December

15, 2008

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No.

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit Strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we welcome the following members' statements: the

hon. the Member for the District of Baie VerteSpringdale, the hon. the Member

for the District of Port de Grave, the hon. the Member for the District of St.

John's East, the hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley, the hon.

the Member for the District of Ferryland, and the hon. the Member for the

District of Kilbride.

The hon. the Member for the District of Baie VerteSpringdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with a heavy heart that I rise in this hon. House today. Yet at the

same time, it is my distinct honour to pay tribute and to honour a very brave,

courageous, unassuming solider, who at the tender age of twenty-one years, gave

his life for freedom and democracy. In serving others, in giving to others,

Private Justin Peter Jones, son of Anthony and Rowena Jones, hailing from Baie

Verte, Newfoundland and Labrador, paid the ultimate sacrifice.

On Saturday, December 13, 2008, along with two other Canadian soldiers,

Private Justin Jones, while on a routine mission, gave his life to ensure the

safety and security of others. While the Town of Baie Verte is numb today with

the devastating loss, it is also proud of the contribution that Private Justin

Jones not only made to his beloved Canada and to the Afghanistan mission but,

also to his community.

Jonesy, as he was fondly known as by his friends, was a young solider with

the heart of a giver. He gave to the youth of Baie Verte; he gave to his

volunteer fire department; he gave to the sea cadets. He gave to his school. He

gave to his church. Ultimately, he gave his life. To his parents, to his family,

to his community and to his Province, we offer our sincere regrets and pledge

our prayers and support.

Hon. colleagues, while this is a paralyzing time for the Jones' family of

Baie Verte, and the Verge family of Beachside, and while it is a sad moment in

our collective lives, let us recognize and applaud the efforts of Justin Jones,

and forever remember and honour the imprint he had made upon all of us.

Please join me in saluting Private Justin Peter Jones.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, retired registered nurse Ada Simms of Clarke's

Beach was recently presented with the Centennial Award by the Canadian Nurses

Association.

The Centennial Awards were presented to honour exceptional registered nurses

who made a positive impact on nursing and on the lives and health of Canadians.

Ms Simms retired in 1993 after a long list of accomplishments over her

distinguished forty-year career.

She was one of the first nurses in the Province to complete a postgraduate

diploma, received her bachelor of nursing degree from McGill University in 1959,

her Master of Health Services Administration from the University of Alberta, and

since her retirement, her Master of Theological Studies from Queen's

Theological College in 2003.

Ms Simms has served on various committees and associations within her

profession. In 1999, her services to the public were recognized by the Governor

General of Canada, when she was named Serving Sister of the Order of St. John of

Jerusalem. Truly a pioneer in an era when it was known as a man's world.

Humbled by being selected by her colleagues, her quote was "I'm sure

there are many more worthier than I."

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in extending congratulations

to Ms Ada Simms for her many contributions to the profession of nursing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the

House today to recognize the accomplishments of Ms Becky Power, a resident of

St. John's East.

Becky is a competitive sailor who is currently training with the Canadian

National Sailing Team out of Vancouver. She attends the University of British

Columbia, which provides her the opportunity to, if you will pardon the pun,

hone her craft under the tutelage of the coach of the National Sailing Team,

herself a two-time Olympic champion. Becky currently races the Laser Radial,

which is an Olympic class craft.

Becky's long-term plan includes representing the Province at the upcoming

2009 Canada Summer Games in Prince Edward Island, and then to compete for a spot

on the National Sailing Team, ultimately to participate in the 2012 Olympic

Games and beyond. Her prospects for making the national team heightened

significantly recently when she won the gold medal at the annual Pumpkin Bowl

Regatta hosted by the West Vancouver Yacht Club in October. This event included

a very strong field of forty-five sailors, a number of whom are currently on the

National Sailing Team.

Becky sails out of the Royal Vancouver Yacht Club, where she augments her

training by performing with the club's High Performance Racing Team. Her

training regime will also see her go to regattas in Florida in February and

California in March.

Mr. Speaker, I have known Becky's mother for many years, and it has been

very interesting to get the occasionally update and watch as a hobby, an

activity of a young girl, has turned into the possibility of membership on the

National Team and participation in the Olympics - quite a journey.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all the members in this hon. House to join me in

congratulating Becky Power of St. John's East on her regatta win, and to wish

her well in her pursuit of excellence in the Canada Games and beyond.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Patti Bouzanne, a volunteer from my district. Patti Bouzanne is no ordinary

volunteer. Not too many people can legitimately claim to have retired from their

profession because they wanted to devote more time to volunteering.

Patti is involved in a wide array of worthwhile endeavours in the Deer Lake

area, but Bouzanne, a retired teacher, is probably best known as the head of

Xavier Junior High's Kids Eat Smart program, which she started in 1991. They

serve over 100 meals a day now to ensure that every student has an opportunity

to get a healthy meal during the school day.

Bouzanne is also a member of the Catholic Women's League, secretary for the

Deer Lake Food Bank, a layperson with her church, a member of the CWL

bereavement committee, a member of the Vera Perlin Association, a community

convener, a part of the Deer Lake Public Library Board, a member of the white

ribbon campaign against pornography, and a thirty-one year member of the Guiding

movement.

Bouzanne is making sure children learn the benefits of healthy eating.

Everything prepared at school is healthy, and this gives students a chance to

learn the benefits of healthy eating first-hand.

Her years of volunteering have helped create one of the most successful

breakfast and lunch programs in the region. Bouzanne is a great example of how

passion and dedication can bring about positive changes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of hon. House to join me in extending special

recognition to Patti Bouzanne for our outstanding dedication to the Kids Eat

Smart Program and her many volunteer contributions to her community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Master Corporal Jeffrey Walsh, a

constituent of mine from the Town of Bay Bulls, on having been mentioned in

Dispatches by Governor General, hon. Michelle Jean, on June 26, 2008. On

December 2, 2008, the Canadian Forces Chief of Defence Staff officially honoured

Master Corporal Walsh at the Canadian Forces Base in Valcartier, Quebec. Master

Corporal Walsh's parents, Kevin and Edwina, were present for this

presentation.

The Mention in Dispatches is a national honour created to recognize members

of the Canadian Forces on active service for valiant conduct, devotion to duty,

and bringing honour to the Canadian Forces and to Canada. Recipients are

entitled to wear a bronze oak leaf on the appropriate campaign or service medal

ribbon.

On June 4, 2008, Taliban insurgents ambushed and surrounded a partnered

Canadian and Afghan Company of Soldiers, bringing intense and deadly fire to

bear from three sides for over ninety minutes. With Afghan National Army unable

to reinforce the entrapped company, Master Corporal Walsh joined with three

Canadians to form an extraction force that moved without cover through open

fields and enabled the withdrawal of the Company. His decisive action, courage

and unwavering resolve under fire saved Canadian and Afghan lives.

Master Corporal Jeffrey Walsh has served in Afghanistan on two assignments:

first for six months, and returning in October of this year from serving an

eight-month assignment. I would like to recognize the tremendous contribution he

has made and is making on behalf of our country. None of us can truly understand

the environment that our Canadian Forces work in, but yet we do know that

without people like Master Corporal Walsh and his comrades we could not continue

to enjoy the freedoms we enjoy every day.

Newfoundland and Labrador contributes, on a per capita basis, more people to

the Canadian Forces than any other region of this country. We are a proud people

that have never shied away from our duty to protect our fellow man.

I ask all hon. members to join with me in congratulating Master Corporal Jeffrey

Walsh on being recognized for his outstanding service to our country and wish

him Godspeed in all future assignments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, December 11, 2008, I was invited to

attend a presentation at St. Kevin's High School in Goulds where a group of

students and their teacher co-ordinator, Mrs. Barbara O'Keefe, presented a

cheque for $7,094.15 to the Children's Wish Foundation. This money was

generated from a fundraiser done the previous Friday night at the school.

Students from St. Kevin's took

part in a Wake-A-Thon. The $7,094.15 was raised

as a result of these students getting sponsorship from interested people. One

student, Holly Lee, a magnificent young lady and a Wish Child herself, raised

$5,094.15 on her own.

Mr. Speaker, anyone who is awake, alert, or conscious in this Province has

heard about the Children's Wish Foundation and the great work this

organization does for children who have been stricken with medical conditions

that jeopardize their lives. Now, because of the efforts of these caring young

students at St. Kevin's High School, their teachers and parent supervisors,

the Children's Wish Foundation is able to grant the special Christmas wish of

a seventeen-year-old young man in Gander who wants his room equipped with

electronics that will make his life more enjoyable.

Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to announce that, due to the efforts of these

students at St. Kevin's and the generosity of their sponsors, the $7,094.15

raised allows the Children's Wish Foundation the resources needed to entirely

provide this wish. St. Kevin's has decided to make this an annual event.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of this House to join me in offering

thanks to these students at St. Kevin's High School for such a great act of

human kindness.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House to inform hon. colleagues of

the work Aboriginal women are doing to tackle the problem of suicide in their

communities. Aboriginal women from across the island portion of the Province

participated in a suicide intervention workshop that took place in Stephenville

on November 29 and November 30 of this year.

The suicide intervention training workshop was the final in a series that was

part of the Breaking Barriers, Building Strong Minds initiative.

Developed by the Newfoundland Aboriginal Women's Network, an organization

which represents Aboriginal women on the island part of the Province, some

fifty-three women from eighteen communities across the island took

part in one

or more of the workshops.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report to you that thirty-six women completed

all the training, including the suicide prevention training. Many of the women

attending these sessions now have the tools to recognize the risk factors for

suicide and, as well, when called upon, they are able to intervene.

