December

2, 2008

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 43

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The following members' statements will be heard: the hon. the Member for

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

District of Humber Valley; the hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo &

LaPoile; the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's West; the hon. the

Member for the District of Port de Grave; and, the hon. the Member for the

District of Mount Pearl North.

The hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House today to join many of my colleagues who have paid

tribute to the young people serving their country in war-torn regions of the

world. I am pleased to pay tribute today to Corporal Darren Butt who returned

from Kandahar, Afghanistan, last month and was in his hometown of Pinware last

week where he received a hero's welcome.

Mr. Speaker, Corporal Darren Butt has just finished up a ten-month stint in

Afghanistan, where he served close-quarter protection for Major-General Marc

Lessard. Mr. Butt joined the army in 2003 and underwent basic training in CFB

Esquimalt, British Columbia. He then attended battle school in Meaford, Ontario,

at the Land Force Central Area Training Centre. He has been based in Petawawa

with his family since that time.

Mr. Speaker, Corporal Butt was welcomed home to Pinware by a group of family

and friends to great music and wonderful food. Mayor Neal Pike as well as Mayor

Agnes Pike from the neighbouring community of West St. Modeste were on hand for

the celebration. Corporal Butt was accompanied by his fiance, Melissa Rumbolt

and their two children Chloe and Cody.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Butt spoke recently to the local newspaper of witnessing

significant changes in Afghanistan during his time there, and was very proud

that he was able to play a

part in this. He stated, "It's a privilege to

step into a country where they're underprivileged, and actually see

development as in roads and schools, hospitals, and to see the look on their

faces when you drive through and they're happy to see you coming because you

make a difference. Their life is a bit happier from me being there."

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in honouring

Corporal Darren Butt and the many other Canadian Forces members from this

Province who are so bravely representing our country for the benefit of all of

us.

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: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to pay tribute to the Pasadena Branch of the

Royal Canadian Legion. Branch 68 is the Province's latest branch. Both the

hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General and I had the pleasure of

attending the branch's creation on November 9, 2008 in Pasadena.

Mr. Speaker, this new branch, under the leadership of President Ralph Rice,

has done an outstanding job in putting a team in place that will ensure its

success for years to come. The last legion charter was issued in our Province

thirty-two years ago, so this was indeed a very significant accomplishment.

Mr. Speaker the legion network in our Province and across the country not

only provides services to veterans but contributes significantly to the greater

good of the communities and areas they serve. They support hospitals, schools,

and numerous other community activities. Our Province and country is a better

place because of their efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in paying tribute to Branch

68, our Province's latest branch of the Royal Canadian Legion.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

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

I rise today to welcome Dr. David Thomas to Port aux Basques, and to

congratulate him on accepting the position of Chief of Staff at the Dr. Charles

L. Legrow Health Centre at Port aux Basques.

The Chief of Staff position at the Centre has been vacant since November 2006

and Dr. Thomas will provide an important local voice at the regional level. The

Chief of Staff position is a part-time job, and duties include: working with the

regional medical advisory committee, organizing the rotation of doctors at the

local hospital, ensuring standards of care are met, assisting in recruitment,

participating in budgeting and planning processes, general administration and

communication.

Originally from Musgravetown, Dr. Thomas started a family practice at Port

aux Basques this past July after graduating from Memorial University.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending

congratulations to Dr. David Thomas on accepting the position of Chief of Staff

at the Dr. Charles L. Legrow Health Centre. All the best to Dr. Thomas and his

wife, Susan.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the privilege of standing here today to pay

tribute to a constituent and a person I am proud to call my friend, who was

recently named as Volunteer of the Year by the Canadian Cancer Society.

Frances Roach has been a volunteer with the Cancer Society for the past eight

years. For the first five years, she volunteered at the H. Bliss Murphy Cancer

Centre assisting those living with cancer with wigs, turbans or prostheses. As

is her nature, we can be sure Frances did this with the utmost of kindness and

compassion, and she was always committed and vigilant to her weekly shift.

She is so dedicated and knowledgeable that the members of the staff of the

Cancer Centre look to her for information when it comes to programs and services

provided by the Canadian Cancer Society.

For the past three years, along with her other volunteer work with the

Society, Frances has been the co-ordinator of the volunteer driving program for

the St. John's-Mount Pearl area. She spends hours on the phone with volunteer

drivers and clients, arranging between thirty-five to sixty drives each week.

This job has no set hours so, day or night, Frances is always ready and

available to handle whatever situation might arise, from a last-minute change of

appointment to a person calling with questions about how the driver program, or

indeed any program with the Cancer Society, works.

Frances is an invaluable volunteer with the Canadian Cancer Society, and I

ask members of the House to join me in congratulating her on receiving this

award.

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.

Mr. Speaker, the Avalon North Wolverines Search and Rescue team won the

Canadian International SAR Games which were held in St. John's for the first

time during the week of October 13 to October 19.

Competing against twelve other teams, which included the Irish Coast Guard,

the Wolverines placed first after participating in the competition for just four

years.

The competition included search management, setting up an actual search,

evidence search, navigation, survival skills and rescue operations.

Members of the winning team were: Perry Bowering, Clyde Mercer, Mattie Foley,

Darrell Somerton and George Higdon.

The Avalon North Wolverines Search and Rescue team plan on going to Ireland

in 2009 to take

part in the Irish SAR Games.

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

to the Avalon North Wolverines Search and Rescue and wishing them every success

in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the 2008 graduates of Mount

Pearl Senior High and O'Donel High School.

These students should be commended for their hard work and dedication over

the past several years in achieving their high school diploma. They are now

ready to pursue post-secondary studies, if they so choose, armed with the

knowledge that a secondary education affords them.

I wish them all the best in their future studies and encourage them to seek

out not only careers they feel will benefit them financially, but also offer

them personal satisfaction. When you pursue a career in an area you enjoy, the

rewards are significant.

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

graduates of O'Donel High School and Mount Pearl Senior High School, and I

wish them all the best for success in the years to come.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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 rise in this hon. House today to update residents of the

Province on the progress of two new programs the Williams' government

announced earlier this year to assist families the Progressive Family Growth

Benefit and the Parental Support Benefit.

Mr. Speaker, we recognize the high costs associated with raising a child, and

these benefits were introduced to assist new parents with some of the increased

costs they encounter in the first years of a child's life.

The Progressive Family Growth Benefit provides $1,000 for every child born of

adopted, and the Parental Support Benefit provides $100 per month to parents for

the first 12 months for each child born or adopted. Budget 2008 includes an

allocation of $12.4 million for the program this year, and $9.9 million annually

thereafter. The combined total of births and adoptions each year, Mr. Speaker,

is approximately 4,500.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that 3,000 applications have been

received from families to date for these programs, and I would like to encourage

parents of children born or adopted on or after January 1, 2008, who have not

already done so, to apply for the programs.

In an effort to increase the number of applications, my department is working

in conjunction with the MCP offices to increase awareness of the programs by

mailing out an application form to those individuals who have received an MCP

card for children born on or after January 1, 2008.

Application forms for both benefits are available on-line through the

Department of Finance Web site and at all Government Services Centres,

obstetrical units and MCP offices. An application form is also included in You

and Your New Baby packages available through public health nurses.

Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Family Growth Benefit and the Parental Support

Benefit add to the many family-focused supports that have been introduced or

enhanced by the Williams' government.

Over the past four years, among other measures, Mr. Speaker, the provincial

government has significantly enhanced the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription

Drug Program which assists families with drug costs, expanded the Children's

Dental Health Program, provided insulin pumps for children, expanded the Child

Care Subsidy Program, increased the Mother-Baby Nutritional Supplement for

mothers with low incomes, eliminated school fees, provided free text books for

high school students, provided needs-based non-repayable grants to

post-secondary students, and reduced interest rates on provincial student loans.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Family Growth Benefit and the Parental Support

Benefit, if people remember, was an election promise that was made by the

government opposite during the middle of the campaign in 2007.

Mr. Speaker, when they went out and announced the baby bonus, as it has been

referred to in the Province, for those who are listening and might not

understand, it was made in the middle of an election campaign and at that time

it had no dates of implementation, no dates for who would be eligible or who

would qualify and, Mr. Speaker, the expectation was left with people that: I

will be able to collect this parental benefit because I am now off on maternity

leave.

Well, that did not happen, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I have e-mails that were

sent to me, back when the program was implemented, from women who had their

children in December but, because the benefit did not come into play until

January 1, they not only did not get their $1,000 but they did not get their

parental supplement for the next eleven months of their maternity leave;

whereas

their neighbour, who had their baby thirty days later, got their $100 parental

benefit for the rest of the year.

That is the kind of unfairness that was used in the implementation of this

program, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: So I say to the minister today, because the money that was

budgeted for this year is not all going to be allocated under the program, as

the application list is 1,500 short of what was projected, maybe he would like

to go back now and pay out the parental benefit to those women who are still on

maternity leave, and have been since December of last year, who did not receive

the money.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

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

I had a lot to say about these programs during the Budget discussions, and I

will not repeat all of that today, but I do want to repeat one of the points

that I made then which I think is so important.

I know that everything that was outlined by the Minister of Finance has been

done, and these are all wonderful, but if we really want to help the parents in

this Province with regard to child care than a child care program is what we

need.

Who knows, with what is happening in Ottawa right now, we might have a

government that we might be able to communicate with again with regard to child

care. If we do not, I still say to this government that if we have $12.4 million

for these programs, I think that money could have been better spent going into

child care. We have subsidization that is too low. We have single parents who

cannot afford child care and I really urge the minister in looking at the budget

for 2008-2009 to start looking at the real needs of people around child care.

