

me prsenter dans cette Chambre d'assemble legislative et de prendre la parole

sur cette lgislation importante et ncessaire.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in my place today

representing the great people of the great District of Port au Port, to speak to

Bill 22,

An Act Respecting Food Safety In Food Premises.

This piece of legislation has not been meaningfully amended for more than

seventeen years, nearly two decades. There are some parts of this act, Mr.

Speaker, that have not been amended longer than that time as well.

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here is we are strengthening the Province's

food safety legislation. We have done so with the guidance of the officials from

Health and Community Services in collaboration with officials from other

government departments such as Natural Resources, Fisheries and Aquaculture, and

Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

These departments, Mr. Speaker, would have the responsibility of food safety

as well. That is why it was important for them to be involved in the review of

the Food and Drug Act and to make the necessary recommendations for revision.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will revise the law with respect to food safety in

food premises. The Food and Drug Act will be repealed and the recommended

revisions will then be put into the new Food Premises Act. We are saying that we

are replacing the Food and Drug Act with a new Food Premises Act.

The new Food Premises Act that we are debating today contains some changes

and improves that will strengthen the legislation. Again, it is further proof

that we are committed to improving population health here in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: We are doing so by developing modern and practical

legislation which by my estimation is the basis for health protection programs.

Mr. Speaker, the Food Premises Inspection Program is an excellent example of

this.

Some of the improvements we are talking about are as the minister said

yesterday and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health said

yesterday as well. The act makes it clear that food which is unfit for human

consumption must not be sold or distributed in the Province, and unfit for human

consumption has been defined.

What we are saying here in the act, Mr. Speaker, is that, "Food in a food

premises and food being transported shall be prepared, manufactured, handled,

cut, processed, packaged, displayed, stored, offered for sale, sold or served in

a manner that prevents it from being unfit for human consumption."

So, Mr. Speaker, food safety is important to government and to the people of

this Province. This new act will be the foundation for activities aimed at

enhancing and improving food safety and, of course, preventing food-borne

illnesses.

Mr. Speaker, the powers of inspectors have been strengthened and they are now

clear and equivalent to the powers given to the same group of inspectors under

the health population legislation. When I looked at the act, this is what it

says about the powers of the inspector:

"9.

(1) An inspector may, during regular business hours, for a purpose related

to the administration or enforcement of this Act or the regulations, inspect or

examine a food premises, processes, books and records of a person that the

inspector may consider relevant for the purpose of determining compliance with

this Act or the regulations, and the inspector may, without a warrant,

"(

a) enter any premises (

i) which is a food premises, (ii) where anything is

done or is suspected by the inspector of being done in connection with a

requirement of this Act or the regulations, or (iii) where any property, or

books and records respecting food safety are or may be kept;

"(

b) make copies or extracts or take photographs, videos or audiotapes of

facilities, equipment or food that the inspector considers necessary;

"(

c) take food samples;

"(

d) require the operator or an employee of a food premises to give the

inspector all reasonable assistance, including the production of books and

records as requested by the inspector, and to answer all proper questions

relating to the administration or enforcement of this Act or the regulations

and, for that purpose, require the operator or an employee to attend at the

premises with the inspector; and

"(

e) require the operator or an employee to make available the means to

generate and manipulate books and records that are in machine readable or

electronic form and any other means or information necessary for the inspector

to assess the books and records.

"

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), an inspector shall not enter a

dwelling-house without the consent of the occupant except under the authority of

a warrant issued under this Act." Having said that, Mr. Speaker, the new act

will not place any new requirements on the industry but will provide the

legislative authority for the continued safe manufacturing, processing, and sale

of food in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As you are probably aware, the federal government is responsible for the

regulation of drug safety. Mr. Speaker, references to drugs has been removed

from the new act. Regulation of pharmacies is the responsibility of the Pharmacy

Board under the Pharmacy Act, 2012.

A

section also removed, for example, was related to the slaughter of animals.

