December

8, 2008

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 46

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit Strangers.

Today the House of Assembly would like to welcome Mr. Jim Hibbs, Principal of

Botwood Collegiate. Welcome to the House of Assembly.

Statements by Members

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

hon. the Member for the District of Exploits, the hon. the Member for the

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

Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South, the hon. the Member for the District of Kilbride.

The hon. the Member for the District of Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of

April Dwyer of Bishop's Falls. April is sixteen years old and a Level II

student at Leo Burke Academy, but of significant importance, April is a foster

child.

Mr. Speaker, for a number of years, April was placed with various foster

families. In her own words, there were many times she was so depressed she felt

useless and wanted to hide. However, at age ten, Sheila and David Brace of

Bishop's Falls was asked to take April for one night and now six years later

April is still very much a part of their family.

Mr. Speaker, one educator wished he could have a school filled with Aprils

and encouraged her to compete in an essay contest sponsored by Foster Families

Association of Newfoundland and Labrador. This competition was also open to all

students and not limited to youth in foster care. You will find her story in the

Foster Families Association newsletter.

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

April Dwyer for overcoming many challenges and placing second in a Province-wide

essay competition.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Baseball is alive and well in Upper Island Cove. The Upper Island Cove

Bulldogs wrapped up a great season earlier this fall at the Newfoundland Amateur

Baseball Association meetings in Gander.

At the awards reception, Tiffany Janes of Bryant's Cove was awarded the

Stephanie Bavis Memorial Award for provincial Female Player of the Year for

Bulldogs President, Scott Adams, received the Les Noseworthy Memorial Award

for outstanding contribution to the growth and development of baseball in

Newfoundland and Labrador. Scott Mercer, the Vice-President of the Bulldogs, was

re-elected to the NABA Executive as Eastern Director, while Scott Adams was

elected as the NABA Treasurer.

In 2009, several championships will be hosted at Upper Island Cove. In

addition, the Bantam Girls Team will travel to the 2009 National Bantam Baseball

Championships later on.

Mr. Speaker, congratulations are in order to all three individuals and I ask

all hon. members to join me in wishing them every success in 2009.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, and my hon. colleagues, I rise in this House today to

congratulate Pat Williams of the Town of Triton on 2008's Citizen of the Year.

Pat is a hardworking part of the community and is involved in the fire

department as well as the recreation department, just to mention a few. It

appears wherever there is volunteer work to be done, Pat is there.

Pat was honoured at the annual Volunteer Christmas Dinner along with some of

his colleagues. Lifelong Service Award went to Don Budgell; the Most Dedicated

went to Blake Rice; and Fireman of the Year went to Stedman Rideout and Darren

Roberts.

Volunteerism is the oldest form of kindness, and in these times when all are

busy and have families, jobs, et cetera, it does the heart good to see there

still are acts of kindness amidst these fast paced times.

I would like all hon. members to join with me to say congratulations and many

thanks to all the volunteers in the Town of Triton.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

longevity and success of a sporting organization that has just completed its

twenty-ninth year of operation in the Goulds, Kilbride and Petty Harbour area.

Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the Goulds Recreational Men's Slow Pitch

Softball League that provides summer recreation for 112 men from a wide range of

ages.

This league started nearly thirty years ago thanks to the leadership and

organizational skills of three fine gentlemen Ron Doyle, John Quinlan and

Mike Crotty.

In the beginning, it was called the West End Slow Pitch Softball League and

it provided a game of ball for those who did not want to compete in the fast

pitch leagues operating in Kilbride, Goulds, Petty Harbour, Mount Pearl and St.

John's at the time.

In the first year, games were played on a tiny, then substandard softball

field at the Kilbride Lions Club Centre. There were four teams and the interest

was great.

Thanks to the efforts of Bob Aylward, the former MHA and Cabinet Minister

from Kilbride, an employment grant was obtained from the government and three

people were hired to construct a fence and clubhouse on the St. Kevin's Field,

thus making it capable of accommodating league games.

The league moved to St. Kevin's and was able to expand to a six-team

organization.

League operations continued from St. Kevin's until 2002, when the field was

shifted to a new site behind the former Goulds Town Hall by the players

themselves. The league operates there today and has eight teams. Interest is

still great.

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

congratulating the Goulds Men's Softball League for so many years of great

service to our area.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Tomorrow, Tuesday, December 9, marks the closing deadline for submissions by

youth to an exciting contest our department launched as part of our latest

addictions awareness campaign, Get Up On It.

The campaign this year targets marijuana use, was launched on November 17,

the beginning of Addictions Awareness Week. As students enter high school, they

face some challenging decisions and often hear mixed and incorrect messages,

especially when it comes to substance use. By giving young people the facts,

they learn to make their own informed decisions. We are encouraging them to draw

their own conclusions. That is an important part of growing up and learning to

deal with the pressures and difficult choices they will encounter, not just in

school, but throughout their lives.

This campaign features a series of posters, banner ads on sites popular with

youth, including Facebook, MSN, Empire Theatres. Three key facts about marijuana

were highlighted: its effect on ambition and interest, its effect on driving and

reaction time, and the harmful and unknown toxins and addictive additives

generally found in marijuana.

In the past three weeks since we launched the campaign we have had over

13,000 hits on our campaign site, getuponit.ca, showing that we are reaching

youth. We are also giving students an opportunity to design their own clothing

line as part of a unique contest to help promote anti-addiction messages.

Students can submit T-shirt designs at getuponit.ca and the winner, who will

be decided by on-line voting, will receive 100 T-shirts and ten hoodies printed

with his or her design. As well, the winner's school will receive a set of Get

Up On It soccer balls. The contest closes tomorrow, so students still have a

window of opportunity to get their designs in.

I encourage everyone to visit this Web site to view the incredible creativity

of our youth, as their entries literally demonstrate how they have drawn their

own conclusions and have chosen to promote anti-addition messages through their

designs.

Reaching youth in our Province is key to helping prevent problematic

substance use in our society and to protect the health and well-being of our

young people. That is why we introduced the campaign Get Up On It, to encourage

youth to stay real, follow their dreams, and not let addictions get in the way

of what they want to accomplish in their lives.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

today.

Mr. Speaker, this is an exciting campaign, I am sure, for many youth across

the Province. There is nothing nicer than having your peers be able to be

mentors and, I guess, examples for other youth in our society in terms of how to

counteract substance use, abuse, and addictions amongst young people.

Mr. Speaker, in Newfoundland and Labrador, I guess, over the years we have

seen lots of cases where we have had to deal with high rates of youth addictions

in our society, and it is still continuing. In fact, Mr. Speaker, statistics

will show that in the last number of years we have sent a number of children

outside the Province for addiction treatment. Most of these kids were placed

into treatment programs that extended three months and beyond. Mr. Speaker, most

of them were sent because they had multiple issues of substance abuse and were

using different kinds of drugs and a combination of alcohol and drugs.

Mr. Speaker, what is really interesting to note is that we are one of the few

provinces in Canada that do not have an addictions treatment centre for young

people. We do have restrictive treatment for adults, which is now being used at

Humberwood. Mr. Speaker, the statistics at Humberwood will show that in 2006 and

2007, 40 per cent of the people going into that program were between the ages of

eighteen and thirty. Again, last year, 36 per cent of people in the program were

in that age range as well, so I think anything that we can do as a Province to

try and reach these people before they become adults, to help them deal with the

addictions and substance abuse that they have, we need to be able to do that and

take an active role in ensuring that we can, as a community and as a society,

provide for them.