Mr. Speaker, suicide, particularly among young people, is a serious issue for

all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, but has proven to be especially troubling

in Aboriginal communities, where suicide rates for those communities have been

traditionally higher than the provincial average. The Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador, through the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, was

proud to provide financial support for this important initiative. In Budget

2008, $100,000 was supplied to provide grants to Aboriginal governments and

organizations to address suicide and detrimental life issues among Aboriginal

young people throughout our Province.

Mr. Speaker, this suicide intervention training is providing Aboriginal women

with the skills to recognize the warning signs of suicide and to take the

necessary steps to help prevent a tragedy. Aboriginal women have always played a

vital leadership role and continue to demonstrate a strong commitment to improve

the circumstances and well-being of their communities.

I ask my hon. colleagues of this House to applaud the Newfoundland Aboriginal

Women's Network, the organizers of these workshops, and most importantly, the

Aboriginal women who had the courage to take their newly acquired skills back to

their communities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of her statement.

We, too, want to congratulate the Newfoundland Aboriginal Women's Network

for the work they are doing in our Province in being able to train to identify

the suicide within their communities and to intervene where necessary. But, Mr.

Speaker, realistically, this is a huge problem in Newfoundland and Labrador. If

you look at the statistics, in the past year, in 2007, there were fifty-one

suicides in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is only down three suicides from

2005. If you look at where the numbers are escalating, you look at Western

Newfoundland, Central Newfoundland and Eastern Newfoundland; we are seeing an

increase today in the number of suicides in those particular regions.

What I would like to do is encourage the minister and her government to do

more. There is a huge gap when it comes to mental health services in this

Province that will take more than a few workshops to fix. I think we learned

that over the weekend when we seen the child mental health unit at the Janeway

closed down. We saw children in our Province shackled and taken into adult

mental health facilities after dark on a Saturday night. Is this the way that we

should be providing for mental health services in our society, for our children

in particular? We should not be providing that service for any person in the

Province. We should be able to provide proper counselling, proper training,

proper accommodations, and proper treatment. Mr. Speaker

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude her response.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know that what this statement speaks to today is a small piece of

intervention that needs to happen across our communities, not just in Aboriginal

communities but in all communities in this Province. The stats I just gave you

shows an increase in suicide rates in areas of this Province that are not

normally made up of Aboriginal populations, but yet we are seeing the rates

grow.

So I would like for you to at least consider making a commitment

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: not only in that program, but to more importantly look at

the services that are (inaudible) to the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I do thank the minister for the advanced copy of her statement, and as she

says in her statement and has been echoed by the Leader of the Official

Opposition, this is a very serious issue.

I am very happy to see that the Newfoundland Aboriginal

Women's Network has carried on these workshops. I am, obviously, glad that

the government department has been supporting the work that the network is

doing, but I will repeat some of what my colleague has just said because the

issue is so serious.

We need much more than people just trained on the level of the community that

we are talking about here, that has to happen, and more of it has to happen. We

also have to have more social workers, more therapists, more physicians and

psychiatrists to deal with both youth and adults when it comes to recognizing

suicide before it happens, or the potential for suicide, so that we have much

more done in prevention. I think this is one of our biggest weaknesses. We do

not have enough preventative work going on so that we do not even have to get

into suicide intervention. I encourage this government to think very seriously

about the preventative needs that have to be put in place.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform this hon. House of the important steps the provincial

government is taking to develop a Youth Retention and Attraction Strategy for

Newfoundland and Labrador. Government is working in partnership with youth, the

public, and other key stakeholders throughout the Province. We are committed to

this exciting new initiative, which is a critical step towards ensuring all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, especially our youth, are prepared to take

advantage of the significant opportunities that lie ahead and benefit from the

Province's growing prosperity.

The development of the Youth Retention and Attraction Strategy will help to

position Newfoundland and Labrador as a Province of choice for young adults to

live and work, including those living in the Province, Canada and other areas of

the world. The strategy will help ensure the Province retains and attracts a

diverse, educated and engaged population of young adults and families it needs

to secure a sustainable and prosperous future.

Government recognizes that the success of the strategy must reflect the

values, priorities and perspectives of young adults from the Province. We have

established a diverse, nineteen-member Youth Advisory Panel and had the Canadian

Policy Research Networks undertake an extensive youth engagement process to help

us achieve these objectives. They met with 484 youth from across the Province

and in Ontario and Alberta this fall in a series of thirteen deliberative

dialogue sessions. This culminated with a highly successful Provincial Youth

Summit on November 14 and 15 where approximately 140 of these youth came

together to share their views and recommendations on youth retention and

attraction with key stakeholders in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Government also recognizes that the success of the Youth Retention and

Attraction Strategy depends on the ideas and contributions of all residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador as well as partners in the government, business,

labour, education, not-for-profit and community sectors throughout the Province.

We recently launched a new Web site focused on the strategy to help achieve this

goal. The Web site provides background information and an opportunity for all

members of the public to submit their views and recommendations throughout the

month of December.

Our departmental staff will be analyzing all feedback we receive. This

information will play an important role in supporting the strategy development.

The final stage will be developed and released after this process is complete

and we receive final recommendations from the CPRN.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for a copy of her statement and to say that we

in the Official Opposition have to say and agree that this is a good initiative,

Mr. Speaker.

One of the important things, I believe, is that government is working in

partnership with all the stakeholders, whether it is youth or the public. That

is what has to be done in order for any strategy to be successful, is listen to

the views of all stakeholders, and I have to say, this is very important because

it is for the youth of our Province.

I can assure you, and I am sure all hon. colleagues here in the hon. House

know that our youth want to live here in the Province. They want to stay here

and work in our Province. It was only recently, I think, a publication came out

called The Troubadour . It is done by journalism students in the

Stephenville area and there was some very interesting stories there, explaining

why they want to stay here and why they do not want to move outside of our

Province. We all know that the provincial summit that was held recently was very

successful, like the minister said, with 140some-odd young people from around

the Province coming together.

I can assure you that youth retention is very, very important. We want to

wish the Youth Advisory Panel every success in the future working with

government to see that we do retain and have a good future for our young people

right here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

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

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

There is no doubt that the consultations that are going on with young people

and other stakeholders in the Province around youth retention is a very good

initiative and I am really glad to see it happening. I do know that some of the

stakeholders have some very good suggestions to make and will take active

part

in this process and hopefully bring it to a good conclusion.

One of the issues I know that is big for students, and this is certainly

something that the Canadian Federation of Students is concerned about, is the

interest rate that students have to pay on their student loans. High student

loans is one of the reasons that some young people leave the Province after

graduating from our post-secondary institutions. It would only cost this

government $8 million annually if students did not have to pay the provincial

portion of the interest rate on the student loans.

I certainly hope that the minister and those involved in this process will

think about that recommendation from the Canadian Federation of Students and

perhaps I, myself, will put my suggestion on the Web site supporting them.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Mr. Speaker, back on November 25, I asked the minister questions in this

House about services available to mentally ill youth in our Province at the

Janeway, and he answered by saying there was an array of services there. Well,

the minister would be aware that the ward did shut down on Saturday and the

children were moved to the Waterford Hospital in St. John's. The parents and

the administration at the Janeway are telling the parents that they are not sure

when their children will be moved back to the Janeway and when care will be

provided under the children's health facility.

I ask the minister today: Can he give us some indication first of all when

these children are going to be moved back into the Janeway hospital and their

care be provided for there?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This past weekend, very unfortunately, we had two young children who had to

be moved from the psychiatric unit at the Janeway to the Waterford Hospital. It

is a very unfortunate event that came about as a result of nursing staff phoning

in sick for the Saturday evening shift.

The other unfortunate thing about this, Mr. Speaker, is, firstly, these

children find themselves in the situation that they are in and the circumstance

that they are in and feeling as desperate as they feel, and for the families. I

have had an opportunity to meet with the two mothers involved a couple of weeks

back and we will be meeting again on Wednesday coming. It is unfortunate that

these children find themselves in this circumstance and it was very unfortunate

the manner in which they had to be moved this weekend, and were moved this

weekend, in a police car with shackles on them. That is a very unfortunate event

that should never have happened, and I want to acknowledge that here today in

the House. When young children find themselves in that desperate situation, it

is our hope as a Province that we are going to be able to respond and provide

the services that they need.

The question with respect to the Janeway itself, Mr. Speaker, I have been

advised by officials at Eastern Health, as recent as a half hour ago, that they

are now working on the continued treatment of these two young children and also

trying to deal with the staffing issues to allow that unit at the Janeway to

reopen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister acknowledges today that

that is unacceptable treatment. These children are emotionally ill. They are not

criminals in our society, nor should they be treated as such. Minister, it is

quite obvious that the nursing shortage is trickling down to have a significant

impact on health care services in this Province.

Are you telling me today that there is no call-in list at the Janeway

Hospital for children on the ward that suffer from mental illness or no backup

nursing staff to be called in, in a case where someone gets sick?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This past weekend there was a very unusual event at the Janeway, this

particular unit itself. In three of the four nurses who work on that unit in the

evenings, three of them were not available on Friday evening. Then on Saturday

evening, the Eastern Health received a call on Saturday morning from all four of

the nurses who were due to work that evening and they were not able to come into

work due to illness. It is an unusual occurrence. The issue about having staff

to call in, there are staff in relief in that area. There is a complement of

staff because there are rotations of individuals through twenty-hour hours a

day, seven days a week. That was a very unusual event to find that number of

people with that specialized training.

One of the things we need to be very careful of, is this is a very

specialized unit. The people who work there have specialized training. So it is

not a matter of having a nurse come in and be a part of that unit. This person

needs to have some very specialized training. Given the circumstance of the two

young children who are in that unit, just putting a body in there for the sake

of having a nurse was not appropriate. The safety of the children was the first

thing in the minds of the physicians who were treating these people. It was

their clinical assessment that it was in their best interest as children, and

their safety would be better served if they were moved to the Waterford because

there was not an adequate staff there to be able to provide the supports that

would be necessary at the Janeway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

From what I understand, the children were committed under the Mental Health

Act in order to be transported to the Waterford Hospital, which, in essence,

meant that the parents had no longer any parental right or decision-making power

over their child.