It has been taken away because it is regulated under the legislation of other

departments such as the Meat Inspection Act of the Department of Natural

Resources.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it quite clear that our government takes the

safety of food very seriously in this Province. Did you know that there are

about 4,000 food premises in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Also,

inspectors within the Department of Service Newfoundland and Labrador conduct

more than 6,000 inspections annually. Now, Mr. Speaker, those inspection results

are available to the public on the Service Newfoundland and Labrador Web site.

Anybody in the Province now can get this information on the Web site, especially

information pertaining to their favourite restaurants or food establishment.

Mr. Speaker, we are proud of the fact that we have a thorough food premises

inspection program. It is delivered by highly-skilled inspectors within the

Department of Service Newfoundland and Labrador. That program will continue.

Because of this, Mr. Speaker, we are very fortunate that in our Province

there has not been a major outbreak of food-borne illnesses for quite some time.

We do get occasional cases of minor illnesses, but I believe the hon. Minister

of Health and Community Services said in her remarks yesterday that the last

illness outbreak in this Province in which a food source was identified happened

approximately ten years ago.

Mr. Speaker, in our Province when an outbreak occurs, our public officials

become involved, then the investigation begins. It is led by a medical officer

of health. They work thoroughly and diligently to identify or try to identify

which food is the potential source of the illness.

Mr. Speaker, let me say, people who own and people who work in the food

industry provide safe and nutritious foods. The intent of the Food Premises Act

is not to impose any new requirements upon the owners or operators of food

premises. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in addition to the good work done by food

premises owners and staff, the act, the regulations, and the inspection program

will play a major role in the protection of the public's health who purchase and

consume food from the food premises in our Province.

En terminant, Monsieur le Prsident, merci pour l'opportunit de discuter les

mrites de cette lgislation.

As I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak

on Bill 22 this afternoon,

An Act Respecting Food Safety in Food Premises.

For the record, Mr. Speaker, as the MHA for the great and cultured District

of Port au Port, I will be supporting Bill 22.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to

Bill 22,

An Act Respecting Food Safety in Food Premises.

We have certainly heard throughout the debate a number of times the number of

inspections that our officials are doing and the reporting, and that it is

available through online when it comes to restaurants. Those are good things.

Those are good enforcement measures; we need that.

Food safety is something that must be paramount for any organization that

deals with food, whether it is in preparation or in the sale. So, what I did is

I took some time with research staff to go back and look at the old act, which

has been referred to

An Act Respecting Food and Drugs which was first

introduced in 1990, and then amended in 1997, and 2004.

I looked at that to see some changes that have been made in the current act,

which I guess I have some questions or concerns about for the Minister of Health

and Community Services, and may have the opportunity to have those questions

answered in the debate here; or if not, pose the questions further in Committee.

The previous Food and Drug Act under the

section 2 these are where the

definitions are typically in bills gave a concrete definition for things like

temperature conditions for food cold storage, and that has been removed. So, I

am just wondering about where Bill 22 does not specify cold storage parameters

that this could be a concern moving forward. Because the temperature and the

cold storage for food is certainly something that could lead to an outbreak if

they are not stored at the appropriate temperature levels.

Another piece to be given consideration is looking at, where it lacks in the

actual bill itself, the information for the food venders, distributors,

wholesalers and other interest groups to seek out the best practices. From this

legislation, how it is changing to make sure that some of the obsolete

information has been removed and how it co-ordinates with other bills. How we

can look at making sure that our food premises, those that are involved, whether

they are a vender, a tent, a one-day, if they are home based, however they are

dealing with food, that a package of information, based on changes to this bill,

is made available to them.

We want to make sure if there is anything that has been modernized or updated

from 1990 onward, that we are providing that information in a way that maybe

when a food inspection is done, that further information can be provided. That

there can be an electronic mechanism where we can send out tips to these

businesses so when we are handling food that any changes or modifications, we

can make sure that food is as safe as possible, is actually given to the

front-line businesses because these are very real issues.

It was talked about that some of the act now has been changed that is covered

under

Chapter M-2,

An Act to Provide for Animal and Meat Inspection in Slaughter

Houses. We have seen in other parts of Canada the tainted meat scandal, and we

need to make sure that we have the appropriate regulations for safe food

handling practices available.