Many parents have come to me -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say that I have had many parents contacting me both my phone,

e-mail and face to face when meeting me when this first came out saying that it

is all fine and dandy, especially the Progressive Family Growth Benefit, but the

costs are not the first year. The costs lasts the whole life of the child, and

one of the biggest costs is child care.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, over the summer I had the honour to announce

that Newfoundland and Labrador has entered into an agreement with the Government

of Canada to join BizPal. This online application is an important tool for

entrepreneurs as it provides information on business permits and licences that

need to be obtained in order to establish a business. As a result, business

owners have the ability to start up faster and with the knowledge that they have

all the right permits and licences.

Since this announcement, my department has been working diligently to

identify all of the permits and licences that the provincial government issues.

We have also been identifying possible municipalities that will be participating

in the initial launch, which will occur in the new year. Today, Mr. Speaker, I

am pleased to announce that the Towns of Stephenville, Happy Valley-Goose Bay,

along with the City of St. John's will be the first municipalities in the

Province to sign up with BizPal.

Mr. Speaker, I am very excited that we have these three municipalities on

board for the launch for a couple of good reasons. Firstly, in other Canadian

jurisdictions where BizPal is already in operation, those provinces only

launched the service with one municipality, usually their capital city but we

have been able to learn from their experience and best practices. As a result,

we are easily able to launch BizPal with two other municipalities in addition to

our capital city.

These municipalities are representative of the diversity in our Province,

ranging from urban centres, more rural areas and the Big Land of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure other interested municipalities that we will be

able to add them to BizPal fairly quickly once it is launched. In October, I

gave a presentation at the Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador convention

and I was encouraged by the interest municipal leaders have in this important

new on-line service. I hope that the interest I saw at the convention will

translate into many municipalities being willing to participate in BizPaL. As I

stated at the convention, the process is relatively simple and with minimal

commitment of resources from municipalities to upload and maintain their

information.

Mr. Speaker, BizPaL is an exciting initiative that I wish had been in

existence when I was setting up my own business. It is one I feel very strongly

will benefit the business community and I look forward to the day when we launch

BizPaL in Newfoundland and Labrador.

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 an advanced copy of the statement and to say

to him that I am very proud that at least someone came to an agreement with the

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the initial launch and commend the two

municipalities that were mentioned and the City of St. John's for stepping

forward to take

part in this. Anything that can help the entrepreneurs or the

councils in this Province is welcome news. I have to say to the minister, I

happened to be in Corner Brook and I know what he referenced with regard to the

municipalities. They are looking forward to this. Hopefully, it will take away

some of the red tape that our hon. the Minister of Business refers to from time

to time.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the only little concern I do have, I know a

lot of the smaller municipalities do not have the Internet as we speak, and

maybe there can be some form of program come in place that the government could

assist them and then they could all access this, the same as the other

municipalities.

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 thank the minister for the advanced copy of his statement.

I, too, am quite pleased to see this initiative. I am aware of BizPaL and

know that it really does assist in efficient business and helping with

municipalities and businesses to run efficiently. I am glad to see that we are

joining it. I do not think there is much more to say except to add that I would

hope that there would be no municipality who would want to take part, would be

held back because of lack of resources and that a way would be found to make

sure that every municipality that wants to take

part can take part.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The Chair would like to recognize a long time member of the House of

Assembly, former Cabinet minister who has joined us today, Mr. Percy Barrett.

Welcome back to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's actions and dictatorial approach to

democracy have left this country in a political upheaval. The Prime Minister's

attempt to attack democracy and eliminate funding for Opposition parties was

certainly the actions of a heavy-handed leader. Mr. Speaker, what happened in

Ottawa is not unlike what has been happening in Newfoundland and Labrador when

the provincial government members rejected funding increases to Official

Opposition parties, especially this party in the House of Assembly.

So I ask the Premier today, Mr. Speaker: Did you direct or in any way, shape

or form discuss the issue with the government members of the House of Assembly

Management Commission on how they should be voting with regard to funding for

the Official Opposition in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as the Government House Leader certainly I sit on

the Management Commission of the House of Assembly, along with other colleagues,

being the MHA for Topsail, and the Minister of Transportation and Works. Mr.

Speaker, we have an open debate in the Management Commission. It is a televised

debate. It is one where we are able to put forth our suggestions, our ideas, our

opinions and then we also have an opportunity to vote. There are rules

established around the Management Commission as regarding who sits on that

Commission, how we deal with issues, and we deal with those issues in a very

public manner. Mr. Speaker, it is all recorded, as you would know, in Hansard

and it is also available to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador through the

television. So, Mr. Speaker, we go to that, we perform our role and we certainly

make the decisions that we are, I guess, empowered or we have the authority to

do at that Management Commission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

But my question is for the Premier. In light of what we are seeing happening

in the country today, in light of the fact that in Newfoundland and Labrador

government members rejected funding for the Official Opposition as part of a

democratic process, I ask you Premier: Did you engage in any discussion in any

way with the members of the management committee from your own caucus in terms

of how they should be voting with regard to this funding?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the decisions that were made regarding the funding

were made at the Management Commission and were made by the people who sat on

that Commission. We have heard it over and over again that the Opposition has no

funding but, in fact, Mr. Speaker, following the election in 2007 there was a

decision made by the Management Commission at that time, although I was not a

member at that time, that without any background or any reasoning just felt that

resources needed to be increased and $100,000 at that time was given to the

Official Opposition and the Third Party. When it came to the Management

Commission, there was a decision made regarding the resources based on a report,

but not necessarily the fact we had to accept a report, they were

recommendations that came to the management committee and the people who sat on

the management committee had the authority to make decisions. Based on that, we

certainly felt that the decision to have base funding for all parties at

$100,000 was reasonable, and, Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition received that

$100,000 as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, this is the same member today who talks about

fiscal prudence who went in there and voted for increases for her own caucus,

increases far and above what was even required or asked for but ignored the

independent recommendations in the report that said the Official Opposition in

the Province should have more resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I ask the government today. Differentiate

yourselves from your cousins in Ottawa, don't take the approach of Prime

Minister Harper, and revisit this issue and allocate the funding that was

recommended to the Opposition in Newfoundland and Labrador so we can have a

proper democracy in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Don't try and compare us to what the Harper government has done in Ottawa.

We have not done anything with regard to cutting off any political funding for

your party. It is up to you to go out and raise whatever funds you want to go

out and raise to support your party; it is a completely different issue.

What has happened in this Province - and I concur with the decision of the

management committee, I concur with the decision of the majority of the

management committee. In fact, there was a base allocation that was given to

each party of $100,000. Yours was given to you early - that was not even

mentioned. You came back and you asked for $150,000 more. So you wanted the NDP

to have $100,000, the Conservatives to have $100,000, but the Liberals should

have $250,000.

When we were in Opposition we had $28,000 per member for nineteen members.

You have $150,000, $150,000, $150,000, plus the $150,000 that you are paid as

Leader of the Opposition. So that is $300,000 plus for you alone to do your job,

and $150,000 for you, and $150,000 for you, plus your salaries. Now that is

enough money for three people as far as I am concerned!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you Mr. Speaker.

If the Premier is going to speak to it, speak with the facts I say to you,

hon. member. Because let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is not what we asked for,

it is what was recommended by an independent consultant hired and paid for by

the House of Assembly in Newfoundland and Labrador. It was that individual in

that report that recommended the funding configuration for the Official

Opposition. It was your government who voted for more money for your own party,

more money for the NDP, but less money for the Official Opposition.

I ask again: In light of the fact that we have independent consultant reports

that justify the funding being given to the Opposition in Newfoundland and

Labrador and looking at it under the premise that we are the lowest funded in

Atlantic Canada, will you do the right thing and will you ask your members to

support the additional funding for the Opposition office?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the management committee makes the

decisions. The consultant does not make the decision. As far as I am concerned,

the fact that each one of the hon. members opposite are receiving an extra

$150,000 each is enough money for them. When we break out what our forty-four

members are getting as support for what they do and they are also members of

this House of Assembly they are averaging out at about $13,000 each. They

are now getting $13,000 extra support if we average it out.

When we were in Opposition we got $28,000 for support and you are getting

$150,000 each, in addition to your salaries and in addition to the CAs,

Constituency Assistants, that hon. members opposite have as well. Now that is a

lot of money for three people, I can tell you right now. I do not care what they

recommended, as far as I am concerned, I concur with the Management Commission

on their decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member can spin this however he wants. The reality is that three

years ago, on a pro-rated basis, when you were the Leader of the Opposition five

years ago you were getting more money to run that office then than we are

getting today, and that is a fact, Mr. Speaker. That is the fact!

Mr. Speaker, let me

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

I ask members to allow the hon. member to ask her questions.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me move on to this question since the Premier is speaking today, let me

ask this question: Mr. Speaker, media reports have indicated I asked your

minister yesterday, I did not get an answer that the federal government is

considering the sale of federal assets, including the 8.5 per cent share of

Hibernia. Now, over the last number of weeks we have heard your comments in the

media about you kissing and making up with Prime Minister Harper. In the course

of that happening, were there any discussions in those friendly sittings that

you had with regard to the purchasing of those assets that are currently there

in Hibernia?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we are constantly evaluating and

re-evaluating our oil assets, we are re-evaluating the Hibernia piece, which is

now, of course, worth somewhat less as a result of the price of oil, but now,

because of the political dynamic which is happening in Ottawa, if, in fact, a

coalition forms the government as early as possibly next week, we will have a

Liberal-NDP coalition, the NDP, through Jack Layton, have offered to transfer

the 8.5 per cent interest in Hibernia to the Province (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: So my question to you would be: Why pay for it when you

can get it for nothing?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly thank the Premier for his response, because my next question was

how he was going to challenge the NDP to meet that obligation.