Before I close, I just want to recognize the work that was being done by

Turnings, and Ron Fitzpatrick. Over the years they have done a tremendous amount

of work in counteracting addictions, helping people find treatments and proper

programs to help them, and I understand that their funding may be at risk, that

they normally would

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude her remarks.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

- that they would normally get from the federal government. I ask that the

minister certainly be aware of that, keep in mind the work that they have done

in the Province in the past, and hopefully the Province will continue to fund

them and support them in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

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

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement and I do

congratulate the department on this campaign, which certainly looks like it has

been very successful. We need these kinds of campaigns over and over, I would

suggest to the minister.

We also need to look at the serious need for more access to counsellors for

youth who either already are using drugs or who are on the verge of using drugs

but need somebody to talk to. We need these counsellors both inside the school

system as well as out in the community.

Obviously, as my colleague has just said, the need for a treatment centre for

those youths who are addicted is a very serious need. I really encourage the

minister to put real effort into getting a centre here in this Province for

youth.

We also need opportunities in the school system for youth to be able to speak

openly and safely about drugs. So, while we may have a campaign like this, I

would very much like to see it backed up by a program of openness and open

discussions in the school system.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to acknowledge and congratulate Mr. Stan Cook

Jr. on being named Chair of the Board of Directors for the Tourism Industry

Association of Canada, also known as TIAC.

Mr. Cook was elected to serve a two-year term for the organization during

Canada's Tourism Leadership Summit, held last month in Gatineau, Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, this is a significant appointment in so many ways. First, it

must be noted that Mr. Cook is the first Newfoundlander and Labradorian to ever

serve as TIAC's Chair. He is clearly suited to the task, Mr. Speaker. Anyone

who knows Mr. Cook can attest to his boundless energy and enthusiasm and to his

knowledge of the tourism industry as a whole; but, Mr. Speaker, I believe this

appointment also speaks to the increased recognition of Newfoundland and

Labrador as a key player within the Canadian tourism industry, and to the

growing respect this Province is receiving on the national scene.

As you may recall, last year, Newfoundland and Labrador's tourism marketing

campaign won TIAC's Marketing Campaign of the Year Award. That achievement

focused the national industry's attention on Newfoundland and Labrador and

what we have achieved.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we are regarded as leaders and innovators in the Canadian

tourism industry. Other jurisdictions seek our advice and follow our example. We

have clearly arrived.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that Mr. Stan Cook Jr. is in the

gallery today, along with some family and friends, and some staff from the

Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation who, I know, have worked very

closely with him.

Mr. Speaker, I invite colleagues in the House to join me in congratulating

Stan Cook Jr., President of Stan Cook Sea Kayak Adventures, and the new Chair of

the Tourism Industry Association of Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I appreciate the minister having provided us with an advance copy of his

statement.

We, too, in the Official Opposition, would also stand with the minister in

congratulating Mr. Cook for his achievement. He has been involved in the tourism

industry in this Province for quite some time, not only in his own right as a

business person, of course, but also in other groups and organizations in this

Province. I believe he was also the President of Hospitality Newfoundland and

Labrador at one point, so he has shown his dedication not only to his business

but also to organizations which advance and promote tourism, culture and

recreation in this Province for quite some years now.

It is another example of a Newfoundlander and Labradorian who not only is

good within their own right in this Province but can stand on the national stage

and provide leadership indeed on a national and international basis. We do not

only do it in military avenues and business but we also do in this type of

involvement here through our leadership as well.

We hope he does have some good advice for our government as well in the

future, because albeit we may be on some economic times and we need the advice

of everybody we can get on a go-forward basis in every industry. God knows, the

tourism industry is important to this Province, particularly in rural

Newfoundland. It is important all over, of course, but in rural Newfoundland it

creates a lot of jobs and provides a lot of dollars in people's pockets.

We certainly hope he continues in the role that he is. Congratulations! Hats

off to him! I am sure he is going to have lots of good creative advice for the

mainlanders as he takes his role as Chair.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

I thank the minister also for the advance copy of his statement, and I am

very pleased to stand today, with my colleagues, to congratulate Mr. Cook.

Besides this recent honour, becoming the first Chair for Newfoundland and

Labrador of TIAC, Mr. Cook, as my colleague has just said, has many good things

to his credit in the industry within which he has been working for a long time.

He was the founding President of the Adventure Tourism Association of

Newfoundland and Labrador, he chairs the Brand Experiences committee with the

Canadian Tourism Commission, and is currently the Chair of the Gros Morne

Institute for Sustainable Tourism. He is a past co-Chair of the Atlantic Canada

Tourism Partnership, and is past-Chair of Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador:

well, well ready to be in the new position that he is in.

I was quite pleased earlier this year at Hospitality Newfoundland and

Labrador's Lookout! Summit when I had ample opportunity to speak with Mr. Cook

who is always very enthusiastic, as we all know, about the tourism industry in

our Province. There were some really exciting discussions at that conference

this year, and I know that Mr. Cook will bring much knowledge and new ideas to

TIAC.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week we had devastating news in this Province, especially

for the people in Wabush and Grand Falls-Windsor, as hundreds of workers now

face layoffs with uncertainty.

Government indicated that a taskforce had been established to look at options

in Grand Falls-Windsor, and I would like to ask the minister today: Who will

serve on that taskforce, what are the objects of the taskforce, and are there

any plans to develop a similar strategy, I guess, to kind of aid or help the

people in Western Labrador as well?

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

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This taskforce has been up and operational for the last three months. It is

chaired by the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. On that

taskforce we also have representation from the Department of Education. I will

sit on that taskforce. The Minister of HRLE is there, the Minister of Finance,

as well as the Minister of Transportation and Works.

We have already received a number of proposals from interested parties in the

Grand Falls-Windsor area, especially in the area of information technology where

they already have a strong foundation.

I will also bring a strong perspective around the forestry industry, Mr.

Speaker, to see where we can have opportunities for diversification.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to ask the minister if she could clarify: Is there any local

involvement in the taskforce at all, any groups, organizations, sectorial

representatives that have been invited to share on the taskforce as well?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker. I am travelling to Grand

Falls tomorrow, hopefully accompanied by the ministers from INTRD, as well as

HRLE , to engage with the union and with the taskforce. We already have Rob

Kinden appointed from within government to be the CEO of this taskforce and then

we will work with the community to shape our response.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, last week when I questioned the minister with

regard to Grand Falls-Windsor she said at that time that she herself and

government had been working on this file for about one year.

I ask the minister today: Does government now have any kind of mitigation

plans or an economic stimulus plan that they can present to the people in Grand

Falls-Windsor at this stage, or is that going to be developed by this taskforce

that is in place?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our efforts during the last two to three years has been to keep this pulp and

paper industry alive and well in this Province as it faced the global challenges

that played a role, certainly, in taking down AbititiBowater in Grand Falls.

That is where all of our effort has been focused. There are a number of

strategies that work within this government to diversify the economy. Those are

always at work, Mr. Speaker, and we see some evidence of that, as I just

referred to in my previous answer, in terms of the technology industry that we

are supporting in Grand Falls-Windsor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Abititi has hydro and timber rights, as we are all aware of, and a mill that

is considered to be a huge asset within the Province. The minister did state at

one point that expropriation may be an option. They were reviewing that

possibility.