One of the things is nowhere in Bill 22 now is there is language for

point-of-sale information and how we put out if food is fresh or if it has been

frozen. That is something I guess where the definition for food cold storage

maybe it falls under some other act, but I was not part of a particular briefing

so that can be clarified.

It seems to me that no longer will you be able to order a meal, such as fish

and chips, and be guaranteed to know if that fish was frozen or if it is fresh

before preparation. When you are looking at culinary tastes in the Province, if

you are looking at different restaurants, if you are looking at the consumer or

the visitor who does not live here, we want to make sure that we are able to get

the best possible information to them. It seems like a point-of-sale

perspective, the legislation does not cover that any more.

I did see a number of where cases in the legislation of the bill itself where

it seems there has been able to be some form of red tape reduction, which is

very positive when it comes to looking at things like a telewarrant. That can

reduce the red tape and the time that it takes to make sure that the public is

protected in getting that information, where an inspector can get a warrant, can

move into a site and actually do the enforcement that is needed to be done if

food practice is unsafe.

I also took some time, Mr. Speaker, in this act, Bill 22, to look at our

counterparts in Nova Scotia as to what their food safety regulations are, under

section 105 of their health protection act. It is much larger and more

comprehensive. It lists regulations about waste, bathrooms in food service

centres, in restaurants, specifics illustrated for maintenance, cleaning and

sanitation of food that seems to be lost in this particular bill.

I guess, in particular, it has been noted that the meat aspect is covered

under a specific act, but also the Nova Scotia act looks at regulations for

labelling, for quality assurance. This may be where we get into looking at

diverse multicultural populations such as halal and kosher practices and kosher

products. I am not seeing that specifically in the act itself.

Bill 22 does not actually go into specifics like Nova Scotia does when it

comes to food safety regulations. Hopefully, we will see that come forward, if

it is not in the bill, that these things would actually be listed in regulations

in the Newfoundland Gazette and that we are provided with comprehensive

regulations to make sure that our food safety act is as comprehensive as it can

be and that the enforcement does follow. Food safety has to be paramount when we

are looking at the diverse set and growing appetites in Newfoundland and

Labrador and the number of food premises that we have.

We need to make sure that our legislation, if we are modernizing it and

taking out outdated information that is covered under other acts, that we are

not also losing some of the potential when it comes to making sure that we do

have very safe mechanisms. I think the food cold storage piece, around

temperatures, is something that I certainly would like to see either reinstated

in the bill or some clarification as to why it was removed from a definition,

because I think it is something that could lead to unsafe food practices across

Newfoundland and Labrador on sites. That is something I would like further

clarification on, from the minister who introduced the bill.

This is something I support in principle, absolutely, food safety, and making

sure, but I would like to have some further answers before I can move forward.

If I do not get them now, I will ask for them in the Committee stage.

I thank the minister for putting forward this bill in the House of Assembly

and for the opportunity to speak to this piece of legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will be brief. I just have a few words to say about Bill 22,

An Act

Respecting Food Safety In Food Premises. It is important that the public has

confidence in the quality of food, the safety of food in food premises across

Newfoundland and Labrador. What we are doing here today is basically

modernizing. Well, in fact, rewriting this particular legislation. That is

really a no-brainer for any government or legislators who care about the safety

of the public.

I guess a precursor to this legislation, in my opinion, was the decision of

government some time back to make inspection results available to the public.

That was a good precursor. It took a lot of pushing but the transparency and the

availability of these reports has certainly placed a lot of pressure on food

premises to be more diligent, basically to really protect the bottom line.

I think that is particularly important because we know food-borne illnesses,

food poisoning if you will, can make people particularly sick. You cannot see

it, you cannot smell it, you cannot taste it off them but these sorts of

pathogens and toxins multiply very rapidly in great millions of new bacteria and

so on, in just a few hours.

For many people, you can become sick but you can get over it. For some young

people, young children, the elderly, women who are pregnant, people with

weakened immune systems, food poisoning and those types of pathogens can be

particularly problematic in creating, in some instances, long-term health

consequences and complications, and in some cases even death. That is why it is

important to present it with the safe handling of food. We do not have to look

back a long distance in Canadian history to see that we have had challenges in

this area. Listeriosis has been something that is particularly problematic in

the manufacture of food in large scale.