Mr. Speaker, we also know that the Harper government does not support a loan

guarantee on the Lower Churchill, but in the process of this strategy that is

going ahead now to look at a potential coalition government in Ottawa I ask the

Premier: What will be the strategy of this Province to ensure that we get a

secured commitment this time from the government on the Lower Churchill?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the current Prime Minister, Prime Minister

Harper, had indicated verbally that he would support a loan guarantee.

Our strategy on a go-forward basis would be to obtain the 8.5 per cent

interest from Hibernia, it would be to obtain a loan guarantee from either the

Harper government or a coalition government, and, in addition, it would be to

obtain infrastructure funding rapid infrastructure green funding from a

coalition government or a Harper government in order to help fund the Lower

Churchill and/or a transmission line from the Lower Churchill to provide power

to other areas.

I have in my hands a copy of the policy accord from the recent coalition

which was formed. It is interesting to note that they have a fairly detailed

proposal laid out with regard to an economic stimulus package, rapid support for

those affected by the crisis, other priorities, and in their economic stimulus

package it states: accelerating existing infrastructure funding and substantial

new investments, including municipal and interprovincial projects, transit,

clean energy, water corridors and gateways.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. Premier to complete his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would suggest, as a result of this accord, if you took the time to read it,

you would realize that a new coalition government would support, in fact, clean

energy and water, and that is what the Lower Churchill is all about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we also posed questions with regard to the economic

shift that we see happening in the country, and how it is affecting our

Province. The ministers that responded said it is business as usual. Well,

Premier, it is not business as usual for many of the industrial sectors out

there in the Province today, and the people who are affected.

I ask you: At what stage will your government now bring forward an action

plan to address the economic situation in Newfoundland and Labrador and to give

us a new fiscal update and outlook?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated in this hon.

House, and the Minister of Finance has indicated in this hon. House as recently

as yesterday, that there will be an economic update which will be provided while

this House is sitting, during this current sitting, and that will be sooner

rather than later. That will, in fact, happen.

We will continue to do exactly what we have been doing for the last five

years, and that is to run this Province properly, fiscally responsibly, and to

put us in the best possible position that we could be in, in a very dire

economic situation.

So we are well positioned. We will continue to do what we are doing. We will

continue to do it right. We are monitoring on a daily basis absolutely

everything that is happening, and I am sure the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador are quite comfortable with us at the helm in this particular time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When I hear that we are maintaining the status quo and it will be business as

usual, Mr. Speaker, I do not sense that there is going to be any stimulus

package in Newfoundland and Labrador to help offset some of the things that are

going on.

I ask you, Premier: Is this part of the strategy that you are working on, and

will we see some additional investments in the economy?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at this point in time we have no reason to believe whatsoever

that we will be cutting back on our infrastructure program in any manner

whatsoever. We are spending as much as a half billion dollars a year on

infrastructure. That includes roads; everybody in the Province can see that.

They drive over them every day; they know what we are spending on our roads.

That includes schools, as the Minister of Education knows. That includes

hospitals, as the Minister of Health knows, and long-term care facilities. That

includes municipal infrastructure, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs knows,

and it goes on and on and on.

We are spending as much as we can to stimulate the economy without

overheating the economy, and making sure that we get the best bang for our buck,

and we will continue to do so.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the last couple of days I have asked questions of the Minister of Natural

Resources with regard to IOC, and to tell us what is happening with IOC. Again

we have breaking news, after just asking her questions yesterday, of temporary

employees and students who are definitely going to be impacted.

I ask you today, Minister: Can you give us some real information in terms of

the number of temporary jobs that are impacted, and what the impact is going to

be to subcontractors in that area?

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

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

IOC informed me on Friday morning, Mr. Speaker, that they were going to delay

Phase 1 and Phase 2 of their expansion program, that this would not have an

impact on their permanent employees other than it might have an impact on

overtime. The delay of the expansion is going to have an effect on services that

they would have contracted to do pieces of work around that. It would have an

impact on temporary workers who would be called upon to do that kind of work.

They did not provide to me at that time the numbers that were affected for

potential people who would be involved in that contract. My main concern at that

point in time, Mr. Speaker, was for the permanent employees of IOC, and I am

glad to know that there will not be any layoffs of permanent employees at IOC at

this time or in the short term.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Do you have any idea how many temporary employees will be impacted, how many

of the students that normally would go to work there - because, as you know, the

mining training facility is there and those students depend upon that company

for that work for part of their schooling as well - and can you tell us any idea

what the scope of the business impacts are going to be in that area? Do you have

a handle on this at all?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I am called upon to do many things, as a

member of this House of Assembly and as a member of the Cabinet of this

government. To manage the business plans of IOC is not one of them.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not have information on the expected number of people

who would be given contracted services. We know the terms of the money that was

announced for that expansion, and it is significant, but they are not people

currently under the employ of IOC either in terms of temporary workers or

contractual services.

I will undertake to go back to IOC, to see if they can provide any

information with regard to that, but I do not have it at the moment, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the entire industrial sector in this Province is

shifting. The minister could not tell us what was going on with Abitibi in its

future in Grand Falls. She cannot tell us what the impacts are going to be with

the changes in IOC in Labrador West. We have Wabush Mines today going in to meet

with their unions, to look at where they will be downsizing.

Maybe, Minister, you could give us an update; tell us what the future of

Wabush Mines is going to be, the amount of workers going to be impacted there,

and what the impact is going to be in the local economy?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural

Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to tell you quite honestly, I am not interested in

engaging in this kind of foolishness with the member of the Opposition. This is

a very, very serious time for industrial workers in this Province, in Grand

Falls-Windsor, in IOC, and certainly in Wabush today as the management meets

with workers to find what is in store for them over the next coming months.

Mr. Speaker, we are engaged on a daily basis with these companies. We are

being proactive and supportive where we can. We are doing everything that we can

in the Province to provide an economic stimulus. We are encouraging the federal

government in whatever form that it takes to come with an economic stimulus

program so that we can ride out this storm, and hopefully, have something to

work with at the end of the day that we can rebuild the economies in these

commodity markets.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to hear that the minister at least thinks it is serious. So

maybe she can get a better handle on what is happening in all of these sectors

because it affects every single one of us in Newfoundland and Labrador, I say to

the minister.

Yesterday the government announced the results of this year's offshore land

sales. The numbers for this year are way down, with total bids of $2.4 million

and three of five parcels not receiving any bids.

I ask you minister: Have you been given any indication, do you have any idea

as to why the interest is down this year? Is it a result of the downturn in the

economy or is it business as usual, like you said yesterday?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition gave us a

history lesson yesterday on Abitibi and its operations here in Newfoundland and

Labrador over the last 100 years. I would respectively suggest that she start

using some of that research money, not on that piece, Mr. Speaker, but what is

going on in the world today so she can better understand it.

So yes, we have -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that in the land sales that we have had in

the last two years, we have commanded some of the highest prices for land for

oil exploration in this Province since the beginning of that whole industry

here. The lands that we had for sale in this last round, Mr. Speaker, are in

areas that there has not been a lot of prospecting; they are a very challenging

environment. We are absolutely delighted that one of the land sales was picked

up in the Sydney Basin. So there are absolutely reasonable answers to why

given the price of oil and the times that we are in those land sales were

not picked up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

My question is for the Minister of Justice. I asked a couple of questions

yesterday about the release of the recent report that was done into the

correctional facilities, submitted in September, not yet released. The minister

indicated, or did not give us much timelines as to when it would be other than

that it would be.

In the course of answering a second question yesterday, the minister

indicated when I asked about the preventable death at HMP and the suicide,

would there be any further inquiries into those particular incidents. You

indicated you had had some conversations with the general public.

I ask the minister specifically, I understand a former minister did meet with

the parent of one of the deceased and asked that some specific action be taken.

Did you, in fact, follow up on the commitments that were made by the former

member? Because according to our information, the parents have not had any

further contact or follow up from the Department of Justice since that meeting

took place.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what parent or what person

the hon. member is referring to. Since I have become Minister of Justice I have

had meetings with the parent of one person who suffered a death. The questions

were asked. I met with the parent at his request. I have had discussions with

the officials of my department and at the appropriate time we will make the

appropriate decision.

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

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

The ministry has obviously found enough in the report so far, or the former

minister did, to justify the firing of Superintendent Scoville and the second in

command, Ms Aylward, I understand.

Can the minister tell us, this report that you are so far keeping secret,

have you picked anything else out of the report or acted upon it in any way that

we are not yet aware of, in addition to these firings?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say that it would be

totally inappropriate for me in my capacity as the Minister of Justice, to

comment on any personal employment matters, and I will not do so.

Secondly, as I said yesterday in this House, government is going through the

normal processes and protocols that it would be involved with respect to the

release of the report, and when the report is released, and it will be released

very shortly, the answers to the questions will be apparent.

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

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

In June of 2007, the Office of the Citizens' Representative released a

report recommending improvements to the Newfoundland and Labrador Correctional

Centre for Women at Clarenville. It noted at that time, 2007, that there was

insufficient programming and no counselling team had even entered the facility

since 2006. We are now aware of further problems at Clarenville.

I ask the minister: Was the report of 2007 by the Citizens' Rep ever acted

upon?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday in the House, my

predecessor in the Department of Justice, with a view to safe living and working

conditions in all of our correctional institutions, including the women's

institute at Clarenville, hired two officials with - or contracted with former

senior managers of the Correctional Services of Canada to do a complete and

independent review.

That review is very all-encompassing. It was a very comprehensive report.