I ask the minister: Why was that the case, and why was it necessary in this

instance?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: This is a very delicate position, Mr. Speaker. I find myself

in a very precarious position because we are in the public Legislature, in a

televised discussion. The member opposite is raising questions around the

treatment of two children at the Janeway this weekend. I appreciate and

understand this, and I appreciate and understand the challenges that the family

is trying to deal with. I am sensitive also to some privacy issues here, so

talking about the clinical judgements and the assessments that would have been

done by the psychiatrists and other treating clinicians on that weekend would

have made that call and that determination in the best interests and the safety

of the children.

To debate what kind of considerations the clinicians may have given during

that discussion, it would be inappropriate to do that in the public domain

because it is difficult to do it without betraying the trust and the confidence

of these two children and their families.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are not asking the minister to betray anyone's confidences here, or to

get into privacy information, but this is a serious problem in this Province and

we can no longer brush it under the rug. It needs to be dealt with publicly,

openly, and fixed.

My next question, Minister, is: Now that these children are committed under

the Mental Health Act, and their parents do not have the parental responsibility

that they do, it seems that their visiting rights are also being limited at the

Waterford Hospital. Normally, at the Janeway, they would have the opportunity to

visit and spend an extraordinary amount of time with the children as permitted

throughout the day. At the Waterford, they are restricted to visiting hours. I

ask if there is a way that can be changed, at least until they are moved back

into the Janeway Hospital.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: If the member opposite is suggesting something that she has

factual knowledge of, I am not really certain what the protocol would be around

visiting hours. I would, however, comment, as a parent myself, that I would

expect and would want to be a part of my child's treatment. If, in fact,

having these children at the Waterford changes the parents' access to that,

then that is something I will have some discussion with Eastern Health in and

around.

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

MS JONES: I certainly appreciate that; because these parents were

informed just before I came to the Legislature, by Eastern Health, that they

were sticking to a certain visiting policy in a certain time frame and they were

not prepared to be flexible.

Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago the minister committed to reviewing the 2003

Youth Mental Health Services Report that had been in the department for five

years without any action.

I ask the minister today: Now that your department and your officials have

had an opportunity to complete this review, what actions will you be taking to

effectively address this issue in the short term and also in the long term?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, in response to a question along those lines a

couple of weeks ago, I had indicated to members opposite that I had instructed

officials to do a review and evaluation of that report, to look at the

current-day data and circumstance and what the best practices would be today. On

Wednesday morning of this week, I can report, Mr. Speaker, I will be meeting

with those same officials and I will be review their recommendations and the

analysis they have done, and any new information they can bring to bear as we

look at what we are going to do in the long-term interest of children and their

families who are living with mental illness in this Province.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not claim to be any expert, because I am not - I have very limited

knowledge of this issue but last weekend I did visit a youth mental health

treatment facility in Ontario, and it was a facility that was providing for

treatment not just for youth in that area but for youth in different parts of

Canada, and I did have an opportunity to speak to some children who were in that

program, and the people who run the program.

I would like to ask the minister today: As a short-term measure, something

that we can do immediately, is it possible to put in place some kind of program

and service to allow for some of these youth to be able to attend a treatment

facility there and have the parental and family supports accompany it, so that

they can participate in a program like that until we have something more

permanent?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, the option of having children go out of the

Province has always been available. That is something that you have raised in

this House many times, and suggesting that we should do it ourselves here,

because we have been doing it out of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, that option has always been there. If she is raising it with

respect to the two children in question here now, I understand from this morning's

conversation that the people who are providing treatment and services to these

two children today are looking at their options, which might include some

out-of-Province treatment as a short-term measure, but I say, Mr. Speaker, that

option is something we have always been doing.

What we are now looking at and will be talking a bit further on, on

Wednesday, is whether that option would be available and whether or not we, as a

Province, should move towards establishing that kind of program within our own

Province rather than continue to have it available outside; but, as a short-term

measure, we will continue to do as we have always done and make those services

available to the children who need them outside of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously we want to see a treatment facility in Newfoundland and Labrador,

and we have never made any bones about that, but right now we are in a desperate

situation. Two of those youth were scheduled to go out of the Province for

treatment and it went off the rails over the last couple of weeks. Right now

there is nothing in place to treat these young people, other than to keep them

confined to the Waterford Hospital in St. John's. That is unacceptable.

I ask today, Minister, in light of this: Can you at least call together the

team of experts in this Province to look at these particular cases and see if

something can be done immediately, in the short term, to address the problem so

that at least it is not continuing to escalate at the level that it is now?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, clearly the level of service and the range of

service and the kind of services that these two children need, I will leave that

to clinical people who are better able to make that judgement. As a government,

as a Department of Health and Community Services and as a minister, my

commitment on behalf of government is that those services will be made available

if the clinicians deem that it is appropriate that is the kind of treatment they

need. That is consistent with what we have done in the past. We always want to

make sure - and this is to be said for many services, sometimes we find

ourselves as a Province not having a level of service that people may need.

Whenever that has happened, we have made available to those people in the

Province those services in some other jurisdiction.

We will continue to make that kind of commitment for any program and service

that we cannot provide here ourselves.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My next questions are for the Minister of Finance.

I am aware that he did meet with some of the skilled trades people over lunch

on the steps and has agreed to meet with them on Friday. Mr. Speaker, I had an

opportunity to meet with this group last week, and it is quite obvious that they

are employees with Eastern Health who feel that their wages are significantly

less compared to their counterparts in other public sector organizations such as

Memorial University and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

I ask the minister: Why are these employees being paid less for equal work

and equal services than those in other government agencies?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I did have a meeting earlier today with the individuals, the trades

workers, and had a discussion with them, heard their concerns, and agreed to

meet with them on Friday, at which time we will have further discussions;

however, Mr. Speaker, I must emphasize that what we have here is a 20 per cent

wage offer that is currently on the table, which compounds to 21.5 per cent. I

think I would be remiss if I did not state that, that offer was already accepted

by the Association of Allied Health Professionals on Friday, CUPE group homes,

and today by the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association over

6,000 teachers who today have reached a tentative agreement.

So I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that what we have done here, we are being

fair to our workers and, in fairness to this particular group, I will meet with

them on Friday and hear their discussions, but we are doing everything we can

and, again, I will emphasize that this wage offer, this wage package, is more

than generous.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, this is not an issue about voting to accept a wage

offer that government has on the table. It is an issue about having people

employed within government services doing the same job with the same

qualifications but yet being paid at different levels.

Mr. Speaker, we raised this issue in the House of Assembly last spring and,

after some negotiation between the group and government, this group was told

that their union should put it on the top of the list for collective bargaining.

It was on the top of the list. It then got removed to deal with all the other

issues.

I ask the government today: Why did it not get addressed before the

collective bargaining process was complete?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Although I know that Ms Furlong does not need me to pick up for her, the

insinuation seems to be made by the Leader of the Opposition that the President

of NAPE is not doing her job. That is really, truly, an unfortunate allegation

being made.

As for these workers, Mr. Speaker, what we have is a situation where they are

represented by a union. There is a bargaining unit within that union.

Discussions have been ongoing. I do not know every detail, Mr. Speaker, of every

bargaining unit, what has gone on. I do know, however, that one of the

complaints being made by this group of workers is that they are not paid in

comparison I think their sign said fair market value or fair market

treatment and we have situations where I understand workers at Memorial

University and also at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro are making more money.

Well, those are separate employers, Mr. Speaker; they are separate. They set

their rates and they deal with them. The union is there and are looking after

these workers' interests and, as I have indicated, I will meet with them on

Friday and we will take it from there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government likes to talk about pattern bargaining, and prides itself on

paying people right across the board the same wage for the same work and so on.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify first of all with the minister that it

is not my insinuation that the union is not doing their job. It is obviously his

assumption.

Let me ask him this: Are you prepared to do a fair market analysis for all

the skilled tradespeople at Eastern Health comparing them with the university

and with the Hydro to ensure that they are all being paid at the same levels for

the same work and the same service?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, first, in relation to the comment that government likes to talk

about pattern bargaining, what we are talking about is a fair and generous wage

offer in economic times where prudent, fiscal management demands that we look

after the finances of this Province. What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is we are

being fair to our employees, our public sector employees. We are offering them a

wage package that is unprecedented in this country right now.

What I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, despite the union representation here of

the Leader of the Opposition, I have indicated to these workers that I will meet

with them, I will hear their concerns and we will take it from there on Friday.

Now, I do not know what else I can say, Mr. Speaker. I have said it three

times. These people today, these gentlemen on the steps, I do not know if there

were any ladies there, they were very polite and co-operative and I gave them my

assurance that I would meet with them and hear from them, and I will do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Public provincial employees working in the Sheriff's Office, the provincial

court, Crown prosecutions, the Legal Aid Commission and the probation office

downtown are expected to park in private accommodations and parking garages.

They have been notified, Mr. Speaker, that their fees will increase by $600 this

year. We know that the minister and the Minister of Justice have received

correspondence from these workers.