Maybe you can tell me today if you have had any success with finding a new

operator for the mill in Grand Falls-Windsor over the course of that time and

what the findings of your review was that you talked about back in May?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are still reviewing all our options, particularly now that the mill has

closed. This Province having control of its own natural resources is extremely

important to this government. That is one of the reasons we engaged in the whole

discussion with AbitibiBowater about repatriation of their Charter of Rights,

which would have given them an opportunity to not only maintain the rights and

privileges they have around that fibre in the Province while they are

operational here, would give them an opportunity to find significant investment

for the mill, but would give the people of the Province control again over the

particular lands that are contained within that Charter.

We review all our options. Whatever we can do to maintain resources here in

the Province and create an opportunity for somebody else to come and operate

that mill, Mr. Speaker, we are going to consider everything and do all we can to

make that happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, back in May when the minister was talking in the

media she said that she had asked the Justice department to look at the Province's

legal rights regarding the hydro facilities in particular and she expected to

have a report soon.

I would like to ask her today if there was a report prepared, if she has

received it yet, and maybe she could table it in the House or at least have it

available so that the public can see it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are getting the best advice that we have available to us to formulate a go

forward position with regard to the industry in Grand Falls-Windsor. Our main

objective always is to see that whatever the infrastructure there is, whatever

natural resources we have available to us that we can continue to use them for

the well-being of people in Central Newfoundland. We do not know what we may

have to do. We do not know what road we are on.

AbitibiBowater has asked for an opportunity to come and speak to us about

those resources. We are more than open to that, but we are certainly not going

to make legal opinions available to the general public at this point in time and

weaken our position, Mr. Speaker. Certainly not going to consider it at all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: I am just wondering, Mr. Speaker, for clarification, did the

minister have any discussions with Abitibi related to the actual mill asset

themselves and what their plan is around that particular asset to date? I do not

know if that was premature at this stage or not, I am just wondering?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, last week I had a I would consider a

very curt and brief conversation with Mr. Paterson. Myself and the minister, and

Cabinet and government found out in The Globe and Mail that this mill was

going to be closed down. So when I spoke with him I expressed my displeasure to

him at that particular time as to the manner in which this message was conveyed

to the people of Grand Falls particularly and surrounding areas, and the

communities, the wood and mill workers and everybody involved, and of course,

the government on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In the same breath, I indicated to him that the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador would be prepared to fight for those assets, the timber assets and

the power assets, to the full extent of our ability and to the full extent of

the law. The ideal situation would be that this company did the right thing and

basically transferred over those timber assets and those water assets to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know that in September, Premier, you made some statements in the media that

you would look at court action if it was necessary in order to keep the assets

associated with this mill operation.

I am just wondering what the status of that is, is that something that your

government has looked into already or something that you will look at pursuing?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I can quite honestly say that this government has

looked at the legal issues surrounding that mill for a considerable period of

time - over several years since we have actually been in office - with regard to

demands that Abitibi were making, based on previous agreements and previous

rights that they assumed that we have. So we have been constantly reviewing this

from a legal perspective and made sure that we protected the interests of the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

From our own perspective, on an ongoing basis, we obviously are obtaining

legal opinions. I think it is in the best interests of everybody involved that

we not share those legal opinions because, obviously, we have a preferred

advantage there and some leverage with the company and that is something that we

would prefer to continue on with.

The first option is the best option. The company does the right thing, does

the right thing for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and particularly

Grand Falls and surrounding areas, after 100 years is that they pass these

assets back over. That would be the timber assets - which actually, a month ago,

we were actually prepared to pay for on the basis that we wanted that x number

of dollars to go back into the mill and allow the mill to have some longevity,

which is what the workers indicated.

The other remedy would be a court action, the other remedy would be an

expropriation, and the other remedy would be

an act of this Legislature which

deals with the entire problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is another group of workers, obviously, that are affected by all of

this, and that is the loggers and the forestry workers.

I would like to ask you, Minister, today: Will they be included, as well, in

any assistance plans that may be developed by this task force? Also, will they

be considered for inclusion in the task force process, the same as the direct

union employees of Grand Falls-Windsor?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Those workers have been included in all our discussions from the very first

day, Mr. Speaker, and will be included in every initiative that we take care of.

Those workers, the loggers, find themselves in a very particular circumstance

because many of them are not eligible for a severance package, Mr. Speaker, and

I committed today on their behalf to support them in a plea to Abitibi to please

do something for these workers along with the regular workforce at the mill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just one final question to the minister.

In light of what we seen happen in the pulp and paper industry in the

Province over the last few years, I suppose nationally, for that matter, but

particularly in Stephenville and in Grand Falls-Windsor - I would like to ask

the minister if she is having ongoing discussions with Kruger and if everything

is running as it should be in Corner Brook, or are there some plans by Kruger to

downscale as well in this difficult economic time?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have regular contact with Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, and to their credit

they continue to invest in the mill in Corner Brook. They have not indicated to

me at this point in time that they foresee any difficulties in the short term.

In fact, the reduction of the cost of oil and the low Canadian dollar are

working very well for them, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Justice.

Minister, you released this morning the report on correctional facilities. I

notice in particular that recommendation twenty-three on page seventy-five makes

reference to establishing a committee comprised of representatives at all levels

to look at issues of organizational behaviour and rebuilding trust and so on. I

am wondering if you could advise us if that committee has indeed been struck,

and who the members of that committee might be.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, government had the opportunity today to

release an independent review headed by Simmone Poirier, Gregory Brown, joined

by Dr. Terry Carlson, the former executive of the John Howard Society here.

It is very all-encompassing and a very thorough report. There are a number of

recommendations. I will have to get more information on whether that specific

committee has been struck, but I can tell you that Dr. Carlson has agreed to

remain with government for the purposes of chairing the analysis

and implementation committee and I have every confidence that, with his

dedication and concern over the years for the rights of inmates and correctional

officers, that the recommendations will bring us on the road to a major step in

reforming, in a responsible and effective way, the corrections system in this

Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

We appreciate that the minister finally released the report, after some

prompting and questions in the House, and that we did in fact get it today.

I ask the minister: Was it premature, given that very recommendation talks

about the establishment of this committee to deal with organizational issues and

so on, and building trust back in, was it premature that if you do not have that

committee established you, in fact, fired the superintendent and the deputy

superintendent - without having gone through the recommendation process of

getting a committee to help you out with that issue? Did you not put the cart

before the horse here?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, it would be

totally inappropriate for me to talk about personal employment rights of

employees of government and I will not do so. I have never done it in the past

and I do not intend to do it now or in the future.

What I am pleased to say is that, under the leadership of the Acting

Superintendent of Prisons, Graham Rogerson, and the Acting Assistant

Superintendent of HMP, that a number of initiatives have in fact been commenced

at HMP, including the cleaning of the facility and the painting of the facility

by inmates, and we look forward to continued responsible action to address the

concerns and to implement the recommendations of the independent review.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Minister, I do not wish you or require or ask you to get involved in any

privacy issues concerning anyone. Maybe the decision to fire the superintendent

and the assistant superintendent may well have been justified. That is not the

question.