There are seventy-seven recommendations over ten general themes, and that report

will be released shortly. We look forward very much to the recommendations and

how it can help the correctional system in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, last year I went around this Province with a clock to draw

attention to the interest on the public debt. I think this report will draw

attention and make the needs of the correction services of this Province part of

the public debate and public discourse to the Province of Newfoundland. That is

very important, and we all look forward to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday and the day before I had some questions for the

Minister of Government Services, and I just have a couple of more that I would

like to put to him to get more information on what I have been asking about.

Yesterday, the minister said that he did not believe that all occupational

diseases can be covered at all times under regulation and that diseases will

continue to develop and be recognized as time goes on, and that is so, I

understand that. However, the evolving nature of occupational disease is not a

reason to remove the listing

section for the OHS regulations.

In particular, Mr. Speaker, if the list under

section 24 of the Workplace

Health, Safety and Compensation Regulations is not sufficient, I ask the

minister why this government cannot find a regular mechanism to keep the

section

updated and current. There shouldn't be a time lapse.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, as I said in the House yesterday and I said on

Thursday, the mandate of Occupational Health and Safety is to identify and keep

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, in regards to their workplaces, safe on

an ongoing basis. We identify, we evaluate, and then we enforce. We remove the

actual issue or we have it controlled within the work site itself.

In regard to

section 24, the way it was written forty years ago is very, very

broad. It was hard to actually be able to maintain. It was never enacted, it was

never used. It is also covered off under S.23 of the Workers Compensation Act

which identifies diseases in regard to industrial sites and as well in regard to

mining and everything else that is out there.

We don't see the value in duplicating. We have Codes of Practice within our

regulations themselves that identify specific issues in specific workplaces. We

identify those

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. O'BRIEN: - and we follow them thereof.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

My next question relates directly to

section 23 of the Workplace Health,

Safety and Compensation Regulations under the related act.

I am asking the minister: Does that

section cover all the specific cancers

that have been proven to be related to fire fighting?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, what I will say to that is, in regard to the

safety of workers on the job sites in Newfoundland and Labrador, I, as the

minister responsible for Occupational Health and Safety, actually doesn't need

a list. Our officers are very, very and I mean very professional. They

go in and they identify and they remove or they control the issue. We don't

need a list. If there is an issue in regard to a workplace in this Province at

any given time our Occupational Health and Safety officers are in there on an

ongoing basis and we will identify and evaluate and then we will enforce.

In regard to the registry itself which you come back to all the time, they

are contained within the Codes of Practice, such as the Silica Code of Practice

which is hailed worldwide as a template in regard to any issues with regard to

the mining industry.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. O'BRIEN: This is the way we do it. We have the opportunity to extract

valuable information

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker would like to table two sets of documents.

One set of documents would be the minutes from the Management Commission

meetings for May 28, June 4, July 3 and October 15.

The other tabling of documents would be the Annual Report of the Office of

the Citizens' Representative.

Further tabling of documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I want to present another petition on behalf of the residents of Conception

Bay North with regard to a long-term care facility for that area.

Just to go back over the prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker, there was an

external consultants' report in 2007 which stated they recommended that there

should be a three-storey long-term care facility for the Conception Bay North

area totalling some 210 beds, Mr. Speaker.

I know last year, from documentation, that the department put forward a

request to government for funding to consider this facility for Conception Bay

North. I guess why I stand here every day, Mr. Speaker, I get calls from

constituents throughout the area, only this past week from a family who has an

individual who has to go to one of those facilities. We know the infrastructure

is many years old now and we need new infrastructure, but many of the people now

have to be moved to other areas far away from their families. The family that I

speak of, they have to transfer them to St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, that is why those petitions are coming in; the people have

concerns and they are asking me to bring forward the petitions, and hopefully my

hon. colleagues opposite will reconsider their decision. They have made

announcements this year for two new facilities for the St. John's area, and I

am just asking government - we are getting close to budget time now, and

consultation on the Budget - that they will consider the facility for Conception

Bay North, which has been on the priority list for quite some time, and

hopefully it will become a reality sooner rather than later.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we will continue with the second reading of bills.

From the Order Paper, under Second Reading of Bills, I will call Order 8,

second reading of a bill,

An Act To Repeal The Corporations Guarantees Act.

(Bill 43)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 43,

An Act To Repeal The

Corporations Guarantees Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Corporations

Guarantees Act." (Bill 43)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to get up in the House

today and just say a few words in regard to this act,

An Act To Repeal The

Corporations Guarantees Act, Bill 43.

In Government Services we have over 150 pieces of legislation and it is a

continuous process in regard to evaluating and re-evaluating the legislative

agenda that we have in Government Services. One of the things that we do is to

have a look at legislation and make sure that they are relevant to today's

world.

One of these acts that we found that was outdated and certainly no longer

relevant, and is antiquated, is the Corporations Guarantees Act. That act goes

back to actually, it was enacted in 1896 and evolved from the guarantees by

companies act. What it did back in those days is set out circumstances in which

a corporation may provide guarantees on behalf of individuals occupying

positions of trust within that corporation. It established criteria to be met by

the company in providing those guarantees. However, we find over the years that

this requirement is not currently enforced or applied; nor is it apparent to my

officials, on research, that it has ever been enforced or applied.

The act also empowers a Judge of the Supreme Court Trial Division to require

a surety in certain court proceedings such as matters of trust or estate law.

The Registrar of the Supreme Court Trial Division advises me that it does not

appear that any judge has ever relied upon these provisions since 1986, and

indeed the 1986 Rules of Court act empowers any judge to require security during

court proceedings.

Further sections of the current and modern Corporations Act provide a

corporation with all the powers of a natural person, including the provision of

corporative guarantees.

We consulted with the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador. They did a

poll in regard to their membership and they certainly support the proposed

repeal of the act. They do not see any value in it at all.

As I said, the Department of Government Services has made a concerted effort

to examine the many pieces of legislation that fall under our mandate and, in

keeping with that, this is a piece of red tape reduction as well because the

legislation is there. It is covered off by the Corporations Act, in particular,

and also under the Rules of Court act.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat. I welcome any comments by my

hon. colleagues across the House in regard to that, but I see it as a good piece

in regard to removing it because it is not relevant to today's standards.

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.

Just a few comments with regard to Bill 43. As the minister just stated, this

piece of legislation goes back to 1896. When we had a briefing on it just

yesterday it was amazing the way it was explained to us what happened back at

that time. I would have to say, there is no doubt about it, this piece of

legislation is not needed today. Guarantees or sureties have to be paid by

individuals in different professions. Similar to our Public Service Commission

today, if something went wrong, this was held against them. I know, as the

minister stated, there have been no known cases since Confederation. I guess he

has confirmed that it has not been used even back to 1896.

However, Mr. Speaker, I have one question for the minister. I understand that

there may be some sections or subsections in this legislation that may be

carried forward to another piece of legislation with regard to the Rules of

Court act. I do not think we are repealing all of it, but some of it may be

carried forward in additional legislation that is already here.

I agree with the minister, that this is a good piece of legislation in regard

to it is not used any more now. Like the minister said, it is more or less red

tape and it is not needed any more.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

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

I am quite happy to speak for a couple of moments on the repeal of this bill.

This bill is sort of like going through the resolutions book of an

organization, like our political parties, and finding resolutions still in the

resolutions book back fifteen or twenty years ago. You say: Oh, gee, did we

really pass that resolution? Even the wording of it is so ancient that you have

to get rid of it, and that is what we are dealing with here.

I am not going to take a lot of time to speak to this. It obviously needs to

be repealed. I do understand that the portion in the act concerning the Judges

of the Trial Division asking for security is actually already covered under the

rules of conduct of the Court Act, 1986. So the one piece that needed to come

out, it already is covered so that does not even need to be done, I don't

think. It is just that it was never invoked up to this point.

There is one thing I would like to point out, and I think maybe this would be

a good place to do it. I actually have spoken to the Leader of the House, or the

House Leader, about this. It may seem like a small thing, but it actually takes

time - and I am sure the minister will understand it when I say it. When we

received this bill, the Explanatory Note says, "This Bill would repeal the

Corporations Guarantees Act." That is it; that is the Explanatory Note.

Now, since this act is not something that we are in contact with on a daily

basis, or even a yearly basis as it has turned out, that means that I do not

know what that means. My staff and myself, with several of the bills, then have

to find out I have to say: Can you find out what that Corporations

Guarantees Act is? Can you go look for it? In actual fact, it takes a fair bit

of time for my researcher to do that kind of thing.

So I am really requesting of ministers, if I may be so bold as to do so, Mr.

Speaker, could you see because some departments are really good at it

that the Explanatory Note gives us enough information so that in my office, with

one researcher, I do not have to waste time getting information that is very,

very simple. Because two or three sentences with the Explanatory Note, the kind

of thing the minister said, would mean I would not have to go look for that.

Now, from some other departments we will get a bill and the bill, for example

especially where there have been amendments, but even with one of the repeal

bills - it will give four, five or six points, and it is enough information that

you do not have to do any extra research. The people in the departments have

that information. The information is included in the briefing note for the

minister, and I really would request ministers to think about giving some

direction with regard to an Explanatory Note. It is obvious the bill repeals the

Corporations Act. That is what it says, a bill,

An Act To Repeal The

Corporations Guarantees Act.

So, to have that repeated as the Explanatory Note is not helpful.

Unfortunately, the three bills from Government Services that we get today had

that same one line as the Explanatory Note.

The other day we had to call the Department of Finance on the Income Tax bill

which we have not looked at yet to ask questions as well. I just think

it would really save time if we could have basic information about what the

repeal is dealing with, so that we do not have to do this extra research which

becomes busy work but which takes away from the one researcher I have to be able

to deal with the major issues that I need her to be dealing with.