We are asking today if they are prepared to consider implementing a parking

rate for those employees that would be on par with that of which every other

public sector employee pays?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the situation that exists with the downtown

parking. I am aware of a lot of the people who work in provincial court and the

difficulties that they are having. Some of these employees, Mr. Speaker, make

considerably less money, but if she is talking about Crown prosecutors and legal

aid lawyers who are making $100,000 a year, than I certainly do not have the

same sympathy I have for them as we do for individuals who are working in the

offices.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the bargaining of the Leader of the

Opposition today, but these people have unions. NAPE is at the table with us as

we speak. Ms Furlong has been certainly very firm in putting forward her

position for it, as has Mr. Blundon. I am not aware if that issue is at the

bargaining table, but it is something we are aware of, Mr. Speaker. My

colleague, the Minister of Justice, might know the numbers, but I think there

were hundreds of employees downtown in this situation, and it is not simply a

matter that we have a half dozen employees, there are hundreds of employees in

this situation.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to remind the minister that judges who are in the $100,000

salary bracket do get free parking, Mr. Speaker.

Many of these employees - and the minister will know if he has read his

correspondence - are at the bottom of the scale in the public service. They are

at clerk positions, they are probation officers and they do not even escalate to

a very high salary, I say to the minister, but, Mr. Speaker, they are in a

different bracket than all other public servants and that is the reason we raise

the issue today.

We would like to ask that some consideration be given, that if all other

members of the public service are going to pay a regular parking permit fee than

why not those employees that have to be housed outside of Confederation

Building?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me be clear on one point, and I think I may be able to speak for the

Premier on this one. The judges would not be getting their free parking if it

was left to me. I have no sympathy for individuals who are making as much money

as judges are making downtown getting free parking. First, let's be clear on

that.

The second point, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a situation where there are

hundreds of employees who are looking for parking. If you chose to work

downtown, if your job is downtown, then it is unfortunate that there are costs

that come with that.

Mr. Speaker, I know a lot of these people who are working in that provincial

court situation, in the Sheriff's Office and Supreme Court, and if there was a

way to assist them in this situation, we certainly would, but again, Mr.

Speaker, there is a union that represents these people. This union can bring

this matter forward to the bargaining table. I am not sure if that matter has

been brought forward, but as for the employees who are making the salaries of

Crown prosecutors, legal aid lawyers or judges, I certainly do not have any

sympathy in that circumstance for them paying their own parking.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This past summer a tender was let for the removal of 30,000 tons of PCB

contaminated soil from the New Harbour landfill.

Can the minister inform this House how many tons of contaminated soil has

been actually removed since that tender was let, and to where has it been

transported?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Acting Minister of Environment and

Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I do believe there has been 20,000 tons that have been removed, and it has

been shipped to the treatment facility in Sunnyside.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the hon. minister that

since that tender was let, and this was only released about a week-and-a-half

ago, there has been 120,000 tons removed from that site and it is still

incomplete, I say to the minister. I would say that he had better follow up on

his work on what is happening there.

Mr. Speaker, in July of this year a meeting was held on the site which took

place with officials from government, Mr. Williams and other interested parties,

and the hon. Member for Bellevue was invited but he had another function on.

This meeting took place on the site and the individuals were promised a meeting

with the residents of the area.

I ask the minister: When will your department hold a public meeting and

explain to the people of those communities how your department can assure their

health and safety concerns are taken care of?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Acting Minister of Environment and

Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that people need to be very

clear on here, is that from the outset there were a number of concerns that were

raised about the New Harbour dump. There has been ongoing testing that has gone

on at that particular site.

Second to that, Mr. Speaker, the officials recently met with the committee.

They looked at further testing that needed to be done there. The consultants

have been engaged and there is going to be further testing done, and it has been

committed to the people that if there are contaminants found there that need to

be shipped out, they will be shipped out, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On February 18, 2008, in a notice of commencement of an environmental

assessment, Transport Canada proposed to remediate two areas of contaminant soil

at the Stephenville Airport. In a response to a question on December 8, the

minister stated that the site at Barachois Brook was an approved soil treatment

facility. In a second question I asked him, he wanted to make it very clear to

the residents of that area that this site does not accept toxic or contaminated

material. I have to say to the minister, the material that is being taken there

has petroleum contaminants, PCBs and solvents.

Why was this contaminant soil sent to another site for remediation if it was

not considered to be a toxic material in the beginning?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Acting Minister of Environment and

Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, in speaking with officials from the department,

the soil that was transported to Barachois Brook was not of a toxic nature where

it had to be treated differently than it would be at the other ten or twelve

like facilities in the Province. This group made an application for this

treatment facility. They met all standards as were outlined by the Department of

Environment and Conservation, and as such, Mr. Speaker, have met all the

standards as laid out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that the site that was approved

did not go through all the procedures. My question was not answered and I cannot

understand, for the life of me - and the residents of Barachois Brook cannot

understand if the material was not contaminated soil, why was it sent to a

remediation site in their area and posed health problems that they believe, to

them?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Acting Minister of Environment and

Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I cannot act on what the people of the area

believe. What we have here is a facility, a treatment facility that made

application to government. They met all standards and, as such, I cannot say

anything beyond that. The material that came there was treated, carried to a

facility and treated, and then disposed of in a landfill site. Any more than

that, Mr. Speaker, I cannot say. They met all standards.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal HillQuidi

Vidi.

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

My questions are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

He has already spoken earlier in Question Period with regard to the

unfortunate incident at the Janeway Hospital over the weekend, and he has

recognized that it was unfortunate and hopefully would never happen again, but I

would like to know from the minister: Is there a protocol in place for youth

patient transfers? He has recognized that the way in which the transfer happened

was not acceptable. Is there a protocol in place and, if so, what is it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: There are two aspects to this, I say, Mr. Speaker. Once an

individual has been committed under the Mental Health Act then there is a

protocol that is arranged between the health authorities and either the RNC or

the RCMP for that transport. At other times, if they are not committed under

that particular piece of legislation, the protocol would be by way of an

ambulance transfer or some other means of escorting the patient to another

facility; but, once committed, the protocol would rest between the health

authority and one of the police forces.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal HillQuidi

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: I want to get this clear. It is the understanding of the

minister that there is no difference in protocol for adults and children, that

it is the same protocol?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The distinction, I say, Mr. Speaker, is made whether or not the individual is

being committed under the Mental Health Act. That is the distinguishing

characteristic.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal HillQuidi

Vidi.

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

I thank the minister. I wanted to be clear on that because then I have a

concern that, because of - and if I am wrong he can say so, but I think he has

already confirmed this because of an emergency situation due to lack of

adequate human health resources these children had to be put under the Mental

Health Act, which is supposed to be there to preserve their rights.

In this situation, would the minister tell me: Does he think that a lack of

human health resources this weekend actually took away the rights of these

patients?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, psychiatrists in this Province, other health

practitioners, will take this particular decision very seriously, I suspect.

Any time anyone is committed under that act, Mr. Speaker, as the member

opposite would know herself, any time that would happen it is not done lightly.

It is after very serious consideration for the safety of the individual

involved, and it is with that that those clinicians make that determination.

Trying to connect the events of this weekend, and having these two children

committed under that act, to the issue of some human resource issues as being a

natural occurrence, I think that is a bit of a stretch, Mr. Speaker. This is far

too serious an issue, and far too serious a decision, and far too complex a

decision; these clinicians would have to give consideration to multiple factors

in making that determination.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would not want any member of this House, or any of the public, to suggest

that these decisions are made frivolously, considering only human resource

issues. This is a very complex issue, and there are very complex considerations

when someone makes that determination and a psychiatrist makes that

determination to have the person committed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: In compliance with the Public Tender Act, I herewith table

the Public Tender Act Exceptions for the months of May, June, July, August,

September and October 2008.

Further tabling of documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape La

Hune.

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

that:

WHEREAS twenty-two women in Newfoundland and Labrador have been murdered by

their intimate partners since 1986; and

WHEREAS the prevalence and severity of violence against women by their

partners continues to increase in Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has taken special measures to decrease the

prevalence and severity of violence against women through its 2006-2012 violence

prevention initiative action plan; and

WHEREAS the special measures the government is undertaking include the

development of a public awareness campaign to prevent male violence against

women which is to be implemented in 2009, the development of a family violence

treatment court program which includes the development of new treatment programs

for offenders beginning in 2009 and the continued partnership with the ten

regional violence prevention coordinating committees and other provincial

partners;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly affirms its support for

the goals and actions of the violence prevention initiative and calls upon all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to take action to prevent violence against

women and spread the message that violence against women is absolutely

unacceptable.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of the Long Island Causeway

committee. This is a group of people, not just in Long Island but from all

around that particular area, who have been lobbying government and, in

particular, their member and the Minister of Transportation and Works to have a

causeway built to Long Island.

Mr. Speaker, there was a commitment made under a previous Administration that

a causeway would be built to Long Island connecting it with the Pelly's Island

area. Most people that would not be familiar with this area should understand

that on Long Island there is no school and all the children are ferried everyday

and then put on a bus and bussed over a gravel road to Pelly's Island which is

where they go to school. So for people on Long Island, having a causeway was

probably a dream they had for many years and was very excited back in 2001and

2002 when they learned that one could be built there at a cost, I think it was,

of somewhere around $20 million.

Mr. Speaker, when this current Administration took office in 2003 one of

their first pieces of business was to cancel the Long Island Causeway. Not

necessarily put it on hold, not to rethink it, but to absolutely cancel it.

Mr. Speaker, it took them from 2003 right up until 2008, nearly five years to

decide what would be the transportation mode for the people in Long Island. Mr.

Speaker, at the end of the day, what they announced was that there would be a

new ferry for the people of Long Island and Little Bay Islands. People might

say: Well, a new ferry, that is a good thing; they are going to get a new ferry

going to Long Island. In reality, the ferry will be shared with Little Bay

Islands, which means that both communities will have a downgrading of their

service. In fact, after twenty-five years, this is the worst service that will

ever be seen in Long Island as a result of this Administration's decisions.