The question is, if you solicited this report, initiated it - you got it, as

I understand it, on a Sunday, the former minister did, and within forty-eight

hours he fired those two people - all I am saying is: Is it prudent to expect

that you are going to fire someone and you have not even followed the

recommendations of the committee which said, go out and strike a committee to

help you decide where you want to go with these issues.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear from the reading of the

report that there comes a time when any institution, any large organization,

requires leadership renewal, and I think the recommendations of the report

indicate that this would be an appropriate time for a new direction as a result

of the review of the correction facilities in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Again, Minister, tied in with that recommendation twenty-three, and also with

number one which recommends that we change the system from its current

quasi-military, paramilitary set-up to have one what they call a dynamic

security arrangement whereby there is more involvement between the management

and the inmates and the staff and the inmates, I am just wondering: Was it

premature again? This is not commenting on the individuals you put there, but

within forty-eight hours we get rid of the people who were there, we put in two

people who only, as I understand it, have a paramilitary background, to

implement a report that says we should get away from a paramilitary set-up. You

did all of that without ever having that committee struck. Minister, was that

prudent? What is the point of having a report if you are not going to follow it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, corrections - what happens in a lot of our

correctional institutions throughout this Province - have not really played a

major role and had the attention of the people of this Province. I believe what

this report will do is have people aware of corrections across Newfoundland and

Labrador, make it part of public debate, make it part of public discourse.

I think that this report will do for corrections of Newfoundland and Labrador

what the Lamer report, and the recommendations of that report, did for policing,

for legal aid, and for the judicial system in this Province. We look forward to

the implementation of the recommendations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS : Thank you.

Minister, it is quite obvious that the report dealt with all of the

correctional facilities in the Province, not just Her Majesty's Penitentiary,

of course, but my next question is focused on that.

Given the fact that HMP is a Victorian institution, I believe, opened in

1859, actually, parts of it, and given the recommendations that we have here,

which pointed out a lot of deficiencies and so on, do you feel that it is even

possible to try to do some of the program changes and new changes of

organization that the report recommends with the HMP as we currently have it as

a physical structure? Is it even possible to do that?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Given the state of HMP there would obviously be challenges in implementing

more programming at HMP, and that is why we have to continue to engage with the

federal government in order to share with us, under a joint sharing arrangement,

the construction of a new penitentiary in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I know that my predecessor wrote a very compelling letter to Minister Day

outlining the reasons why this should happen, and since I was reappointed to

that position I have had communications with the President of Treasury Board for

Canada and the Minister of Justice, as well as the Minister of Public Safety. We

have re-engaged to try to get the federal government to come on side with us in

building this new and much-needed facility.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and that leads to my final

question.

Minister, we are all aware in the Province of the request of the government

to hopefully have the feds come on board and provide some financing for a new

penitentiary. I understand the figures being tossed around were a $100 million

institution, and we had hoped the feds to cover off to the tune of 70 per cent,

which would have been $70 million federal, $30 million provincial.

I am just curious, and hopefully they will put the whole 100 per cent

involved, but how is your department trying to justify requesting 70 per cent of

the cost of a new institution when the feds only have 20 per cent of the inmate

population here?

AN HON. MEMBER: The 1949 Terms of Union (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: How are you trying to justify it, Mr. Minister, if

they have 20 per cent of the population yet we are asking for 70 per cent of the

facility? What is your rationale?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: I thank the hon. member for his question.

We do have an exchange of services agreement with the federal government. We

are the only Province in the country to have that, I believe, and under that,

even inmates who are sentenced to federal time, we have the right to determine

their placement whether it is in a federal penitentiary or whether we keep

them in Newfoundland in our facility. Of course, we do charge the federal

government for that, and there is a benefit to the Province in terms of the

revenue received, and there is also a benefit to the federal government, because

the cost of housing an inmate in our facilities is, I understand, lower than the

costs that they are incurring by having those same inmates in federal

institutions.

So, there is a good reason to justify the federal government for joining with

us. Otherwise, I believe they would have to live up to their previous promises

to build a federal institution

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. T. MARSHALL: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. T. MARSHALL: I think it is important that

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I would be very happy to.

I want to thank the Premier and the Minister of Finance for their help in

answering (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

It took three of them, and I think I still got half of an answer out of it.

Anyway, Minister, I wonder if you could confirm: Did the former

Administration federally confirm and that ties in again with their

percentage of responsibility; they had 20 per cent, roughly, of the inmate

population here, federally - did the former federal Administration confirm and

agree that they would, in fact, put a $10 million to $12 million federal

facility here but that did not fly? Is that correct?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Which former Administration, the federal?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: (Inaudible).

MR. T. MARSHALL: No, I am not aware of that. I do not recall that. Most

of my discussions with the former federal minister had to deal with legal aid,

but since the other Administration came in the priority has become the prison.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On September 22 the people of Barachois Brook awoke to the realization that

contaminated soil was being transported to their community from Stephenville for

remediation. The local service council of that community had no knowledge of

this permit to operate being granted.

I ask the minister: What are your department's standards and procedures for

approving soil remediation facilities?

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

Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, this is an approved soil treatment facility, no

different than there are ten or eleven other such treatment facilities in the

Province. This facility meets all the requirements under the Department of

Environment.

Mr. Speaker, as far as the issue is concerned here, as I said, they are

meeting all requirements and there is not an issue that the department sees at

this particular time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, when the people of Barachois Brook witnessed

uncovered trucks coming into their town with dark, oily, soil they were

terrified. Knowing nothing about the establishment of the remediation site in

their community, the people immediately reacted and blockaded the site.

I ask the minister: How was the company able to receive approval from the

Department of Environment for this site without the knowledge of the local

residents?

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

Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it clear to the

people of Barachois Brook and the people of the Province that this particular

site does not accept toxic material. The material that comes into this

particular site is treated and then it is transported to landfill sites. The

company that came in here applied through an application process, having met all

the conditions, the permits were awarded, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, the Town of Kippens had previously rejected this

same operation because of environmental and health concerns. Approval for the

Barachois Brook site was given by the Town of Stephenville Crossing, yet it was

not communicated to the people of Barachois Brook, which is a local service

district.

I ask the minister: Are you prepared to change your policies and ensure the

Department of Environment consults with all affected stakeholders before such

permits are issued?

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

Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that every effort

is made to include and inform all parties involved here, but I will say that

this particular site has been approved, met all standards, its lined solid base

under that, and from a department perspective, Mr. Speaker, this is a site, as I

said, that meets the standard and is certainly up to scratch.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today this House will be asked to repeal the midwifery act. Now

we know the act is not up to date and does not represent the work that is

actually being done by midwives in the Province right now. For example, we have

midwives working in the Labrador Grenfell Regional Health Authority for whom the

act would be relevant. However, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health and

Community Services, why is this government repealing the midwifery act without a

new act in place?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has raised several times in

the House, the time that they need to have a bill in advance so they can prepare

themselves for debate in the House. I say, Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite

would have read the bill as circulated, would have fully understood the

rationale for repealing this bill. The bill is no longer applicable.

This bill was intended, as I will comment on later this afternoon or some

time during this session, that this bill was intended to regulate untrained

midwives. This is a totally separate discussion that we will be having later

today about midwives of today and the role that midwives have today and how they

are regulated and the nature of their practice versus what it might have been

thirty or forty years ago in Newfoundland and Labrador when many people evolved

into that role, I say, Mr. Speaker. In fact, there are many of us in this House

who can talk about their grandmothers or great-grandmothers who were probably

midwives in many parts of Newfoundland and Labrador. They were untrained

individuals who acquired skills over a period of time, and this legislation we

are repealing now was meant to regulate that particular group and not anything

to do with those who practice anywhere in the country today, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal HillQuidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, we got rid of some bills or acts this week that were on the books for

an awful long time after new ones came in, so I do not know why this one is

being gotten rid of so quickly.