I humbly present that to the ministers here today in the House, and hope that

they will take that under advisement.

As I said, I did mention it in a meeting with the House Leader the other day,

but the House Leader, I don't think, would have control over all of the

ministers so I thought I would use this bill today to make the comment.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

If the hon. Minister of Government Services speaks now he will close the

debate on Bill 43.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments of the hon. member, and

I will certainly check into the Explanatory Note piece in regard to my own

department. I am not sure what I could do there, but I will have a talk to my

officials to see if there is anything that could be done.

As the hon. members mentioned, they recognize that this act is certainly

antiquated and is not needed any more because it is being covered off by other

acts such as the Corporations Act, which is a more modern act.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I leave the debate because I do not think there is

any need to have a debate in regard to that because we are all in concurrence

that this is a good piece to repeal this, for a number of reasons: one being

that it is not needed, and the second is that it just removes some of the red

tape that people have to go through in regard to corporations and dealing with

government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 43,

An Act To

Repeal The Corporations Guarantees Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Repeal The Corporations Guarantees Act. (Bill

43)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 43 has now been read a second time.

When shall Bill 43 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Corporations Guarantees

Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole

House on tomorrow. (Bill 43)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, on the Order Paper under Second Reading Bills,

Order 9, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Repeal The Certified Public

Accountants Act. (Bill 44)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 44,

An Act To Repeal The

Certified Public Accountants Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Repeal The Certified Public

Accountants Act. (Bill 44)

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, again government is repealing this act,

An Act

To Repeal The Certified Public Accountants Act.

Back in 1967 the Institute of Chartered Accounts of Newfoundland and the

Certified Public Accountants of Newfoundland merged into a single profession, a

professional accounting organization. Therefore, these two acts are being

repealed today because they are no longer, again, relevant and are antiquated.

As I just said, the two particular groups have merged and any measures contained

in these two acts that need to be maintained are already provided in the

Chartered Accountants Act. This one here is particularly dealing with the repeal

of the Certified Public Accountants Act, and the accounts are fully governed, as

I just said, under the Chartered Accountants Act. Consumers are fully protected

by this Act, so there is no impact to consumers with the repeal of this Act.

Again, the Department of Government Services has made every effort to examine

all our pieces of legislation that fall under this mandate to determine if any

need to be updated, streamlined or repealed. This is again in keeping with

government's commitment to reduce red tape. This repeal is an example, really,

of the continued work that the department is doing to ensure that all the

legislation is up to date and relevant to what we do in today's world.

Mr. Speaker, this is self explanatory in that it is a piece that is already

governed off by another act. I again will take my seat and welcome the remarks

of my colleagues across the House.

Thank you.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few comments with regard to Bill 44,

An Act To Repeal The Certified

Public Accountants Act.

I understand that this legislation was brought forward probably three

sessions ago in the House of Assembly. I think at that time the Chartered

Accountants or the Public Accountants had some concerns about it, but since that

time their concerns have been addressed, is my understanding.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, with regard to whether it is the Department of

Justice or the association both of them have confirmed that the new legislation

will take care of what is in here. Really it is a housekeeping issue. The

legislation, as the minister has stated, is obsolete. With regard to the various

Chartered Accountants or Public Accountants, their concerns are addressed in

other legislation.

As the minister said, there is very little to say about this, only it is a

housekeeping issue and all the documentation with regard to those associations

is addressed in other legislation. We concur with Bill 44, The Act To Repeal The

Certified Public Accountants Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Really, just to say I did consult with the Government Services Department and

got the information on this, some of which the minister has given, and obviously

we will be passing this bill.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Government Services speaks now,

he will close the debate on second reading of Bill 44.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Again, Mr. Speaker, this is just a housekeeping process, and

certainly as the comments reflect, in regards to my colleagues across the House,

they are in full agreement in regards to this act to repeal the act because it

is already covered off under a new act, a more modern act.

So, Mr. Speaker, there is not much else to say other than this does not

infringe on the public or the consumers. They are fully protected under the new

and most modern act.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I close debate.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 44 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 Repeal The Certified Public Accountants Act.

(Bill 44)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 44 has now been read a second time.

When shall Bill 44 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Certified Public Accountants

Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole

House on tomorrow. (Bill 44)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 10 under Second Reading Bills. Second

reading of a bill,

An Act To Repeal The Chartered Accountants And Certified

Public Accountants Merger Act. (Bill 45)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 45,

An Act To Repeal The

Chartered Accountants And Certified Public Accountants Merger Act, be now read a

second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Chartered

Accountants And Certified Public Accountants Merger Act." (Bill 45)

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, again, this act, in regards to Bill 45,

An Act

To Repeal The Chartered Accountants And Certified Public Accountants Merger Act,

is also related to the previous act in regards to the repeal of the Certified

Public Accountants Act.

Again, as I referenced in the first one that was up in the House just a

little while ago, that in 1967 these particular two chartered accountant groups

merged into a single profession, and they are covered off under the Certified

Accountants Act; a more modern act. Again, the consumers are well protected

under the new act. This act is certainly out of date, not relevant any more, and

is antiquated.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, it is, again, a housekeeping piece of work that we

have to do in regards to keeping our legislation current and updated. It is also

a piece of red tape process too, as well.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit and welcome any comments by my colleagues

across the House.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to confer with the hon. minister. As he said, this piece of legislation

is jointly with Bill 44. We had the opportunity, as did the hon. colleague from

Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, to meet with the officials of the department. With the

explanation, we know that this piece of legislation, as the minister said, is

more or less housekeeping. It is obsolete, and more or less tunnelling through

because this is taken care of now in other legislation.

We concur with this bill and tell the minister that we do support the

repealing of this particular Bill 45.

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

Vidi.

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

Just very quickly; again, another logical change. I noticed that the whole

action around this, the harmonization of the different pieces of legislation and

the bringing together of the different designations of those involved in public

accounting does go back to a 1997 White Paper. Actually, 1996 it was announced

and then consultations began in 1997. So trying to get all of this in place and

now having harmonized legislation has been going on for eleven years. So, yes,

let's pass the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Minister of Government Services speaks now he

will close the debate on second reading of Bill 45.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I thank my hon. colleagues for their participation in debate and their

support in regards to the repeal of this act. Actually, I might want to mention

too, as well, that this act has been redundant actually since 1967, because that

is when the certified accountants or Chartered Accountants Act came into effect,

1967. Again, it is a bit of housekeeping work in regards to my officials and my

department. Good work done and it is a good piece of Red Tape Reduction too, as

well.

Mr. Speaker, I have nothing else to say in regards to the repeal of this act,

other than it is a good piece of work by my department. I thank my colleagues

for their comments and support with regards to repeals of these acts.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 45 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 Repeal The Chartered Accountants And Certified

Public Accountants Merger Act. (Bill 45)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 45 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: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Chartered Accountants And

Certified Public Accountants Merger Act," read a second time, ordered

referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 7 from the Order Paper, under Second Reading

Bills. Second reading of,

An Act To Amend The Arts Council Act. (Bill 40)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 40,

An Act To Amend The

Arts Council Act be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Arts Council

Act." (Bill 40

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to propose changes to the Newfoundland and Labrador

Arts Council Act. The Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council was established in

January of 1980, under the Arts Council Act, which falls under the

responsibility of the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

As mandated by the act, the purpose of the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts

Council is to foster and promote the study, enjoyment of and production of works

of art in the Province and to encourage the preservation and public awareness of

cultural heritage.

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that this government is committed to growing the

arts and culture sector in this Province. We have invested in our culture

because we know that our culture is integral to our socioeconomic success and

well-being. It is what defines us as a people. It provides us with a sense of

pride and a sense of self and we must never take it for granted.

So, Mr. Speaker, in 2006, we released a cultural strategy, Creative

Newfoundland and Labrador: The Blueprint for Development and Investment in

Culture, which committed $17.6 million in new funding to the culture and

heritage sectors over a three-year period.

In that strategy, Mr. Speaker, we recognized the crucial role of the

Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council in the development and promotion of art

and culture within the Province. That is why we committed to more than doubling

the provincial government support for the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council

over a three-year period, and we have lived up to that commitment.

In 2008, the provincial government provided $1.8 million to the Newfoundland

and Labrador Arts Council, funding that goes directly to artists and to programs

and services which support artists in their creative endeavours. We support the

work of the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council and we are committed to

ensuring they can continue to nurture and support our artistic community.

Mr. Speaker, in 2005, the Arts Council celebrated its twenty-fifth

anniversary. As part of the milestone and to ensure continuing relevance to the

arts community, the Arts Council conducted a series of public consultations and

produced a planning framework. This framework will provide direction for the

Arts Council as it continues to foster and promote artistic creation and the

enjoyment of the arts for the benefits of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, as part of its planning process the board of directors of the

NLAC and TCR reviewed the Arts Council Act and recommended a number of changes

to ensure the Arts Council remains relevant, current to the arts community, to

emphasize its involvement in the creation of the arts and arts policy, and to

emphasize its operation as an autonomous organization. The proposed changes have

been developed in consultation with the Arts Council, and they are in agreement.

Mr. Speaker, the changes fall into four broad categories. One relates to

language, recognition of the changing role of the NLAC in the development of art

policy, governance and operations. With respect to the language, for example, it

was determined the act needed a more concise and contemporary definition of the

arts. For example, the term multimedia, in a new art category, was not included

in previous

definitions.

It was also deemed important to add a definition for a professional artist,

as we want to acknowledge that our artists are professional people who

contribute not just to our society but to our economy as well.