Mr. Speaker, these decisions were not made in consultation with the people of

Long Island. In fact, they were not even made in consultation with their own MHA,

who had been lobbying to have the causeway built for the people in that

community. His voice was not even heard inside the caucus and inside of the

government opposite, as I am sure is the case for many other MHAs. If they only

were to step forward on some of these issues and actually tell the real story, I

am sure we would find out that there are many others over there whose voices are

going in the wilderness and not being heard.

This particular ferry is not being done for the people of Long Island. In

fact, if it was, the minister would have at least given and shown them the

respect and courtesy and decency of going to Long Island to announce the ferry,

but, in fact, they announced it in Marystown as a big industrial project for the

people of the Burin Peninsula, to date, which we have yet to see any work

started on the two ferries down there. The e-mails that I am getting from people

in Marystown and from the Burin Peninsula area are telling me that there is no

activity ongoing around these ferries whatsoever. What was supposed to be a good

news announcement to increase industry

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that her time for presenting a

petition has long expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have dozens of these petitions for Long Island, so I will present more

tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

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

It is a pleasure to stand today and present another petition on behalf of the

residents of Conception Bay North with regards to a long-term care facility. The

petition I have today is signed by residents from Perry's Cove, South River,

Blackhead, Upper Island Cove, Victoria, Harbour Grace.

Mr. Speaker, the long-term care facility that I reference is a 210 bed

facility that was on the books some time ago, included in that was a

three-bungalow dementia facility with ten beds each. It was only this weekend, I

know of families who have called me, who have family members now who are

occupying beds at Carbonear General Hospital because the facilities out there

cannot take them and they cannot even get them into other facilities here in St.

John's. So it is becoming a crucial problem. It is not only the age of the two

facilities that are there now, which have served the residents for many, many

years, but the numbers of beds that are available is another issue.

Mr. Speaker, this is not about something, standing and fighting for a road or

a bit of water and sewer in your own district, this is on behalf of all the

people in that immediate area, and where the facility is built is immaterial. It

served the purpose of the people in that area, from the town that it is in now

and the Town of Carbonear. We will leave that to the professionals and the

consultants when the time comes, where it will be built.

It is not only an issue for half-a-dozen people. There are 40,000 to 50,000

residents who would avail of the services in this area when the new facility is

built. We appreciate the fact that government is doing those facilities in other

communities around the Province, but we are asking that they reconsider the

long-term care facility for the Conception Bay North area, and hopefully this

year we will hear something on that facility, too, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of the public service employees

who work with the provincial court, the probation office, the Crown attorney's

office, special prosecutions, victim services, fines administration, and the

Sheriff's Office.

Mr. Speaker, these are the same employees that I asked questions about in

Question Period. The Minister of Finance liked to leave the impression that

these are a bunch of employees who are at the higher end of the salary bracket

of the public service and therefore, why should we be subsidizing their

particular parking?

Well, it is not necessarily as the minister indicates. First of all, there

are two things here. Many of these employees are some of the lowest paid civil

servants in the Province. I know this because I have met with a number of them.

I know what their salaries are. In fact, I know that some of these public

servants do not earn enough to actually live in their own homes but actually

live in publicly funded housing in the Province. Mr. Speaker, these things I do

know. So, that does not sound like, to me, public servants who are making a

whole load of cash and therefore should have no problem with paying for their

parking down at Atlantic Place.

Mr. Speaker, these particular employees are in all different salary brackets,

but the reality is this, they are still public servants. Every other public

servant in this Province who works in public office has subsidized parking

through parking permits which are provided and for which they pay an annual fee

to access that particular permit to park in that particular area.

Well, those who work downtown with the public service are being asked now to

pay $145 per month for their parking, which is an extra $50 per month over what

they would have paid last year. That is an extra $600 a year that they are being

asked now to pay for parking.

Mr. Speaker, it would be different if everybody in the public service had to

pay whatever the going rate is, wherever they are, to park, but that is not the

case, and this is a group of workers that do not fit into the same mould as all

the other public servants.

Mr. Speaker, in the conversations that we have had with them for example,

with probation officers in particular - when they leave and go out for

appointments and they come back, oftentimes they cannot even find parking spots.

As a result of it, they are asking their clients to come to see them where they

work, so that they do not have to be parked somewhere on the street downtown,

trying to find a place to park to get back to their office.

It is impacting the services that these people provide. If that was not the

case, these probation officers would be going out and seeing their clients as

opposed to their clients having to come to them, so it is impacting the service.

Mr. Speaker, even those who are right across the road at the Supreme Court

have subsidized parking or permit parking at a reasonable rate, if not free,

being offered through federal or provincial governments.

It is this particular group that is impacted. I raise it in the House on

their behalf only because I think the minister should give it some consideration

and look at whether there can be some other parking permit or some other subsidy

worked out on behalf of those employees.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

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

Resources, Motion 4, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn

at 5:30 o'clock p.m. today, being Monday, December 15, 2008.

Mr. Speaker, I also move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources,

Motion 5, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock

p.m. today, being Monday, December 15, 2008.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House

do not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock p.m. today, Monday, December 15, 2008.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: It is also moved, according to Standing Order 11, that the

House do not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock p.m. today, Monday, December 15, 2008.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

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

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

Government Services, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend

The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 66)

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

Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To

Amend The Highway Traffic Act, Bill 66, and that this bill be now read a first

time.

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

introduce Bill 66, 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'.

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill,

"An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act," carried. (Bill 66)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 66)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 66 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 66 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Government Services, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act

Respecting The Practice Of Engineering And Geoscience. (Bill 73)

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

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

of Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act

Respecting The Practice Of Engineering And Geoscience, Bill 73, 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'.

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill,

"An Act Respecting The Practice Of Engineering And Geoscience,"

carried. (Bill 73)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act Respecting The Practice Of Engineering And

Geoscience. (Bill 73)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 73 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 73 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, from the Order Paper, Second Reading of Bills,

Order 26, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Student Financial

Assistance Act No. 2. (Bill 52)

MR. SPEAKER: We will continue with second reading of

An Act To Amend The

Student Financial Assistance Act No. 2. (Bill 52)

The hon. the Member for the District of Signal HillQuidi Vidi adjourned

debate on Thursday past.

The hon. the Member for the District of Signal HillQuidi Vidi.

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

I am very pleased to be able to continue speaking on Bill 52, on amending the

Student Financial Assistance Act No. 2. The point I had gotten to in my

discussion was probably the main point that I am going to be making.

At the end of Thursday afternoon I started to talk about the Student

Financial Assistance Act,

section 16. In the Student Financial Assistance Act,

section 16, this act gives the Lieutenant-Governor in Council the power to set

lower interest rates for debts owed to the Crown, or the corporation as a result

of the Crown, or the corporation fulfilling the obligations of a borrower under

a student loan agreement. So, the act allows the Lieutenant-Governor in Council

to lower interest rates, and for me it begs the question - the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council has the right at any time to bring in amendments

as well to a bill, just like they are doing here today, bringing in something

which is asking us to put a new piece in the bill, and the new piece in the bill

is an amendment that is recognizing the members of the reserve force who carry

student loans.

I notice that the amendment is very wide open. It gives a lot of power to the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council, because the amendment says - it relates to

section (

e) of the act, and

section (

e) of the act, which is an important

section, says that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may set lower interest

rates, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may also make regulations with regard

to lowering interest rates, and now what the act will say is that the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations respecting the circumstances

in which no interest is payable by members of the reserve force in respect of

their student loans. So, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council will even determine

what the circumstances might be where no interest is payable; they also will be

given the power of making regulations respecting the circumstances in which no

fees may be charged to members of the reserve force on their student loans; and,

finally, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations respecting the

circumstances in which no amount on account of principle or interest is required

to be paid by members of the reserve force in respect of their student loans. So

the amendment is wide open, benefiting members of the reserve force.

I did say on Thursday, and I will reiterate, that I have no problem with

recognizing reserve force and I will be voting for the bill, but it is really

interesting how the government recognizes the power that it has to bring in an

amendment that allows them to make even more decisions with regard to interest

rates than the ones that are already in the bill. The government recognizes the

power that it has to do whatever it wants in terms of bringing in amendments to

this bill.

That is why I have to ask the government to think about and I would like

an explanation from the minister why it won't go the whole way, and look

at the unfair and unjust requirement that we have, that students should pay an

interest rate on their student loans. Education is a right, and what we are

doing is charging a fee to students in order to be educated, an extra fee based

on money. An interest rate is a fee on money. I have real problems with the fact

that we don't recognize the usury nature of what we are doing in charging an

interest rate on a student loan, students who are trying to get an education so

that they can get a well paying job and stay in this Province.

The Canadian Federation of Students has taken time to tally what it would

mean if the provincial part of the interest rate on student loans was no longer

paid and they have come up with some significant figures.

I will give an example, first, of an individual. If there were a student loan

where the provincial part was approximately $19,000, if that was the provincial

part of the loan, the loan itself being about $47,600, students paying the

provincial interest would repay $23,694. In other words, they would pay an extra

4,500 just in interest on the provincial part of the loan. If we forgave the

provincial part of the interest rate, students in this Province would have

approximately $4,500 less to pay on their loans. Now, that is based on a pretty

modest loan of $47,000. We know students who have loans up in the range of

$100,000. Having no interest to pay would really help them.

The Canadian Federation of Students has calculated - and they are very

careful about the calculations they do, and if we go online to the Federation's

website we find a calculator there of student loans that they run continually

and we get really startling information about the student loans in this country.

What they have calculated is that if this Province were to stop the interest

rate on the provincial part of the loan and students no longer had to pay 4.75

per cent of the student loan, all it would cost this Province annually is $8

million. I say all because $8 million is not a lot of money, but imagine what it

would do for our students if they had that much less - if every month, for

example, they did not have another $200 that they had to take out of their

pocket and give to somebody; that they did not have to take the $200 out of

their pocket, and that is a bare minimum. Many students have to pay more than

that on a monthly basis with regard to the provincial part of the loan.