Mr. Speaker, there was a midwife legislation implementation committee that

finished its work in 2001 and successive governments have let the work of that

committee slide. Mr. Speaker, with the shortage of family doctors, we know that

having midwives would certainly help to ease the strain on family doctors and

obstetricians working in rural areas as well as elsewhere.

I ask the minister: What is happening with regard to the introduction of new

legislation that would fully recognize midwifery as a profession in this

Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member opposite

stands and asks the question as if to advocate for midwives and she has just

given them a grave insult, because she has talked about it in the context of

them not having an adequate supply of physicians.

The role of midwives is a role that is well-established, whether you have a

lot of physicians or very few physicians. It is a discipline in and of itself.

So to stand in this House all righteous and asking questions as if we are doing

something wrong and she has the right idea, she just insulted a group of people

who we are going to bring in legislation later this year to regulate. We are

committed to do it, I say, Mr. Speaker, and I will have an opportunity in this

House as we debate the bill a little later on, to provide some elaboration on

exactly what our plans are. I have been clear, on the public record, to indicate

our government plans to introduce legislation to regulate the role, the

discipline, the profession of midwives in this Province, and it will be done

with or without a group of physicians, or the fact that we have some or no

physicians

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again the minister just twists around my language. He knows that I am

not insulting the midwives and the midwives - the representatives in the august

House today, who are here, also know I am not insulting them. I am glad to know

it is coming in. I hope that the minister or, I will ask the minister, so I

will put a question: Are you going to consult with the Association of Midwives

around the new legislation, because you certainly did not consult with them

around repealing the current act?

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

MR. WISEMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting reports by standing and select committees.

Tabling of documents.

Notices of motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that under Standing Order 11, I

shall move that the House do not adjourn at 5:30 p.m., Tuesday, December 9,

2008. Further, I give notice that under Standing Order 11, I shall move that the

House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m., Tuesday, December 9, 2008.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The motion is that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock today, being

Monday.

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: The notice is for tomorrow, I say to the hon. Government

House Leader, not today?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 65 dealing with Private Members' Motions, it is

Private Members' Day this coming Wednesday for the Official Opposition.

I would like to read, if I could, at this time, the Private Member's Motion

for debate this Wednesday.

The Private Member's Motion moved by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile

and seconded by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair:

WHEREAS the serious economic problems being experienced globally will have

implications for the economy of this Province; and

WHEREAS during times of such economic turmoil it is important that party

leaders put aside their partisan differences and work co-operatively to address

the serious problems which exist;

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge the government to establish an

all-party summit on the economy, chaired by the Premier, to bring together union

leaders, business leaders, municipal leaders, and members of this House to

promote dialogue towards a shared vision and to develop a plan to address the

economic challenges facing our Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Further 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.

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

I stand today, again, to present a petition on behalf of the residents of the

Conception Bay North and Trinity Bay area with regard to the long-term care

facility for that area.

Mr. Speaker, it is a known fact that this government has suggested that there

should be a new long-term care facility for the Conception Bay North area. There

were two areas in the Province, Corner Brook and Conception Bay North, that were

high on the priority list. Since that time there have been three or four other

facilities built, Mr. Speaker.

The residents of the area are saying that where those facilities are in a

dilapidated state and the professionals in the area are also recommending that

there would be a new facility for that area, I call upon the hon. members for

that area, three members who are members of the Cabinet and a couple of the

local MHAs who are not in the Cabinet at this time I am calling upon the

Premier now, a good, compassionate individual. The Premier always listens to the

concerns of the people of this Province and places them first and foremost.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I am calling upon the Premier that he would

reconsider for this coming year for the budget, that they would give

reconsideration to the proposal that a long-term care facility would be

recommended for the Conception Bay North area.

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, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural

Resources, Motion 7, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn

at 5:30 o'clock p.m. today, being Monday, December 8, 2008.

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

Motion 8, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock

p.m. today, being Monday, December 8, 2008.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock

p.m. today, being Monday.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: A further motion is that this House do not adjourn at 10:00

o'clock p.m. today, being Monday.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

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

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

Resources, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Forestry Act No. 2. (Bill 65)

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

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

Natural Resources shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend

The Forestry Act No. 2., (Bill 65), and that the said bill be now read a first

time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the Minister of Natural Resources shall

have leave to introduce Bill 65, and that the said bill be now read a first

time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

"An Act To Amend The Forestry Act No. 2.," carried. (Bill 65)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Forestry Act No. 2. (Bill 65)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 65 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 65 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 65 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

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

An Act

Respecting Chartered Accountants. (Bill 69)

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

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

Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act

Respecting Chartered Accountants, (Bill 69), and that Bill 69 be now read a

first time.

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

introduce Bill 69, and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

"An Act Respecting Chartered Accountants," carried. (Bill 69)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act Respecting Chartered Accountants. (Bill 69)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 69 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 69 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 69 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

16, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Securities Act. (Bill 49)

Mr. Speaker, that was the debate that, on Thursday when we met last, was

adjourned.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 49,

An Act To Amend The Securities

Act.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I think when we last spoke on this bill in second reading last Thursday I

adjourned the debate at 5:30 p.m., as was required under the House rules, and

according to the clock I have about twenty-five minutes or so left today -

almost twenty-six minutes.

Mr. Speaker, at the time on Thursday - this deals with the Securities Act - I

posed some questions to the minister at that time who had brought this bill here

into the House. I do believe it is the Minister of Government Services who is

responsible for its carriage here, and I raised questions at that time.

I have since come across an

article that was put out last year when they

talked about this passport stance, and why we are here dealing with the

Securities Act but the Province of Ontario, which has the Toronto Stock

Exchange, which has regulators, are not a part of the package dealing with

securities regulations in Canada, albeit the other provinces got together. I

raised the question at the time as to why Ontario, who is the big boy on the

block here, and the Bay Street people who deal with a lot of these securities,

why they are not a part of this committee that talks about amalgamating and

co-operating when it comes to securities.

I have been trying to find an answer to the question because it seems kind of

foolhardy if nine out of ten provinces, at least, get together and the big boy,

Bay Street, is refusing to become a part of that, shall we say, united front

that is going to look after securities options.

I came across an

article written by a Janet McFarland last year in The

Globe and Mail , dated May 29, 2007. She talked about why Ontario would not

be a part of the passport system and would not be a part of the group. In it,

she spoke to a person, in fact, who was the head, a guy by the name of Mr. Doug

Hyndman, who was chair of the British Columbia Securities Commission. He

actually went to Toronto when this was all being talked about and he appeared at

a meeting in Toronto - a public meeting, actually - and said: I am very

disappointed to see that Ontario will not buy in to this group.

What Ontario were saying at the time was: Until you work out a formula that

we are going to know how it works on a go-forward basis, we are not prepared to

join the group. In fact, I believe Ontario was suggesting a group whereby all

ten provinces would have one vote each, when it came to a national securities

registry, and Ontario was saying that is what we want. We want everybody to have

one vote but until you get it all worked out as to how it is going to work and

the procedure worked out, we are not going to be a part of anything.