The amendments we are proposing will also acknowledge the growing leadership

role of NLAC in advising on provincial art policies, streamline operations so as

to reduce the burden on board members, and encourage broader community

representation on the board.

The latter is particularly important, Mr. Speaker. By including more members

from the community, it is hoped that the NLAC will extend its reach and ensure

its relevance to the general community. It will bring together other sectors to

the table - for example, those involved in business - whose experience may help

the council in its business-oriented activities; for example, in financing,

marketing and promotion. It is all about getting fresh points of view and fresh

ideas to the table.

Mr. Speaker, we have worked with the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council

to ensure that our legislation enables the organization to function more

effectively and efficiently as a modern-day organization, but it is also

critical that the Arts Council Act should reflect a more contemporary view of

art and the professional artists who contribute to our social and economic

well-being. That is the spirit in which we are proposing these amendments, and I

look forward to the debate.

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 am certainly pleased to stand and speak to the bill that was just proposed

by the hon. Minister of Tourism.

Mr. Speaker, the Arts Council in Newfoundland and Labrador has probably done

more to foster the participation of people in the artistic community than any

other organization that we have seen over our history. Not only do they allow

for an opportunity to advocate on behalf of issues and concerns, but they are an

organization that seeks out new talent, that recognizes the abilities of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to be able to contribute to our Province in an

artistic manner, whether that is through craft, through art, through music,

through drama, whatever the case may be, but these are the unique things that

they look for within the Province, the people they look for who display that

kind of talent and energy, and then they give them opportunities to be able to

develop their work, whether it is through writings or drafting or design or

sculpting or whatever the case may be. They do so in a number of ways, and one

of the ways the minister talked about is in terms of the grants that they give

out, but also, Mr. Speaker, they do it through the nurturing of relationships,

through networking with different groups and organizations, providing

encouragement to these individuals and to their peers to allow them to be able

to grow and develop within the field of work and study that they are engaged in.

Mr. Speaker, I am really proud of the rich culture that we have in this

Province and if you look outside of the work that is done through our museums

and through our archives in terms of preserving that culture and that tradition

and that history, the other group that comes to mind is the Arts Council who

allows us to preserve our culture, our history, our language, our traditions,

all through the work that they do as a council through their artists, through

their musicians, through their writers, through their sculptures, through their

crafters and so on. So, Mr. Speaker, it has become an invaluable part of the

history and the fibre that makes up that history within our Province, but it is

also a group that is enlightening future generations, encouraging them in the

field of performing arts in particular but encouraging them in other fields of

artistic ability as well.

I remember only in the last decade, in this city alone, if you look at the

amount of culture that is available to you on any given day, the number of

venues that you can walk into now and see a play, have a dinner, listen to

really good local artists and musicians perform, Mr. Speaker, even in the last

decade I have seen that growing noticeably within Newfoundland and Labrador and

it has become a major contributor to the tourism economy in Newfoundland and

Labrador. There is absolutely no doubt about that. In fact, it was only recently

I listened to an

article on CBC Radio and they were interviewing this couple in

Maine who owned a ship and I think it was a small cruise ship that was

travelling around Newfoundland and Labrador. I forget the name of it; maybe it

was the Wind Mere or the Windermere or something. They were out of

Maine, and they were talking about how they had just set up a small craft store

in Maine, to be able to market art in Newfoundland and Labrador. Primarily, what

they were selling there was carvings, soapstone carvings that were coming out of

Northern Labrador.

So, Mr. Speaker, because of the work and the nurturing of artists in the

Province through the Arts Council, the incentive that it has provided them, the

encouragement that it has provided them, it has allowed that to become an

industry, an industry that has taken on a complete life of its own, and one that

is fostering a lot of good opportunity for people in the Province and we need to

recognize that.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to speak about another small piece, and that is the

role that the Arts Council is playing in allowing for musicians and artists to

go into the classrooms around our Province. It is a program that has been

ongoing, I know, for a long time, but in the last few years they have really

nurtured that program along and they have developed it into something far

greater, I think, than it has been for a long time.

Right now, today, in Newfoundland and Labrador, a lot of the children who

live in rural, outport communities do not often have exposure to the top artists

in the Province or to the teachers of art and music and craft. Well, now they

have that opportunity because through the partnership of a number of groups and

organizations and government, but the Arts Council being a key one, many of

these people are now getting to go into a small outport classroom to sit with a

Grade 6 class or a Grade 8 or a Grade 9 class and to talk about the importance

of the arts and music and also, Mr. Speaker, to be able to do workshops with

them. They, too, in their school, can learn different skills and different

talents and be able to identify with that kind of business in the Province.

I know of a number of children, even in my own district, who had the

opportunity to have some well-known musicians in their classroom and well-known

artists, who helped them with painting and drafting and drawing and music and so

on. It really meant a lot to them to be able to do that.

So, Mr. Speaker, the Arts Council, like every organization I am sure, as they

go forward there needs to be changes and tinkering with legislation to allow

them to provide a greater role, a more positive role in the community and in our

Province. I understand that these amendments are doing just that, meeting the

needs and the requests that they have put out there and put forward.

I certainly hope that the Arts Council will see tremendous success continued

in the years to come because I think they have already had some great success

stories in the past. We will certainly support any changes in legislation

related to this organization.

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 40, the

Arts Council Act. I understand, as well, the Leader of the NDP would like to

have a few words but she got called outside to deal with the media, I guess. So

she asked me to stand and have a few words in the meantime, which I intended to

do in any case.

First of all, in regards to a comment that was made earlier today by the

Leader of the NDP talking about the explanatory notes that we get on the bills,

I would certainly support her in what she said, that it makes it a lot easier if

there were at least some basic explanations on the bills. I notice in this one

in particular, Bill 40, it is pretty thorough, actually. There is a fairly good

condensation of what we are going to deal with in this act. It saves a lot of

time, it saves a lot of effort, at least when we become aware of it.

To give you another example, if you look at Bill 59, which comes under the

Department of Municipal Affairs, which we are going to be dealing with in this

session as well. We have a brand new act called,

An Act To Provide For The

Organization And Administration Of Emergency Services In The Province. Seventeen

pages of new law that we are going to implement during this session. If you look

at the explanatory note it says: "The purpose of this Bill is set out in

the

Long Title." Now, that is the explanatory note on this new act. We do

not have a lot of help and a lot of direction and guidance when it comes to the

explanatory notes. It would be very helpful if the legislative draftspersons who

do these things could at least give us some indication. We can all read the long

title and figure out what it might be about, but it is certainly not an

explanatory note as to what might be contained in the piece of legislation. So I

think in future that would be helpful.

With regards to Bill 40, as I say, the explanatory notes were fairly

detailed. In fact, by just reading through the notes you get a good sense of

what is contained in it in terms of the amendments, and some of it is, no doubt,

housekeeping. We have the transparency piece which says that, because of the

Transparency and Accountability Act, there are certain sections of this act that

we do not need any more, so those are fairly straightforward housekeeping

things.

The number of meetings that the council would hold each year, obviously they

have decided - these people are all volunteers who work on this council and we

cannot expect volunteers, who do a very good job as it is, to be tying

themselves up totally to the point where they impact their own businesses and

their own careers and whatever else - I notice the number of meetings now has

been cut down to a minimum of three per year, rather than bimonthly. That

certainly helps, and that is a prudent administrative feature as well. If they

need more they can have more, but at least you are not mandating and requiring

them to have more than that. If is it not necessary it obviously would not need

to be done.

I notice the membership piece on the council; they have made some changes as

to how the membership is done and so on all of which, after years and years

of implementation of

an act and a law, you need to go back and review these

things, because housekeeping certainly becomes necessary. You tidy up some of

the loose ends that you have over the course of time, and you only find out by

applying the act what the shortcomings in it are. So it is good to see that

there are going to be some housecleaning moves made here.

A couple of concerns that we did have, and I don't know if they are

concerns or more of a question point of view to the minister in terms of

explanations when he gets an opportunity, either in cluing up second reading or

when we get to the Committee stage it does not really matter where - these

are just some of the issues that were raised.

First of all, on the definition piece, we notice you have a new definition

here of the arts. Back in the old definition it used to say, arts include

theatre, dance, folk arts, literature, music, painting, sculpture, the graphic

arts, crafts, and other similar and interpretive activities. That is what it

used to say.

Under the new definition that we are dealing with here it says, arts include

the performing arts, film, video, writing, music, the visual arts and multimedia

arts. Obviously a lot of changes were required because the arts have broadened

so much in the years with video coming on stream, and multimedia, but a question

was raised by someone in the arts community of the fact that we have left out

the graphic arts. Is that a shortcoming here, and should we have included it?

Not that it is necessarily a defect or whatever, but there was somebody we

were talking with in the arts community who expressed a concern that they might,

by oversight, be leaving graphic artists out of the definition of art.

I spoke to the director of the Arts Council today, actually, to ask him, and

he explains that he thinks it is okay, I guess, and they do not have any problem

with it, and he certainly indicated that there was consultation between the

department and the Arts Council to try iron it out, but this person did express

that concern to us so I am just wondering. If it is included under multimedia

that is fine, or if it is included under visual arts, but that person who was

into the graphic arts specifically felt that they might not have been covered by

the new definition. We want to be inclusive rather than accidentally or

unintentionally exclude anyone. I just raise that question to the minister as

well, and perhaps we might get some explanation of that.

I also have concern about the purpose of the act. Maybe it is all answered,

because a lot of these things, of course, come down to

interpretation. Under the

old act it says: The purpose of this act is to continue the Newfoundland and

Labrador Arts Council to foster and promote the study, enjoyment of and the

production of works in the arts of the Province, and to encourage the

preservation and public awareness of cultural heritage.