So imagine if they had $200 that they could keep in their pocket. This would

be amazing! Yet, this government just continues to act as if this is a

tremendously heavy thing to be asking. Eight million dollars as an investment in

our youth, $8 million as an investment in our young people who have become

educated at university and college, $8 million to help them get on their feet,

to stand more soundly on their feet financially. I think it is really a modest

thing that the Canadian Federation of Students is requesting.

I know that this government has taken steps to help students. Our fixed

tuition rate that we have had now for a number of years is a wonderful way to

go, and I would be the first person to say that. I would love to see no tuition

fee at all; they have done it in other countries, but this would be a step

towards helping our young people even more by removing the provincial part of

the interest rate on the student loans.

What I am asking this government to do, Mr. Speaker, is recognize not just

the needs of one group of people, not just the needs of the people who are in

the reserve force. It is wonderful that they have thought of them and they have

thought about trying to give them a help and trying to think about the times in

which maybe it would be good for them not to have to pay interest, but I would

like to suggest that for all of our young people who are in debt because of

their education, something which they should not have to be, that we recognize

all of them, not just one group. Let's not pit one group against another, let's

see the need of all of our young people in this Province.

While I will obviously vote for this bill, I look forward to the day when I

stand in this House and vote on a bill that says that this government wants, not

just to remove the interest rate temporarily, not just to lower that interest

rate a little bit, but to actually bring an amendment that would say: yes, we

want to lower the interest rate, but we want to lower it to zero when it comes

to the provincial part of the student debt.

I am very pleased that I had an opportunity to speak to this bill, Mr.

Speaker. I would hope that when the minister speaks perhaps she would be able to

give us an idea of whether or not this government is willing to consider further

the proposal of the Canadian Federation of Students, and a proposal that I

certainly support, and that is that we totally remove the provincial part of the

interest that students have to pay on their loan.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

If the hon. the Minister of Education and Government House Leader speaks now

she will close the debate on Bill 52,

An Act To Amend The Student Financial

Assistance Act No. 2.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to address some concerns that we have heard during this debate,

some questions regarding this particular bill. At first I would like to address

the comments and the questions and concerns put forth by the hon. Member for

Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. She has expressed the desire that we have heard from the

Canadian Federation of Students regarding having no interest on the student

loans.

Mr. Speaker, I am unable today to speak to what may or may not happen as we

go through the budget process within government, but what I can say is this

government does have a very strong record of supporting students and being able

to see what we can do to reduce student debt. As acknowledged by the hon. member

as well, the fact that we have had a tuition freeze now since 2003 at our public

post-secondary institutions.

Further to that, Mr. Speaker, we also decreased the interest rates on student

loans from prime plus 2.5 per cent to prime. We also brought back something that

students had I think up until the mid-1990s which were the up-front

needs based grants, where now a student who applies for a student loan and is

eligible for the provincial portion, which is $140 a week maximum provincial

portion, that anything that is awarded in that loan over $70 a week would be in

a grant. For a student who is on a maximum student loan who would be eligible

for $140 a week, the first $70 would be a loan and the second $70 would be a

grant, and that is certainly very welcomed by the students as well.

To address some of the concerns that came up, there were questions around the

two-year period and what we meant by that. Mr. Speaker, that relates to a

student who was a reservist who was injured in duty. Certainly, for two years

following their return, if they have been injured, there would be no interest or

payments required on the student loan.

The time of service, the time that a student would be a reservist and would

be away from school, would be a period of time dictated by that period of

deployment, but when they come back there would be a period of six months that

they would have for whatever reasons they may need, and depending on the time of

year, before they would be required to be back in school.

The definition of a student requires somebody to be a full-time student. Each

of our post-secondary institutions certainly defined what full-time studies

mean, and we certainly follow the definition of a full-time student.

It was also asked what was meant by designated service. That is a term from

the Department of National Defence, which defines deployment of their

reservists. We certainly would follow what they look at as designated services

by that definition to indicate that a reservist is in active duty.

What we are talking about here is the suspension of payment and interest for

the time that they are actually in that designated service and up to a period of

six months when they return or two years if there had been an injury.

We did not consult in this particular incident with the Canadian Federation

of Students or local student groups for the simple reason at this time that this

is federal legislation and we are basically mirroring the federal legislation to

bring both provincial and federal legislation together to ensure that if a

person is a full-time student and they go into a designated service as a

reservist that the rules that apply to their particular student loan would be

the same from the federal part of their loan, the federal portion, as the

provincial portion as well.

So this legislation that we are bringing forward is not unique; it is

basically bringing in line the provincial regulations, the rules around the

provincial portion of the loan, that have already been in place by the federal

government.

The last comment that I would like to make is that there were also questions

regarding the cost. Based on our numbers, and of course obviously numbers change

based on the number of reservists, but just based on our numbers right now, this

initiative, and although it gives great recognition to the work of reservists,

we also acknowledge that there are not a lot of full-time students who are

called away to service as a reservist and the cost, at this point, will probably

be around or less than $1,000.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I think that I have addressed the concerns and the

questions that were brought forth from my hon. colleagues here in the House of

Assembly to debate this issue, and with that, Mr. Speaker, I conclude debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 52 be now read a

second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act No.

2. (Bill 52)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 52 has now been read a second time.

When shall the said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act

No. 2," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole

House on tomorrow. (Bill 52)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 28, second reading of a bill,

An Act To

Amend The Mineral Act. (Bill 62)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 62,

An Act To Amend The

Mineral Act, be now read a second time.

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

Act." (Bill 62)

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

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as part of government's continued commitment to maintaining a

strong and productive minerals industry we are today introducing changes to the

Mineral Act to improve its efficiency and competitiveness.

These changes, Mr. Speaker, are largely of a housekeeping nature but are

important to maintaining the effectiveness of the Mineral Act as the Province's

main vehicle for administering the land tenure system for mineral exploration

and mining activity.

When I attend mining-related events and conferences, I am told over and over

again that Newfoundland and Labrador is the best Province in this country in

which to do this kind of work.

We provide incentives for exploration, our regulatory process is efficient,

and our on-line information system is award-winning, and we have a stable,

attractive business environment.

It is our goal to maintain this reputation, and to that end we are

continually evaluating our programs and regulations to ensure that we are on the

leading edge of mineral exploration and development.

The amended Mineral Act will be more effective in the management of mineral

lands and will provide more active mineral exploration and development. Changes

are being made to tighten the conditions for issuance of mining leases so that

these are only issued in areas where a mineral resource has been identified, and

not as a means of simply extending ownership of mineral lands.

These changes bring us into closer alignment with the mining lease

requirements of other jurisdictions in Canada.

The lease amendments will also restrict a mining lease to the minimum amount

of ground needed to cover a mineral resource, and will ensure that a person

wishing to transfer a mining lease must be in full compliance with the

conditions of the lease before doing so.

The amendments also provide for the removal of ground staking as a means of

obtaining mineral exploration licenses. Ground staking has been replaced for

some time by the more modern and efficient system of map staking. Map staking is

the basis for a leading edge myriad system for real time online claim staking.

The elimination of these ground staking provisions will also remove redundant

regulatory material and contribute to our government's program of red tape

reduction.

The amendments also give the Minister of Natural Resources increased

discretion as to whether or not to waive the obligation for a company to enter

production within five years of being issued a mining lease. This increases the

minister's ability to cancel a mining lease if there is little chance of

commercial production.

A further amendment will repeal the requirement for the mineral claims

recorder to provide an annual report to the Legislature on mineral licenses and

leases. This is an unnecessary requirement due to the fact that all information

in the report is now publicly available on the Department of Natural Resources

website and can be viewed at any time by anyone.

Finally, the amendments provide for clarification that structures that remain

on a mine site after closure must be removed within twelve months or become the

property of government with no obligation for compensation.

The proposed amendments to the Mineral Act will be of significant value to

the mineral and mining industry. It will improve their effectiveness and

efficiency at doing business in our Province.

By making these amendments, Mr. Speaker, we are able to demonstrate our

strong commitment to this industry. With industry and government working

together we will be able to ensure the long-term successful development of our

mineral resources.

These legislative changes will ensure that our mineral resources will be

managed and developed in a way that will ultimately benefit the people of the

Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words with respect to Bill 62,

amendments to the Mineral Act.

Of course mining has been, for some years, a very important piece of our

economic well-being, whether we talk about the days of old when we had Bell

Island still ongoing, and Buchans in the old days, and the Baie Verte mines are

very, very productive, and Labrador City, of course, and Wabush we have had for

quite some time. The people are all aware of that.

In my own neighbourhood we were fortunate enough that we had Hope Brook Gold

back in the days in the 1990s. We knew from the beginning there were no false

hopes or whatever that it was going to last generations or decades. We knew from

the time it was announced. In fact, I was in Corner Brook in the Glenmill Inn

back in 1989 when then Premier Peckford announced that Hope Brook would, in

fact, be a mine. It had been discovered for some years and passed around between

several different companies until finally they decided it was a go, the price of

gold had escalated to a point where it was justifiable, and they proceeded. They

said from day one, the maximum life on this mine, unless we find some other

resources, is going to be ten years.

Sure enough, albeit there are still some minor quantities of minerals there,

not only gold but some other minerals as well, the site was effectively mined

out at the end of the ten-year term and they left.