Now B.C. flicked that around and said, that sounds like a bit of control to

us. You do not want to get on board and at least start the process in designing

how the procedure should work until such time as you know that the rules are

going to suit your purposes and what the voting procedures are going to be and

who says what when. So, I guess that is part of the answer why Ontario again

felt that they did not want to buy into a system that they did not know or could

not control. God knows, we need to know who is controlling the security issues

in this Province or in this country because we have ourselves in such a mess

now, in the country economically, that we certainly need to know and we need all

the help that we can get to get out, which led me of course to make the other

comments that I did when I was speaking about the economy here in the Province.

Contrary to what the Premier had to say last week about, he is afraid that we

are going boil over, the economy was so hot that we did not want to overheat the

economy. Well, I thought last week we had some bits of news that certainly put a

damper, shall we say, on some of his overheating of the economy. I referred to a

couple of those incidents and I will just, for brevity, refer to them again.

We had such businesses as Jeans Experts, which closed in the Province. We had

LA Weight Loss Centres, which closed in the Province. We had IOC deciding that

their $800 million expansion in Labrador City was delayed indefinitely. We had

Wabush Mines where there were layoffs to the tune of 35 per cent of their

workforce. There was also going to be a 40 per cent production cut. We know that

the Placentia refinery venture that was supposed to happen is not going to

happen. Apparently the company is embroiled in some legal issues now and

bankruptcy issues. We know that the Come By Chance Refinery had planned a big $2

billion expansion, that is not going to go ahead. Of course, we know what

happened in Grand Falls-Windsor and the surrounding communities with the closure

of AbitibiBowater. We had 400 direct jobs and 1,000 indirect jobs that were

impacted. No doubt, the people of that area are still today trying to deal with

the shock and dismay of the company having made that decision.

Then of course we had Vale Inco who operates the Voisey's Bay mine in

Voisey's Bay, who said that they are going to shut down next July for a period

of time and not going to be doing any production for a one-month period at

least, at this time. They employ, as I understand it, about 450 people up there.

Since they started I do not think they have had any shutdowns of any nature,

other than a labour relations issue, I do believe they had last year.

So, when it comes to overheating, I do not think we are at a point right now

where we have to worry about overheating the economy. Surely, if those things

that have happened in the last two weeks here in this Province are not enough to

make someone be concerned, I do not know what it takes, because we have had just

about every major area of our Province we had Wabush, we had Labrador City

in Labrador impacted, we had Grand Falls-Windsor, and about fifty or sixty

surrounding communities in Central Newfoundland that are impacted. We have the

situation in Voisey's Bay which is impacted.

I noticed, too, there was an article, a media report a couple of weeks ago by

the gentleman, I believe, Mr. Hynes, who runs Oceanex. He indicated and he

talked about the level of freight being down in this Province. Of course,

freight comes into Newfoundland two ways basically. One of them would be through

Marine Atlantic, through the roll-on, roll-off service through Port aux Basques.

The other way, of course, is by sea, and Oceanex is a principle, if not the

principle provider of those freight services. From what I saw in the CBC report

that he did, it is quite obvious that the amount of freight that comes into this

Province just suddenly disappeared. It was not even a gradual type thing that

anybody could it could happen before you realized it, and there was a slow

decline. Apparently it happened very quickly, over a matter of two or three

weeks, the amount of goods and services coming into this Province declined. That

ought to tell us something too, because eventually, if you are not bringing in

the goods and services and places like Wal-Mart, for example, are not bringing

in the goods, they are obviously not bringing them in for a reason. They are not

bringing them in because they obviously do not have the sales for them. Then you

ask yourself: well, why don't they have the sales? It is obvious, people do

not have the money to buy, and that is all part of this economy. If people do

not buy, they do not spend their money. If they do not circulate the money in

the economy things dry up very quickly. If they do not spend their money, the

government does not get the taxes that it is supposed to get.

So, we have a lot of telltale signs in this Province not telltale even,

outright smack you in the mouth signs, in the last ten days, as to why our

Province has no fear of overheating right now, I would suggest. That leads one

to question: well, where are you going to go from here? Now, there is a sit and

wait and see attitude, and some accuse the United States Government of taking

that stance. At the eleventh hour it was deemed that that wasn't the

appropriate position to take. We saw that the American government at the time

had to step in with $700 hundred billion dollars to try to salvage the financial

industry down there before everything fell asunder; don't know yet if it was

successful or not.

We fortunately don't have a lot of those concerns in Canada when it come to

the financial sector, because we had put some precautions and regulations in

place which prevented that from happening here as it did in the United States

when it came to the subprime lending debacle. There was a cash crunch here. In

fact, the federal government encouraged, and the Bank of Canada has reduced

borrowing rates. I think today or this week it is anticipated that there is

going to be another reduction by the Bank of Canada of its principal borrowing

rate, which will put it down to something we haven't seen in forty-five years.

That is pretty drastic, when the Bank of Canada has to use its monetary policies

to reduce the interest rates to, I think, 1.50 per cent which was unheard of in

our time or in the time of anybody here when it comes to borrowing.

I would suggest we have had lots of signs that we are in for a hard time in

the economy. We are going to get more as time goes on, no doubt, because I don't

think we have seen it is like the iceberg, as they say I don't think

we have even seen the full tip of the iceberg yet, let alone what the

ramifications of this are going to be.

By the way, there is no suggestion that these events here are the fault of

anybody in this Province. Anybody who has a business has no doubt tried their

best to manage the business. The government says it is trying its best to

encourage the establishment of the businesses, and no doubt to see that these

businesses continue. They would be the first ones to say, look, it is not our

fault. It is national, it is international, and it is global, so please don't

blame us for what is happening.

It is not about blame. It is like I always said when the government took

credit for everything. You shouldn't take credit either; if you are getting

$150 a barrel for oil and the project was never yours to have started in the

first place. Yet you go out and say, oh, we are doing great and the coffers are

full of money. The coffers are full of money not because you developed White

Rose or Hibernia. That was developed by someone else. You just happened to be

the beneficiary of some industrial projects that took place years ago. Hibernia

started back in 1991. You shouldn't crow when something good happens if you

had nothing to do with it, and it is global or national or international

standards. Nor, I suggest, should you take the full blame if something goes

wrong that you can't control.

You couldn't control the fact that a barrel of oil went up to $47 a barrel.

You didn't control it, but you benefited from it. Of course, you also benefit

not only because of the price of a barrel of oil but because of the taxes. When

gasoline was costing so much, I believe it was something like 26 per cent of

every litre of gas was in taxes that were going into the provincial coffers,

twenty-three or twenty-six cents, which bloated the coffers last year, as we saw

from the surplus that we had, and what was anticipated in the surplus this year.

I guess that surplus, no doubt, may be in jeopardy. I believe there was a

report on Friday from Merrill Lynch saying that the price of a barrel of oil is

expected to go to $25 a barrel. I am sure it was quite a few years ago that we

had a barrel of oil down to $25, and we know just how far off that is of the

Minister of Finance, or the former Minister of Finance, expectations as to what

it would be when he did this year's budget. In fact, he used the figure of $87

a barrel when he did the budget, and he confirmed that when I spoke here on

Thursday, that was the figures he used.

I do not know, in 2008, the last time a barrel of oil was above $87 a barrel.

I know from the first of April up to mid-August or so we were certainly okay,

but I think after the middle of August, and certainly for the past couple of

months, we have been nowhere in the vicinity of $87 a barrel.