It is important to have this sort of legislation and it is long overdue. This

is a long overdue rewriting and redoing of the Food and Drug Act. It is a good

example of the kind of review that government should be doing to modernize

legislation that no longer meets our needs or meets its application. They are

looking at the legislation that we have ahead of us. There are obviously some

modernization efforts underway this session that goes beyond your standard

housekeeping and simple amendments to legislation.

As others have said, and I will not go into detail again, but this ensures a

high level of food safety in restaurants, cafeterias, convenience stores, and

other sorts of food premises in the Province. I was surprised to learn there are

about 4,000 food premises in the Province and quite a large number of

inspections annually, thousands of them in fact. It is an incredibly important

job and a lot of work.

This particular legislation I believe increases the power that inspectors

have. That is particularly important. Hurdles for warrants are going to be

lifted to ensure there is prompt and decisive action that can be taken by

inspectors to protect the public.

I was pleased to learn through my own research, that unlike the federal

government, this provincial government sees food safety as a priority. I noted

that, or at least I believe in the last provincial Budget there is an increase

in the amount of money set aside for environmental health inspectors. I believe

there is one new position created.

Members may recall the Harper Conservatives in Ottawa consolidating the

activities of the St. John's food inspection laboratory with those of

Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island and Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. They basically

closed down the lab here and shipped that work off to Nova Scotia.

I look forward in particular to learning more about the regulations that will

accompany this act. As the Member for The Straits White Bay North has

indicated, they will be gazetted in time. It would have been nice, I suppose, to

have a thorough examination of the new regulations with the enabling

legislation. It is a good bill, but it is always of some concern for me to see

the backend when it is not defined up front, if you will, to read the fine print

in the legislation and ensure that you know what all the details are. You would

not be signing on to something that you are opposed to.

Certainly, as has already been pointed out,

section 4 here includes

increasing a series of clauses that are related to protection from liability.

Members on the Opposition side, and indeed some members on the government side,

have been waiting for government to come through on a promise of legislation

that is similar for public servants in the Province.

It is a little bit hypocritical, I say to members opposite, to include it for

food safety inspectors and inspections and not have those same sorts of

protection from liability for our public sector workers. I am sure there is

movement afoot over there to keep those promises and introduce that legislation

to ensure that workers here in this building and all across Newfoundland and

Labrador who serve the public have similar protections from liability.

I would like to hear more from the minister when there is an opportunity on

the consultations that were held with owners of food premises as defined in this

act. Have they received any briefs? Has government received any briefs from the

restaurant and beverage association, Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador, or

other business organizations in the Province that are impacted by this

particular legislation? What sort of consensus do we have on whether or not this

is something that small business, large business, businesses across Newfoundland

and Labrador see in the implementation of this?

I am still a little bit confused about the inner working of this act and

those forthcoming regulations I mentioned, the fine print, if you will, with the

Meat Inspection Act and the Fish Inspection Act. It seems to me it might have

been a good idea to consolidate all of that legislation under one, but I guess

that is something we will further discuss in Committee.

On the face of it, I do believe this new legislation will protect the public

from health hazards in a much more efficient and much more comprehensive way. We

are going to be providing our inspectors with that protection from liability

that I pointed out, and the necessary tools that they will need to do their jobs

more effectively.

I will leave it at that, and I will look forward to further debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I speak now on behalf of the Minister of Health and Community

Services to close debate on this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Minister of Justice speaks now, he will close debate

on Bill 22.

MR. KING: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not recognize you had another speaker

left.

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you.

I am just going to stand for a few minutes on this. I will be supporting this

piece of legislation. I think it is great. The member mentioned earlier about

trying to instill confidence in the people in our establishments across

Newfoundland and Labrador.

I will not get into a lot of the comments the other members of the House

already made, but I will just ask a few questions. Does it include hospitals,

government facilities? That is one of the questions and if it does, which I am

assuming it does, it does not spell it out here. It says here where food is

prepared and manufactured, handled, cut, processed, packaged, and displayed. I

am sure in some of these government facilities there is food processed, so I am

assuming it is.