Unfortunately, of course, they left us with a big, big problem. I think it

turned out to be about a $16 million problem. That was, in the course of doing

their mining, the tailings pond, for example, in a couple of incidents while

they were actually mining, we had the tailings pond - very obnoxious substances,

environmentally-harmful substances - that were supposed to have been retained

within a certain area actually got loose and got into what we call the Couteau

Bay area, and killed thousands and thousands of salmon. A very destructive thing

- and the company ended up going to court; the company ended up being fined over

it - but even bigger in terms of an ecological or environmental disaster was the

site in which they left the mine. That was because again - the minister talks

about housekeeping, and we do housekeep from time to time as we have to, but

there are also times when things occur which we realize and make us realize that

not only was there some housekeeping; there were some major things that over the

years we had not contemplated.

Back in the 1940s and 1950s, no doubt, and 1960s, the environmental issues

were not on the front burner. Everybody was euphoric because we had these jobs

and we were taking out these mines and it created employment in your

communities, but here was a case where it cost the government of the day, in the

1990s, the late 1990s when Hope Brook shut down, about $16 million. I think

first when it started they thought $7 million or $8 million would do it. By the

end of the day it was about $16 million. In fact, the government of the day, in

recognition of the fact that they had to pay it out - they did that - but also

the government of the day said, we cannot have this any more. So I think it was

put on the books, and that is one of the questions in terms of the minister that

I will tie in with

section 16 amendments that are in this bill today.

It was my understanding that the law was amended so that any company coming

into the Province today who are issued mining rights and actually start a mine,

that they must post a bond. I am just curious that my memory is failing me,

I guess, with age, but I am just curious - I know the bonding provisions were

put in, but I am wondering if we have had any other incidents since 1999, or

2000 actually, I believe, the amendments were brought in, where any mining

venture in the Province has failed and the bonding was not in place, and how the

bonding is actually put in place. For example, is it an insurance type of policy

whereby I start up, you give me the licence contingent upon me showing you that

I have my bonding, and regardless of what happens to my venture I might go

out of business for whatever reason: takeovers or bankruptcies or whatever

that my government is still protected because the bond is still in place?

Maybe some details around that piece, and I specifically ask it because,

under clause 16, and maybe for the sake of brevity we can get right to

section

section 16 talks about the right of government, if your mining interest

is terminated, to give the person a time limit, twelve months, to get any of

their chattels or their structures out of the mine site. Then it goes on to say

that no compensation is payable by government, so if you have a mining company

and you shut down, and after twelve months you still have a bunch of equipment

sitting around in there, you have some physical structures or whatever, after

twelve months government automatically will own those properties. It says

government will not have to pay any compensation for those assets.

It says, where the minister incurs any expense in actually rehabilitating the

surface of the land demised under

section 33 or subject to a mining lease under

section 31 where a lessee fails to do so as required by the terms of his lease,

so my question relates to the fact that I thought we had already covered that

off; that, if a person had caused any environmental damage or did not restore

the site to the condition in which they found it, that is where the bonding

would already click in. So I am wondering: Have we, in fact, found a situation

where our bonding did not go far enough - maybe it only addressed environmental

concerns - and the fact that we might have to restore the surface to a certain

condition is not considered to be an environmental issue?

I am just wondering if the minister might be able to clarify that for us. We

would agree, of course, that many of the sections in this Bill 62 are strictly

housekeeping, even the old terminology that is here, for example, the ground

staking. I mean, that is a term from years and years ago where the prospectors

would go out and if you wanted to stake out a piece of land that you were going

to explore you actually had to physically put in your stakes. You had to stake

it out, you had to use your compass and say where it was, and you had to come

back in to government and you had to write all that down, somebody had to

acknowledge where it was on a map, surveyors, and then actually issue you a

permit based on where you had put your stakes.

Now, you can image that was fraught with a little bit of danger sometimes;

because, depending on how healthy and physical I was, I might be able to stake

out some pretty big parcels of land in this great Province of ours, including

the Big Land itself. That got to be worrisome and questionable about how the

sizes were, number one, which was one of the points the minister is addressing -

you cannot simply go out any more and take a big slice of property that you

want; there are going to be limitations put onto the size of the parcels that

you might want - and, I understand, the number of parcels that you might want,

so you just cannot get somebody who is very energetic go out and start driving

in pegs all over the place and have about forty or fifty of these lots tied up,

which does not do anything for our competitive system. You are not going to get

three or four companies that might want to go in if a single prospector has tied

up forty or fifty chunks of this property for himself.

Nowadays, of course, this is all done on-line with your GPS and everything

else, and the technology in the state that it is in. If you want to know who has

what pieces of this Province staked out for mining purposes, you can go right

on-line and figure it out. I believe you even renew your permits on-line now.

You have to do certain things every year to keep your permits validated, but it

is all very much technologically based right now as opposed to being ground

staked.

The minister talks about making our mining industry competitive, and that is

why we have to know who has what land staked out here in our Province, how many

parcels of land, and where are they located. So it is a case of knowing who is

involved and where they are.

Unfortunately, of course, we find ourselves in this economic situation now

where there has been a downturn. I understand, from talking to some friends of

mine who were actually involved in the mining industry - in fact, a neighbour of

mine just up the street is a world-class explorer. He has been all over the

world. He is a geologist, and that is what he does. He has his own little

company. This year he could be working for someone in South Africa, next year he

is working for someone in Newfoundland, next year he is in Switzerland. He is

very well versed, in fact, very reputable in the mining industry for his ability

to find deposits. He lives in little old Port aux Basques, up the street. It

just goes to show again the types of skill levels that we have here in this

Province.

It is clear, from talking to some people in the industry, that our

exploration, like most other companies today, is going to get hit by the

economic downturn we have.

Now, the Province had a substantial I know even back in the days of the

Tobin Administration and the Grimes Administration, they put a fair bit of money

into an explorers program so that we could encourage exploration, and I do

recall having seen I know in 2003-2004, this current Administration chopped

severely that exploration programming, but I know over the years it has been put

back, the explorers thing, since that time, but that is how it happened. Again,

it was done under the grounds that we did not have the money to do it in

2003-2004 and we had to get our ship in order, and so on, but I understand, and

I have seen the Ministerial Statements in the last number of years where money

into the exploration program has, in fact, been put back by the government.

I do not know the exact details now, what is there today, but it is pretty

obvious that unless these explorers and we have a lot of junior explorers

a lot of this stuff, exploration, is not done in our Province by companies,

major, major companies who have a big pile of money.

The prospectors program itself, once you go out and the person is lucky

enough or fortunate enough to strike some kind of deposit, fine, then the junior

prospectors usually turn it over to some junior players in the industry who then

go out and raise - sometimes it is millions of dollars, to try to make a mine

out of the find.

So, it is a process. If you do not have the encouragement to the junior

explorers to start with, you never get the exploration. If you do not get the

exploration, you do not get the discoveries. If you do not get the discoveries,

you do not get the actual junior players coming in and starting to develop these

mines, and then you do not end up with your Voisey's Bays of the world and

of course, that is how that started. That did not start with this company, Vale

Inco, down there with X numbers of jobs and talking about hydromets and

everything else being built that cost billions and billions of dollars. That all

started with junior players in the industry, way back when. It usually takes

years and years to do, and I would think these junior players are probably going

to be pinched a little bit, like a lot of other people in our society these

days, because of the downturn.

Companies, for example, who cannot proceed with some of their major projects

have to scale back, put things on hold, sometimes suspend and sometimes cancel

them because of the economic circumstance. We have seen some of that in our own

Province where it comes to Lab City or Wabush and so on. Hopefully that will be

turned around. Hopefully the economy will be turned around. We know it is going

to be in a slowdown situation for, they are predicting, at least the next year,

or year-and-a-half, and hopefully things will start to rebound, but I guess the

explorers will be impacted likewise, because if the big companies themselves

cannot do their major projects then I am assuming that everybody at the end of

the day will feel the pinch, and some of the pinch will come to these junior

explorers.

Again, if the companies are not going to stand by and help contribute to the

junior exploration program that is where we, of course, need government to be

sure that they are vigilant in keeping the program in existence so that it can

happen; because, if we stop the exploration now due to you had to be more frugal

for a couple of years, these people could be gone elsewhere. We might not be

able to attract them back here. So I think it is crucial that, even though there

are tough economic times, there are certain things you still have to continue

with because down the road in the long term that is when these things will be

brought to fruition. It is not in 2009 and 2010, probably, that the exploration

is going to be worthy to this Province. It is going to be what is found in 2009

and 2010 that hopefully one of these major players are back to restore the

economic circumstances, that they are going to be able to do the mine sites and

do the further development that is required. Hopefully we will not see any

downturn then.

So we would certainly agree this is a legitimate red book exercise or red

tape reduction exercise, especially when start talking about ground staking and

licences. That is gone out, as they say, that is part of the dark ages now,

given our technological advances that we have made. My only real, real concern

was the exploration piece, that we do not somehow fall behind the ball on that

piece to the explorers with our program and encouragement incentives that we

have for them, and also the issue on number sixteen: Where do we fit here with

the bonding piece and did we miss something, probably, when we brought in the

earlier bonding situation for governments? Because it appears here that it says,

any expense required in rehabilitation of the surface becomes a debt to the

Crown. That was what I had thought, at least, that the earlier law that we

amended remedied, that it was not only an environmental damage that the bonding

would clean up but that the bonding would also look at the resurfacing and

putting it, restoring it to its original condition.

So my question was, or is, I guess: If we already had it covered off by

bonding, why do we need it here?

I look forward to the minister's explanation, actually, so she can clarify

where exactly we are headed with this piece.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would conclude my comments on Bill 62.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne): The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

If she speaks now she will close debate.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I concur with the remarks of the hon. Opposition House Leader.

This is an important, significant, industry here in the Province and we pride

ourselves on being leading edge.