Now, what that is going to translate into if it goes down further it hit

just slightly over $40 a barrel on Friday, and Merrill Lynch are saying it is

going to go to $25. If that happens in the quick term, short term, the question

is going to be, come the end of March, where are we going to be in terms of our

anticipated surplus and, God forbid, if it happens on a go-forward basis into

the next year? Because I believe the Merrill Lynch statistics and prediction was

that $25 to $40-a-barrel of oil could be on the horizon and could be a reality

for up to a year to eighteen months.

If that is the case, we are going to be seriously impacted in terms of our

money in the coffers when it comes to the next year, let alone having a surplus

for this year. Then we have some serious issues, because not only do we have a

dampened economy - we are in Canada now in a recession - we are going to be in a

recession here, no doubt, the same as we were probably in the rest of Canada,

but we also have no money in our coffers. If you had great money coming in, of

course, you could try to fight these recessionary type issues by putting more

money back into the economy, infrastructure projects and so on, without having

to worry, even, about a deficit position. We do not know, and all that is pretty

loosey-goosey. That is up in the air for us right now. That is something that

the government has to grapple with.

The other piece that government, I believe, should grapple with but they are

not grappling with, they are not even paying any attention to, is: Who has some

of the answers? I posed the question to the Premier last week. I said: Why

wouldn't you have an economic summit? Why wouldn't you bring together some

of the business leaders, or all of the business leaders, in this Province? Why

wouldn't you bring together the unions?

Because you have to remember here, folks, the Premier himself has alluded to,

in Question Period and in comments in the media, several times in the last two

weeks about what the unions, the public sector unions, should do vis--vis the

government offers - like the nurses' union, NAPE and so on, who have not yet

accepted the government package. The Premier said where he thinks they should go

in terms of the offer that has been put on the table of the eight, four, four

and four. He said that as recently as last Thursday again, so we know the union

plays a big role in our economy, the membership of those unions, and the

leadership. We know that the business communities certainly play a big role, and

I am not just referring to the leaders of the ExxonMobils of the world, or the

Chevrons and so on that are in this Province who, no doubt, might be able to

shed some light on where we are going and give some advice to this government,

but the Premier's reaction was: I don't need a summit. I have all of the

advice I need, me and my Cabinet. That was the Premier's comment when I asked

that question.

With all due respect to the Premier and the members of Cabinet, I do not

think it is a case of saying I know it all. I think in a case where you have

tough times, even if you think you know it all, you consult with as many people

as you can, and at the end of the day you keep your own counsel. Nobody is

saying that the unions or the business leadership in this Province, and the

community leadership in this Province, municipal leadership, have to drive the

government agenda. That is not what is being suggested. What was suggested was

that you at least consult.

We have some people in this business community besides, as I say, the

leadership of Chevron and ExxonMobil. We have some people like Mr. Steele. I do

believe there is a gentleman named Harry Steele who worked wonders in this

Province as a business person, an entrepreneur. I do believe that we had a

person in this Province who is still quite active in business, by the name of

Mr. Ches Penney. These gentlemen have been through the wars and back when it

comes to the economy. I think Mr. Penney was a millionaire four or five times

over, lost it all, started over again and succeeded again. He knows what it is

like to be in the trenches, to have everything lost and get it all back again.

You do not do that on a whim. You do that because you have some abilities. You

understand the risk, you understand the opportunities.

That is what was suggested. People like, as I say, Mr. Steele, Mr. Penney,

Sid Hynes, who is involved in the transportation industry in this Province. Yet,

the Premier says: No, we do not need to talk to them. I have myself and my

Cabinet. He does not need to have a summit and get any advice from any of those

people. We can do it on our own.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that is the wrong approach, definitely the wrong

approach. That is not to say that these gentlemen know it all. There are people

out here there is a lady who has the McDonald's franchises all in St. John's,

a very smart lady who is Chair of the Board of Trade here, who definitely has a

lot to offer. Ms Bennett, I do believe her name is.

If you are going to do this, it does not have to be done in secret. The old

saying is, two heads are better than one, and sometimes four heads are better

than two. We do not need to talk to anybody well, I would suggest that is

not the right approach. First we are told: Steady as she goes. Well, I hope she

does not keep going this steady that we have Voisey's Bay down the tubes, we

have IOC going, we have Wabush going, and the members all say: Steady as she

goes, business as usual. Let me know when the ship has sunk and we will see what

we can do about plugging the holes. We will wait until she is on the bottom and

then we will plug the holes.

The only thing being suggested, Mr. Speaker, is: Why wouldn't you consult?

It is not going to take a great deal of time. It is not going to take a great

deal of organizational ability. The government would be totally, as it says

in fact, we put a motion on the floor today that the economic summit would be

chaired by the Premier. He would chair it. He is the appropriate one to chair

it. He is the Premier of the Province. He ultimately, when it comes to

government, has to make decisions about what directions we should go. That is

why he should be the person who chairs it. He should. There is nothing wrong -

we can do it on the fisheries, we did it on FPI years ago - what is wrong with

getting different opinions? At the end of the day, you might sit down and say:

We did not accomplish much out of that - but you never even get to that position

if you do not do it. It is too late to sit back in the middle of 2009 and say:

My God, why didn't you tell me that then, or why didn't I think about that

then? There might be some little inkling of advice that somebody might be able

to give to this government that would help them to go in a certain direction

that might be beneficial to this Province. That is all that is being suggested.

Nobody is trying to slight anybody. Nobody is trying to be political. As I

said, the Premier should absolutely chair it. He should decide the parameters of

it. He should decide even who is on the guest list. He should decide who is

invited in. What is wrong with picking up the phone and calling the Chair of

Hospitality Newfoundland, the Chair of the Provincial Chamber of Commerce, the

Chair of the St. John's Board of Trade, the chair of the different unions in

this Province, recognized and accepted business people in this Province who have

been successful? What is wrong with calling the leadership in the fishing

industry, the Penneys and the Sullivans and the Barrys, who, by the way, are

going through a tough time as well? Let's not kid ourselves.

The same as over in Nova Scotia on the lobsters, folks: I believe the crowd

over in Nova Scotia only last week came in and tied up their boats, because what

is the good to catch lobster if number one, you do not get any price for it, and

number two, if you do sell it, there is nobody down in the States that has the

money to buy it? As far as a lot of other species, like crab and shrimp, I would

like to know what the figure is as to what is stored, right now, in cold storage

in this Province that cannot be sold.

Now, just flash forward for a second to when the fishing season gets underway

again in the spring. The recession has not even set in in the States yet, to the

extent that it is going to, and here we are with our cold storages blocked,

blocked because we cannot sell it right now, for a number of reasons the

exchange on the dollar hitting down in the seventies. That is number one. Number

two, there is nobody down there to buy it. Now, just flash forward five months

from now, six months from now when the shrimp and the crab fishery gets underway

again. What is the point of going out to catch more if you do not have the

markets to sell it and you cannot even sell what you have in cold storage? Now,

do the math on that. You want to talk about Abitibi being a tough situation in

Grand Falls with 1,400 people. Just extrapolate for a minute how many people are

involved in the crab industry and the shrimp industry in this Province, as

fisherpersons, as processors in plants, and talk about what kind of community

enhancement program we are going to need next year.