That was the purpose of the old act. We are now changing the purpose, and the

purpose says, "The purpose of this Act is to continue the Newfoundland and

Labrador Arts Council to foster and promote the creation and production of works

in the arts in the province, the study and enjoyment of those works, and to

encourage public awareness of the arts."

The question is the reference to historical and cultural heritage

preservation; that piece is no longer there. I think it is important, if it is

not broad enough - we are not only interested in encouraging the arts in our

Province, which I think you have adequately done in the definition, but I do not

think we should lose sight of the fact of our preservation of the historical and

cultural heritage of the Province. The definition, I think, in its present form,

might not be including - the preservation piece got lost somewhere here in the

drafting, and maybe there is a very legitimate explanation for that. That was an

observation of ourselves when we had a look at this.

The piece about the definition of professional artist, there is certainly no

problem with that. These people, of course, I guess if you use I do not know

how you determine a professional. Do you determine on the quality of a person's

work, the percentage of time that a person dedicates to a work, or the fact that

they are compensated for the work, or is it a combination of all three things?

We have no issue with it; it is just that we do not want to exclude anybody

simply by using a definition again. This is all about being inclusive and

encouraging, rather than discouraging or exclude anyone from there.

The other issue - and again it is just a matter of why, I guess - I noticed

previously there was no question that the Arts Council can have an executive

director. In fact, they do have one. I spoke with the gentleman today. The act

that we are dealing with now changes the appointment of the executive director

from the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to the minister.

I am just wondering, why would that be necessary or what is the streamlining

or what is the purpose of that? I think the Arts Council of the Province is a

fairly significant position, and certainly the executive director there. I am

just wondering, what the logic is for having that person selected by the

minister now, one person, as opposed to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council,

which is the Cabinet? To me, there are some cases where it is not a case of too

many cooks spoil the broth; I think in the case of, in a selection of that

magnitude, the more edge you have involved and the more opinions you have might

be worthy. So I am just wondering why that particular change would have been

made in that regard.

Other than those comments it is fairly, as we say, straightforward

housecleaning things. Our only concern is that, albeit the consultation took

place, which is great to see that government did consult with the Arts Council,

we would not want to exclude anybody accidentally or unintentionally, and

perhaps there are very good explanations as to why these things are there.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity for those few comments.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Member for the District of

Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to this act. While I am interested

in everything that comes to the floor of this House, on a personal level I do

have a lot of interest in the whole issue of arts and culture. It has been part

of my whole life, and part of my family, and it continues to be. I have both

family members, many, and many friends who are affected by things like the Arts

Council and the funding of the Arts Council, et cetera.

There are a number of things that I would like to speak to. First of all,

just to say that I do find the act that is before us, and the changes that are

being suggested under the act, very forward-looking. I am actually quite pleased

with many of the changes that are there. It is not often that you can give an

act like this to a group of people who are affected and say: What do you think

of this? and get back almost 100 per cent positive response. I have done that.

We do have an arts caucus in the New Democratic Party, and I did ask some

members of our arts caucus to look at the act. They also knew that the council,

of course, had been consulted. The people I spoke to are also part of a strong

network and they know people involved with other provincial arts councils. I

think that it is really good to point out that all of the people I spoke to

really are pleased with the direction in which this act is going and the

amendments that are being made.

One of the things, I think, that was pointed out to me that is significant is

the election of a chair by the members is not a usual thing. This actually was

seen by somebody as being a particularly enlightened thing, that that happens. I

was delighted to learn that, that it was something that was not happening with

every single council. I think it is extremely important that the act says that

the council shall select one of its own members and they shall do it to be the

chairperson and two members to act as vice-chairpersons of the council.

I have spoken to the minister, I chatted with him before this came to the

floor today, and the one thing I did say to him is that I hope this will be in

practice what is being said on paper and that the subject to the approval of the

minister would be more for accountability purposes rather than any kind of

management purposes. By that, I mean that the minister would trust the judgement

of the council when they choose their chairperson and not step in and say: Well,

I do not agree with you and I think it should be somebody else. Because if the

council has been approved by a minister - and that it would have to be the case

if the council is approved by a minister, then I think a minister should be

ready to accept the person who is selected by the council to chair and the

persons who are selected to be vice-chairpersons.

I think this is important for accountability and I hope that I know the

current minister, that is his understanding of it and I think it is important

for us to see it that way. Why am I making a point of this? Because of what

happened recently, just a short time ago, some months ago, with regard to the

president of the university, where the practice always was that the Board of

Regents would submit to the government the person they chose as president and

the government would trust the judgement of the Board of Regents and accept

their nomination. We had something happen this year that changed that. That is

why I am pointing this out. I would have a fear that the same thing could happen

here. I think that when we have a body that is appointed by government, that

once they are in place then government has to trust them and they have to have

the freedom to do their work. I point out that I am really pleased with

section

6.(2) and I would hope that that would operate in the spirit in which I am told

by the minister it is meant.

I would also like to refer to

section 8.(1) because this also refers to

appointment by the council. In 8.(1) we are talking about the executive director

of the council. Once again: "The council may, subject to the approval of

the minister, appoint an executive director" Of course, an executive

director would be a staff person and in some ways would be the equivalent of the

president of an organization. So I have the same concern that again, this would

be for accountability purposes and that a minister would recognize that this

council of qualified persons, if they come up with somebody as executive

director that they know what they are doing, the minister would accept that,

trusting in them and would not intervene in any way to usurp the decision that

they would make.

I would like to point out to the House that when we had this discussion

around the presidency of the university there are some people on the government

side who said: You cannot expect us to rubber stamp. Well, the thing is, it is

not rubber stamping, it is trusting the people who you have accepted to be in

this body to make their decision and to have them accountable for what they are

doing. If they mess up for some reason, then you also have to trust them to fix

the mistake they have made, if for some reason they have chosen the wrong

person. We have to leave groups free. Even groups who receive funding from

government, they have to be accountable, they have to be transparent, but they

also have to be free in running the organization that they are in charge of.

With regard to 8.(1), I did have one concern and I will put it out, but the

minister and I have spoken and I realize I was interpreting it one way and the

way he explained it made absolute sense.

Section 8.(1) says that the council

may, subject to the approval of the minister, appoint an executive director of

the council for whom the council shall provide remuneration out of its general

funds. I wondered why in 8.(1) it said "may" and in 6.(2) it said, the

member of the council shall select one member as the chairperson.

The explanation makes all the sense in the world. It is not that and here

is how I was reading it it is not that the council may appoint an executive

director who would be rejected by the minister. It is that the council may or

may not appoint an executive director. They may decide they don't need one for

whatever reason. If they do, it is subject to the approval of the minister, but

they made the decision whether or not they appoint an executive director. I see

the minister nodding, so I've got the understanding correctly and I am

satisfied it was just the way in which my mind was working when I read that

section.

Obviously, at some point the council may choose to use money in a different

way. Sometimes you have a very, very high level of volunteerism involved and

maybe they don't need it. Leaving the option to them, I think, is very

important. The one thing I would say is that I would hope they would never have

to make the option because they weren't receiving adequate funding from

government. I would hope that the money would always be there, that if they

choose to have an executive director they have adequate resources to do so.

When it comes to those points, I am quite satisfied. I actually like the fact

that the "subject to approval" is now "subject to approval of the

minister," not of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. I think it simplifies

the process, number one, and it also gives a point person when it comes to

accountability. It is much more transparent to have the minister as the one who

gives the approval rather than the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. It becomes a

little bit more amorphous and a little bit more difficult to pin down who is

responsible for things when you say Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

There are some times, obviously, when things have to be Lieutenant-Governor

in Council but I think in the context of something like an Arts Council having

it under the minister makes all the sense in the world, and I think will make

for a more fluid operation of the council.

I am also quite pleased, as I am sure professional artists are, that

professional artists are in the amendment, that they are now included, that this

is a new thing. I am also pleased that great attention has been given to

spelling out who a professional artist is. It is quite detailed and I was quite

pleased to see that. From my own knowledge and from the knowledge of other

people in reading it carefully, I know that it really does seem to have every

angle covered, and I am really pleased about that.

There are a couple of more things that I would like to talk to. Having this

act gives me the opportunity to do so. I know that the minister has pointed out

that money for the Arts Council has increased, and there is no doubt that it has

but we still have a long ways to go. There is still a long ways to go in order

to bring artists in Newfoundland and Labrador up to artists in other parts of

the country when it comes to their income.

We have choices to make I know, government has choices to make but I really

would encourage the minister, as he involves himself in the budget process, and

I would encourage the Minister of Finance as he listens to the Minister of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation to understand that we still are very far below

what needs to be done. That one of the most important roles of the council - I

mean everything they do is important and the promotion of culture is very

important, and promotion of the arts is very important, but one of the most

important things they do is make sure that artists in Newfoundland and Labrador

receive funding to help them as they do their work. Especially as professionals

do it, because professionals depend on the grants that they get from Arts

Council. It is not the only place that they get grants but we know that things

are inadequate when we look at the statistics. Right now, and these are the

figures for 2008-2009, the average artist's income in Canada is $23,490. That

is the average Canadian artist's income. The average Newfoundland and Labrador

artist's income is $16,925; so almost $7,000 less.

We do know that very few artists make a living exclusively from their art. As

a matter of fact, in Canada it is only 10 per cent of artists who make their

income exclusively from their art, and the percentage actually is about the same

in Newfoundland and Labrador. There is no difference in the percentage but the

income for Newfoundland and Labrador artists is much lower, the average income

is much lower. When we look at average, we all know what that means. There are

some professionals who are earning below $16,925 and there are some who are

probably earning well above. We know there are some earning well above, but for

the most part, an awful lot of artists in this Province are poor. Even with all

the things they do to try to promote their art and make money, a lot of them are

poor.