With regard to his comments about remediation and restoration of mine sites

once that activity is completed, since we brought the amendments in, in the late

1990s or 2000-2001, Mr. Speaker, there has only been one mine in the Province,

the bauxite mine on the Avalon Peninsula, where we have had to use the

legislation that we have in place, and requirements in place to remediate that

mine site.

In terms of his questions around what kind of mechanism is available, do we

use, to ensure the bonding piece or the remediation piece, Mr. Speaker, normally

it is a letter of credit but it can also be a cash deposit that is held in trust

over the life of the mine and it then comes into play once that mining activity

is complete.

In terms of taking control of structures, we have some old mines in this

Province that did not have remediation agreements. For example, one mine comes

to mind readily and that is the Baie Verte mines, the old Rambler Mines, where

we did not have remediation plans in place and there was not a mechanism to take

control of the existing structures that were on that site. There may be other

abandoned mines in the Province that do not have remediation plans, do not have

the assurances or the cash or credit available to remediate those sites, so in

those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, in these amendments, we made allowances for us

to go in and take control of properties that might be on those sites, to take

them down, to remediate to make the place safe or to use revenues that are

earned from those in the remediation piece. There are several of those kinds of

old mines in the Province that do not have remediation plans where we need to

have the ability to go in and take control of the site.

This is a good piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. It cleans up some of the

issues around the act. It takes out some of the red tape and again contributes

to us being a lean and efficient operation where mining permitting is concerned.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now

read a second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

CLERK (MacKenzie): A bill, "An Act To Amend The Mineral Act,"

Bill 62.

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall the

bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House? Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Mineral Act," read a second

time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 62)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 29, Second Reading of a bill,

An Act To

Amend The Forestry Act No. 2, Bill 65.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Forestry Act No.

2". (Bill 65)

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

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the forest sector in this Province is just coming out the other

side of a significant change in global markets for forest products that required

an evolution in our industry. It wasn't without casualties, Mr. Speaker. The

Abitibi Mill in Stephenville did not survive, Corner Brook Pulp and Paper idled

one of its machines, and last week Abitibi Bowater made the decision to close

their mill in Grand Falls-Windsor.

The people who work in the forestry industry in this Province have faced

uncertainty for a very long time. The impact of a reduction in a significant

industry such as paper making on the people and businesses in these communities

is tremendous. These workers and their families have been under extreme strain.

Only five years ago, Mr. Speaker, eleven integrated sawmills were operating

in the Province employing people and supplying the pulp and paper companies with

chips. Only four of these mills operated this year.

The downturn in the forest industry worldwide has meant a rethinking of the

way we do things. We must respond to changing global markets and find new

markets. Government just released a comprehensive review of the forest sector in

the Province which identified opportunities to diversify into other lines of

business. We have responded with a $14 million forest industry diversification

program announced in April to identify and develop specific new products and

market opportunities.

This legislative change will enable the Minister of Natural Resources to take

into consideration when issuing a permit whether the permittee has harvested the

timber they were permitted to harvest and whether the permittee has the means to

harvest or process the timber allocated through the permit. This will allow us

to have the flexibility to issue cutting permits that could support the

competitiveness of the sawmill sector and provide timber for emerging forest

sector opportunities, both significant rural employers.

This amendment will ensure persons or companies who are using timber for the

greatest good have optimal access to that timber. This amendment addresses a

serious problem in our management capabilities by ensuring that there is no

right of renewal. Also, this amendment clarifies that a permit is not

assignable, transferable or subject to sale.

It is critical that the Province make forest resource decisions based on

ensuring sustainable forest sector opportunities exist in rural communities for

the greatest benefit of all. The intent of timber permits is not to provide a

source of financial benefit for those who no longer harvest or process timber.

That is not the best use of our natural resource. Cutting permits are typically

of a twelve-month duration and are issued at the discretion of the minister.

Unless otherwise stated, all cutting permits expire on December 31, following

the date of the permit's issuance.

The current act provides limited ministerial discretion to refuse the

issuance of a permit, including where a permittee is in default of the terms and

conditions of a cutting permit previously issued. This entitlement to a permit,

Mr. Speaker, year after year, has resulted in a variety of undesirable practices

in the industry and most people in Newfoundland and Labrador refer to the people

who engage in this kind of activity as slipper skippers. Slipper skippers are

individuals who obtain cutting permits despite having no capacity or ability to

either harvest or process the timber that is the subject of that permit.

These individuals sell the right to cut the timber on their permits to other

individuals or corporations. This results in increased wood cost to a processor

and the increased cost consequently impacts the competitiveness of our industry

in the global marketplace. In effect, they obtain income from the forest while

compromising the competitiveness of our forest industry. The amendment includes

a clear statement that no right of renewal exists with respect to cutting

permits. It is stated that no legal action may be taken and no compensation will

be given with respect to such historical rights or rights of renewal.

It is true that

section 27(3) of the act states that a cutting permit is not

transferable or assignable to another person, but we have been advised that this

sections prohibition may be limited to a transfer or assignment of the legal

title to the permit.

Mr. Speaker, in order to prohibit such situations as are seen with slipper

skippers, it is crucial that this

section be amended to explicitly state that

neither the legal title nor the beneficial interest may be transferred or

reassigned.

The amendment proposes that the minister may take into consideration whether

or not the fibre allocation on the permit is being used, or whether the permit

holder has the capacity to harvest or process the wood when a request is made

for a commercial cutting permit. This is consistent with the public policy goals

in the Newfoundland and Labrador Sustainable Forest Management Strategy 2003.

These goals include supporting forest sector employment, supporting existing

forest sector industries, supporting emerging forest sector industries and

achieving the maximum economic benefit from the sustainable exploration of the

forest resource.

Mr. Speaker, it is likely that there will be some resistance from the forest

industry, such as from individuals who have refrained from harvesting allocated

timber for benefit in future years. However, in order to have a forest industry

that is efficient, effective and competitive, it is critical that these

practices cease and that permits be allocated to individuals or companies who

will actually engage in the harvesting or processing of timber allocations on an

annual basis. It is important to note that this amendment will only deal with

commercial harvesting of the forest resource and will have no impact on domestic

cutting. Those who harvest for their own personal use will not be affected.

Mr. Speaker, my officials have done a thorough analysis of this amendment and

it is clear that the amendment will be of assistance to integrated sawmillers

who currently have to pay individuals for the benefit of harvesting or

processing timber allocated under cutting permits that would otherwise be

unavailable except at a significant cost to those sawmillers.

This legislative change is very much in keeping with this government's

approach to resource development. We have to ensure that all our natural

resources are developed in a timely manner and to the ultimate benefit of the

people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that this amendment is a step in the right direction

towards supporting one of the crucial industries in our rural communities and

ensuring the long-term sustainable development of our resource.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to speak to Bill 65. First of all, I thank the minister for

her explanation and also for making her officials available at noon to do a

briefing with me and the Leader of the NDP and some of our staff.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly understand why government is bringing forward these

amendments in the Forestry Act. There are a couple of major reasons that are

centered around this, probably dealing with the transfer of Abitibi's timber

rights. I am sure that would probably equal into the equation as we go along.

Also, we all are aware of the issues that were around the transfer of Canada Bay

Lumber permits on the Northern Peninsula in Roddickton, permits which today are

being held in receivership, as I understand, by Deloitte & Touche. I am not

really sure if those particular allocations are being harvested right now or not

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Oh, they are being harvested.

Mr. Speaker, if they are, I guess it would have to be done under this

legislation probably by Deloitte & Touche themselves as opposed to

contracting out the service.

I am certainly aware of what the amendment means, simply because I have a

district where forestry has been a very prominent industry. Over the current

course of a few years, we have had times when there has been a lot of

competition for AAC, or Annual Allowable Cut of wood in that particular area.

Then we have times when there is no competition simply because the industry is

not moving or advancing in a direction that allows for the marketable sale of

wood product.

What I can say is that I am familiar with a number of cases in the Province

where annual allowable supplies of wood were issued to permit holders in which

those permit holders did not harvest the wood themselves. I am aware of cases

where that has happened. In fact, some of these permit holders no longer operate

sawmilling operations or have any other use for the utilization of that wood.

Therefore, what they have done is they have contracted out that service to

someone else to cut the timber supply for them and, in return, they get a

royalty on that wood supply.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with that, although I know that there is

activity going on in my own district as well around this particular issue. I do

not agree with it, simply because the people who access these permits for $21

are accessing the right to use a resource that belongs to the people of the

Province. Therefore, unless they are going to be using that particular resource

to earn their own living or to supply their own business, I do not think that it

should be a situation where they can get it for $21 and flip it to the highest

bidder and the only thing they have to do is to sign a piece of paper. So, I

certainly see the rationale behind this, because there needs to be a level of

fairness in the system for all people. I think that if people are going to

access those permits and they do not want to lose them, then the obligation is

on them to work the plots of land and to cut the wood themselves. There is no

reason why they cannot do that, because if they were not knowledgeable foresters

and participants in the industry in the first place, chances are they would not

have ever had a permit.

So, Mr. Speaker, we also understand that in cases like Canada Bay Lumber,

situations like this become a little bit more blurrier in terms of wood supply

and access to wood. Of course, without having proper legislation in place people

can actually use, or I am sure have tried or even used in the past, this wood

supply as collateral against mortgages, against loans, to be able to access

credit for their business and their operation. It is not a commodity that can be

used in that particular way, but we have all seen in the Province cases where

sawmill operators have been dependent upon these permit holders to resource

their operations. These permit holders have sometimes raised the cost of the

pulpwood to share in the enterprise, and this has led to an artificial pricing

regime within the Province. So you do not always get the true picture of the

cost because of these particular permit holders contracting out.

I know of cases like this on the Northern Peninsula in particular, where

there was some trouble back a few years ago by loggers and others who were

trying to sell their wood supply and it was being held by permit holders who

were, one, contracting out. Therefo