If you take that by extension, Mr. Speaker, does the whistle-blower

legislation carry on to the government employees who work at these

establishments? It is a very controversial issue because the government will not

bring in whistle-blower legislation, but they will for this act, and it does not

spell out if it is for government facilities.

The other question that I have to ask is: How many inspections and you can

see here that there is over 6,000 done in the run of year, how many are done on

government facilities? How many actually are done on government facilities

across in our hospitals, in our long-term care facilities? It is an issue that

we must be very concerned about. It is an issue that in this debate I have not

heard discussed yet today.

These are the types of questions that I would have. I want to ensure, and I

am on the record, is that we have not seen the regulations of this bill yet. We

have not seen the regulations. We are passing the bill and I saw it in part of

this bill where they are going to make it public and have an education program

on it.

Mr. Speaker, I just go back to the legislation that was just approved for the

animal act whereby there is $50,000 for education promotion that was never, ever

spent. These are the kind of things that I want to put on the record to ensure

that I will be voting for this bill, but there are some questions that still

remain. Like when will we see the regulations and when we will see if these

government facilities are included, as I just mentioned.

I noticed, Mr. Speaker, that the minister can prescribe regulations around

the packaging of food. Will that include labelling or is it just the actual

packaging and labelling of food to ensure this is very important for people

with different medical conditions like diabetes and high blood pressure. Will it

include labelling or is it just the packaging and the label is done by the

Canadian Food Inspection Agency?

These are the type of questions that need to be asked, Mr. Speaker. They are

the kind of questions that we, as parliamentarians, hopefully will get the

answer to before this bill is finally passed.

I heard a few other people speaking here in this House about it is great to

see that the results are put online. Mr. Speaker, it is good to see. I know

first when this was brought up last year, there was hollering and shouting that

no, it should not be done, but now we see it online. I think that is great that

the government has put it online, that people can actually see it, they can go

on and make an informed decision on where they want to eat and an informed

decision on which premise they would like to visit for health concerns. I think

that is a great idea. Too bad it took so much pressure to do it. Too bad you

were embarrassed into doing it, but it is done.

Mr. Speaker, in talking about this whole legislation, it is time for a

change. I agree with that, but there will be some questions. This bill here will

give the inspectors the authority to have a bit more teeth instead of I always

thought they had it because if there are so many infractions, they can order a

premise closed. From my understanding here now is that they have a bit more

authority. I am not sure why or how unless it comes with the regulations because

a lot of inspectors before did have the authority to ensure that a premise it

may take a court order. I did not think so, and this is why we need to wait to

see the regulations on some of the establishments.

Mr. Speaker, I see in the legislation that it addresses pests. Of course, we

all know some of the problems when there is the accumulation of pests in any

premises and around food, and the problems they will cause, the health concerns.

It is good to see that part of this is in this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I go back again. I am waiting on when we get an opportunity to

get in Committee to see if the whistle-blower legislation does convey onto

government employees who work at government establishments. If this act is for

any place, as I just mentioned, where food is prepared it has to be government

establishments. If it is government establishments, people who are going to be

there and people who are going to have concerns are the employees there.

If the employees are there, are they protected, the government employees? Are

we finally going to get one

section of government employees covered under

whistle-blower? That is a question I would like answered before we move on from

this bill and we get into Committee. Those are answers, Mr. Speaker, that we

need because if you are going to do it for one sector of the public we should

extend it to everybody.

If it is not, these are the questions we have. Is the act proper where it

says wherever food is prepared? Most of the facilities and health care

facilities prepare a lot of their own food. My understanding of this here, and I

will seek clarification, is that it is a government facility and we need to

ensure that employees of the government facility fall under whistle-blower

legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting this bill. I think there are some questions

we have. When you look at packaging, what will be included with the packaging?

Will it include the ingredients? Will the department now have the authority to

ensure what regulations should be put in for packaging of food? What should be

on the labels? A lot of times, if you go through any supermarket and you see the

labelling, the labelling is a lot of times misleading.