We also know that they do not have benefits. When they, for example, get

sick, have an accident, cannot work, one of the things the arts community has to

do is to raise money to help their peer, to help their brother or sister in the

arts be able to make it over the hump of the time that they cannot pay. So there

is a lot that has to be done to help artists in our country so that they can,

not only earn money, but also be able to deal with times when they cannot earn

money. This is something that I think we need to look at as a government. We

absolutely need to look at what happens in other countries to help artists so

that when they do not have income, that they can still have something that helps

them along.

Now, if they have a job sometimes you will have an artist who is also a

teacher, spends part of the time teaching. If you are lucky enough to be in that

situation, then you are going to have a benefit at a time when you get sick, but

there are an awful lot of artists who, even when they are working in something

else to try to earn money, they are still not working in a job with a lot of

security and a lot of benefits. So it is another issue for us that we really

need to look at. Right now we have about 8,000 jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador

that could be termed jobs that fit under arts. That means we have a lot of poor

artists running around this Province who need our help.

Just to bring it down even more, in terms of the allocation, the funding

allocation that goes on. Again, I know that funding has gone up, and the

minister has pointed that out, but right now in Newfoundland, the Newfoundland

Arts Council in terms of the allocation that they are able to make in

Newfoundland and Labrador, the per capita is $3.85. That is the allocation

funding for the Newfoundland and Labrador council. It is not the worst in

Canada. Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick are below. They are well below

actually, they are only $1.72, but it is certainly far from the best. You go to

Quebec, for example, $11.01 is the allocation funding for the council. In the

Yukon it is $56.33. So we have a lot to do to bring the allocation up to match

other places in Canada with regard to the allocation that is allowed to the Arts

Council. In doing it, it will always be money that will, for the most part, be

helping the individual artist.

In this time of economic uncertainty, I think more money going into the Arts

Council is something that will stimulate the economy, because the money going to

the Arts Council is money that is going to artists. The money that is going to

artists, we all know - and I do not have the particular statistic in front of

me, and we do not need statistics all the time. We do know that there is quite

an amount of money in this Province. I think in the whole area of culture, $289

million is the figure of money that is generated under the title of culture in

this Province.

As the government moves into - and I am sure that the Minister of Finance is

already there - looking at the budget for 2009-2010 and with the economic times

in which we find ourselves, which are recessionary, then economic stimulation is

very, very important. We just had a federal government which wanted to ignore

that and I feel certain that this government is not going to want to ignore. I

am sure this government understands why economists say governments have to be

involved in economic stimulation at this time and not adding to what could be

the burden on individuals in the community.

When we look at something like artists who already have such a low income,

anything that can be done in the next budget to increase money to the council so

that it can have more grants for artists will be a positive. It would be an

economic stimulant, not an expenditure that is draining the coffers, and we need

to look at it that way.

I am grateful for the opportunity to have been able to speak to the issues of

artists and of the whole industry of culture and art in Newfoundland and

Labrador. I am pleased with the act. It is on record now and hopefully if ever

the time came that we needed it, it will be on record. I do stress once again

that we have a forward-looking act or bill that will become part of our Arts

Council Act. I hope that we maintain the forward-looking nature of this and

interpret carefully especially the two sections I talked about with regard to

the minister approving decisions of the council, that we maintain that in the

spirit in which I am told that it is meant, and that is, for the sake of

accountability, they notify the minister but a minister, I would hope, would

accept the decisions of a council when it comes both to choosing the chairperson

and to choosing an executive director if they decide to do that.

With seven seconds left, Mr. Speaker, I do not have to ask for leave.

Thank you very much.

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

he speaks now he will close debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will start off by saying it is very encouraging to hear the discussion that

has gone on. I do not think there is a group in the Province that all people of

the Province can have a connection to any better than the artists within our

Province and within our larger community. I suppose you could say, as a lay

person coming into the portfolio of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, it is quite

an eye-opener when you sit around the table and you start to discuss things

about artists, what it means to be a professional artist. I think it resonated

with us just a short while ago.

I will refer to one of the statements that Margaret Atwood made in the media

recently, in light of the cuts that were coming federally, when she said that

you have to understand that - she referred to herself as being one of the people

who makes a good living from being an artist. Her point was that, for those that

do, the number that do not far outweigh those that do.

As such, the Leader of the NDP makes a very valid point. It was an eye-opener

for me. When I come into the department, as I have said, sit down and discuss

these kinds of issues, and if you look at the way we perceive our artists

sometimes, that we would expect that someone who paints, or someone who

performs, whether musical instruments or whatnot, that we often call upon them

to volunteer, and they often do volunteer, but the second point is that we often

expect - and they do come forward to charge nothing. I think that is where

we as a people need to reflect our mindset. Every time that they get up and they

stand up for an hour performing or painting or sculpting, that is their

livelihood. We need to understand, as a people, that we cannot always expect

them to do that, no more than I as a teacher or someone else in another

profession would give freely of our time.

I think, as well, to respond in terms of this act, there are a couple of

words that I would like to put in here. One is that it is giving more autonomy

to the Arts Council. If we look at the sections that were mentioned, 6.(2) and

8.(1), if we look at the may in appointing an executive director then we are

leaving that decision-making in the hands of the council, which is a good thing.

I mean, 6.(2) says shall. Well, we have to have a chairperson but again we are

not doing that. The recommendation is being made by the council and it comes

forward. As to why now the decision finally rests with the minister, well, you

know, I think very simply it eliminates another level of bureaucracy, if you

want to put it that way. This will expedite the process and again goes back to

giving more autonomy to the council, and hopefully it is seen as being a

progressive piece of legislation.

I would like to address a couple of the comments that were made by the

Opposition House Leader. He talked about having spoken to someone, a graphic

artist. Well, you know, indications are that those individuals would be captured

under the visual artists, the multimedia. So, that has been addressed there.

From an historical perspective, you know, we certainly want to be into

preservation. If there is one thing that has come from our cultural fund, it is

that we have invested in the cultural infrastructure in our Province and it is

something that we will continue to invest in and continue to maintain.

Again, I have already commented on the aspect of professionalism in the

artistic community, and that we have taken in line with what has been

established as professionalism under the Canadian council. So, in coming forward

with the recommendations, that is where we have arrived at that.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is much more than that I can add to it, but

I will say one thing. I have said this quite often, over and over again. If

there is one department in government that is the face of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, I think it is the Department of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation, especially if we look at things that are promoting our Province in

terms of our ads. Then, if you look at the cultural side of it, the artistic

community, all you have to do is take a look at some of the art that is around

the Confederation Building, and the art, the paintings that are out in different

shops across the Province, and then if we listen to the songs, the stories, the

music, the sculptures, the new media that are coming on stream, if there is one

thing that portrays us as a Province, it is this sector of government. It is

these people that often bring us together. All you have to do is to be in the

presence of some of these performers, these musicians, and see how they can

rally the people and make us proud of who we are as a people in this particular

Province.

With that, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now

read a second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Arts Council Act. (Bill 40)

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

When shall this 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 Arts Council Act," read a

second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.

(Bill 40)

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

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

11, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Repeal The Newfoundland And Labrador

Computer Services Limited Amendment Act. (Bill 46)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 46,

An Act To Repeal The

Newfoundland And Labrador Computer Services Limited Amendment Act, be now read a

second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Newfoundland And

Labrador Computer Services Limited Amendment Act." (Bill 46)

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

Board.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is

an act to repeal the Newfoundland and Labrador Computer

Services Limited Amendment Act, but it will also give me an opportunity today to

talk about what has essentially replaced the Newfoundland and Labrador Computer

Services.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services Limited was a Crown

Corporation that existed until 1994 and which essentially did all the computing

work for government. It was doing then what the Office of the Chief Information

Officer does today.

In 1994, Mr. Speaker, under a Liberal government at the time, this work was

outsourced to Newtel, or Aliant, and it operated at that time as xwave. There

was an amendment act in 1994 which deleted references in the various legislation

to the Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services, and this bill today will

repeal that act.

However, Mr. Speaker, this bill also gives me an opportunity to speak, as I

say, about the Office of the Chief Information Officer, which is one of the most

important offices that we have here in government that no one knows anything

about.

The only time we hear about the OCIO is when we have a privacy breach. If you

will remember when we had the issue with the Newfoundland and Labrador I

think it was the health centre, we had the issue at the Workplace Health and

Safety Commission. So what happens at that time is when the OCIO or the Office

of the Chief Information Officer comes in and tries to determine what went wrong

and performs a troubleshooting function.

As minister, I am not only the minister responsible for the Finance and

Treasury Board, but also for the OCIO or the Office of the Chief Information

Officer. I think that that is fairly new in terms of when my predecessor was

there, because the OCIO at that time, I think, reported either to perhaps to

the Executive Council.

So, Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Chief Information Officer was established

in 2005 as a result of recommendations by the Chief Information Officer, to

bring all information technology functions into one organization. Now, back in

1994, when the work was outsourced at that time, computers were certainly

playing an important role in government, but compared to today, I would say that

they would have had to play a much lesser role.

Is there anyone in this House who does not have a computer in their office?

All of the administrative staff, Mr. Speaker, everyone has computers in which

they access for e-mails, to look up information, to access the Internet. As a

result of some of the initiatives that have occurred in terms of the privacy

breaches, we have also - for example, no one can access LimeWire anymore on our

computers. There are certain locks put in place. Firewalls are being developed.

So all of this is done through the Office of the Chief Information Officer.

Prior to the formation of the OCIO, information technology services and

support were spread across eight departments. The Chief Informa