This is why we need to see, when the minister can do that, if he is actually

going to include that part of it. It is very, very important, Mr. Speaker, that

people with any health concerns, with any problems for example, high blood

pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol are going to read labels. If we have any

responsibility under this act about labelling, about the food industry and how

we are going to do the packaging of it, we must ensure that the labelling is

there. That it is reader-friendly for the people and it is not misleading to

ensure that people, if they look at it they can read it, understand it and it is

not going to have an ill effect on their health.

Mr. Speaker, there are a few questions I will be asking in Committee. I will

thank you for the time for that. I will be supporting the bill, but hopefully we

can add some suggestions that will strengthen the bill. As was mentioned

earlier, if we strengthen this bill it will give confidence in people of

Newfoundland and Labrador that the food we consume in Newfoundland and Labrador

is prepared properly, is safe, and they will have no ill effects once they

consume the food. I will be supporting the bill, but hopefully we can make the

bill a bit stronger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Minister of Justice speaks now he will close debate

on second reading of Bill 22.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to rise today and speak on behalf of the Minister of Health

and Community Services to bring debate to a close on this particular bill at

this particular point in time as we get ready to move it into Committee stage.

I want to first of all thank all members who participated in this discussion.

As has been referenced a number of times, we are dealing with a bill that we are

trying to, I guess some would say, revise after nearly seventeen years of being

in existence. As others have said, we are in effect really replacing it. The old

Food and Drug Act is now going to be superseded and replaced by the Food

Premises Act.

It is a good piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. It is going to be very modern

and very much in tune with society's expectations and with government's

expectations on how we feel about the preparation of food, and what we feel

needs to be in place to protect members in society. It will certainly provide

lots of clout through its legislative authority.

I want to thank members for their contributions to this debate. There has

been, as I read it at least, overwhelming support for the intent of this bill. I

reference the Member for St. John's North's comments around the regulations and

the importance of reading the fine print and knowing what you are getting into

before you sign on to it. I agree with him, Mr. Speaker, because all of us as

parliamentarians ought to take our jobs very seriously, and we ought to read the

fine print on everything that we are dealing with to make sure we know what we

are signing on to.

With respect to this particular bill, Mr. Speaker, I will just remind the

member that the regulations will follow the bill. I think also my colleague for

the Bay of Islands spoke to that. It is the normal process in this Legislature

that we bring a bill before the House for debate. The bill, Mr. Speaker, is very

much all-encompassing. It is more of a broader visionary statement with somewhat

clearer directions that government intends to take on a particular issue, in

this particular case the Food Premises Act.

Following that, though, Mr. Speaker, regulations normally get developed. They

are not necessarily or normally passed through the House of Assembly. The House

of Assembly deals with the bigger picture of the bill, and the regulations are

normally done after the fact. They are all public. Any member of this House will

have an opportunity to see the regulations. They will have an opportunity to

speak to them if they wish to at any point in time in this Legislature.

I want to say for those who are paying attention to this particular debate,

to make sure people understand the process. That it is the actual legislation

and the bill that comes here and gets debated, as we are debating today. For the

benefit of my colleague from the Bay of Islands, and St. John's North, the

regulations will be developed. It is very clearly understood that the

regulations that get developed have to support the intent of this bill. The

regulations cannot outline a direction or an expectation that contradicts or

contravenes the spirit and intent of this bill, unlike any other piece of

legislation we bring forward. So, I would remind members of that.

There have been a number of questions raised here today, good questions. I

look forward to myself and or my colleague, the Minister of Health and Community

Services, when we get into Committee, having an opportunity to speak to some of

these questions that have been raised and provide more clear direction on the

intent with respect to, for example, whether this applies to hospitals or

community facilities, and whether packaging is going to be included as part of

the regulations here. All of those things, Mr. Speaker, we would be more than

happy to discuss as we move this to the next stage in Committee.

In conclusion, I simply want to thank all members for their co-operation and

for their contribution to this positive piece of legislation that will benefit

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now

read a second time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act Respecting Food Safety In Food Premises. (Bill 22)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been a read a second time.

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

MR. KING: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Food Safety In Food Premises", read a

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

(Bill 22)

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I reference Order 3. I call from the Order Pap