I know in my own district, in Burgeo &LaPoile, I had problem enough when

the plant closed there last year, the government came in with a taskforce, thank

God, to try to help some people get retrained and educated so they could go for

other employment. Some of them, I am pleased to say, took the opportunity and

ended up with jobs in Alberta. We do not have that anymore. Even the ones who

were fortunate enough to do it are coming back home now, a lot of them, because

Alberta is shut down and they cannot do it. So let's not be so smug in

ourselves that we cannot ask anyone else. Let's not be so smug. We have enough

hints out there now, not hints, we have enough facts on the table now to show

that we are headed for a tough time.

I am sure the member for Labrador City knows it. He goes home on the

weekends. He sees these people who are impacted. The ones who have a job are

fortunate they have it, but there are a lot of people who wanted a good,

prosperous future there. It is just questionable now, that is all. It makes

people uneasy. It makes people concerned. All we are saying is if you are going

to help people through the crunch, a lot of times it is not always seen because

you come in with a program or you give them EI or you give them a community

enhancement program, a lot of times people get comfort when they see that yes,

everybody is on the same page and trying to work our way out of this.

Now I understand and we are going to get soon, the Premier told us two weeks

ago in a forth night we are going to get this economic statement. The minister

keeps telling us that it is going to come some time. Well, surely it should be

ready fairly soon. I mean the people of the Province now, every other

jurisdiction in Canada and the federal government gave its economic statement.

We are the only one, as I understand it, which is not given it. Now I do not

know if that was a case again of, let's wait and see what everybody else does

and then we will see how we should react. Surely, they have had the figures for

the last number of months, I would think, as to where we were headed in terms of

revenue projections. That was probably in hand or a good case before the former

minister even left there, that they had a good idea where we were going with

those figures. Now, obviously, it does not take a lot of rocket science to plug

in the new figures as we go forward on a day-to-day basis.

I will be interested to see as well, we know he is not going to consult. The

Premier said: no, we do not need to listen to anybody; I got myself and the

Cabinet. I do not need to consult with anybody. We are not going to have an

economic summit; do not need it, waste of time. We are not going to do that. So

let's see tomorrow now, is this just going to be an update on here is where we

stand based on the current figures or is there going to be actually some hints

of some stimuli that the government might be prepared to consider to help out

here, or are we again going to say: Oh, here is our projections as to where we

think we are going to end up with our budget for this year but we have not had

time yet to consider where we are going to go when it comes to the future? We

have to wait a further number or period of months?

Anyway, I am down to my thirty-four seconds, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the

opportunity and I say to the minister again, I would appreciate your comments in

either cluing up second reading or in committee as to those issues I raised

about the effectiveness of the securities group without the Province of Ontario

there and what you feel about it, and is it even worth being a part of that

group that obviously is not even of a national scope. And, maybe some update

from yourself when the opportunity arises.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Collins): If the hon. minister speaks now he will close the

debate.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

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

I know the minister is really anxious to respond to the question that was put

to him by the previous speaker, and I thank him for letting me have a few

moments to speak here before he gets to do that.

This bill, which is an amendment to the Securities Act, is an important bill.

The amendments are important. The harmonizing that is going on is extremely

important because what the amendments do is harmonize our Securities Act with

other provinces, and what is happening in other provinces. It really assures, or

ensures, that our system of regulations, securities and regulations covering

stockbrokers, are subject to the highest standards that we can have. It is

important that we do so.

We are seeing, right now, a global economic crisis, and a lot of it because

of the fact that a major country like the United States of America had stopped

regulating the financial world. What we are finding out now is that we have to

have regulations. There has to be a regulatory system that makes sure that

anything that is done in the financial world, especially in the area of

investment, is done for the good of everybody, not just for the good of the

individuals who are involved in the investments themselves, and especially not

just for the good of those who are making money off the investments.

Having regulations in this area is the sign of a responsible community, the

sign of a responsible country. I think, in spite of the fact that we are in

Canada, and in this Province, feeling the effects of the economic crisis that is

going on, on a global level, not just in our country, we also know that because

of the highly regulated nature of our financial systems in Canada, and therefore

in Newfoundland and Labrador, we are more protected than some other areas of the

world, so having a piece of legislation that is going to increase that

protection is really important.

It is also important that we have these regulations and this protection so

that investors will be encouraged to look widely in terms of where they want to

invest their money. Knowing that Newfoundland and Labrador is on board with the

harmonization of the whole area around securities, knowing that we, too, offer

protection, knowing that we, too, care that things are done to the highest

standards, investors will be willing to look at Newfoundland and Labrador, will

be willing to look here as a place where they want to put their money, where

they want to invest.

This bill, in particular the amendments that it is suggesting to the

Securities Act, ties in very much with the various programs in this Province

that are in place for investing in business, especially small business, in

Newfoundland and Labrador. I think that it speaks particularly, for example, to

the Venture Capital Fund that we now have in this Province and that was set up

in 2005. A lot of people probably do not even know about the Venture Capital

Fund even though, when it was set up in 2005, it was given publicity and it was

talked about in the public media, but people do not always see what is happening

in the public media - their lives are very busy - so I think it is important for

people to know that in Newfoundland and Labrador we do have a Venture Capital

Fund and that this Venture Capital Fund is a fund that the provincial government

put in place in partnership with the labour sponsored fund for small- and

medium-sized business. This was a brainchild of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Federation of Labour, the Venture Capital Fund, and is part of a whole system of

venture capital funding in Atlantic Canada.

The company that has oversight over the Atlantic Venture Capital Fund is

called GrowthWorks, and it was GrowthWorks that worked with the government here

in Newfoundland and Labrador to set up this capital fund in order to ensure that

we would have, here in Newfoundland and Labrador in particular but also in

Atlantic Canada, a fund from which people doing small businesses - individuals,

organizations who are getting into small business - would have a fund that they

could go to, to be able to start businesses. So, it is extremely important that

we have this piece of legislation that will protect something like our Venture

Capital Fund.

We have a number of financial programs in Newfoundland and Labrador that are

there for businesses. We have them under different departments. We have some

under ITRD, for example. There are some that are under ACOA, which is, of

course, the federal agency. Most of them are under ITRD, and it is important

that that money is there, but I wonder right now the degree to which this

government is looking at all these different funds and looking at a

co-ordination, and looking at them in the light of a plan a plan for

economic community development that is needed badly in this Province.

I know that the architects of the amendments to the Securities Act are

concerned about rural economics and rural economy and diversifying the rural

economy. I know they believe that the changes that are being proposed to the

Securities Act are going to help rural economy because of having building up a

fund that will have adequate money in it when the money is sought by people in

rural areas as they want to set up business.

I do not think that it should be left to chance. I do not think it should be,

we will build up the fund, we will make sure that we make investment easier, but

yet well-protected. I do not think it is enough that we say there is all kinds

of money there and we will advertise that it is there. I think there needs to be

a plan. I think there needs to be a plan where government is involved with

communities, where government are involved with organizations like the

Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Co-operatives. There is no doubt that

government does have a good relationship with the Newfoundland and Labrador

Federation of Co-operatives.

It was just in June last year, 2007, that the government signed a Memorandum

of Understanding with the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Co-operatives.

The whole purpose of that MOU was to work together to develop new businesses. So

the government would work with the Federation of Co-operatives to set up new

businesses, and it is extremely important that the government has done that. It

is a five-year memorandum; we are one-and-a-half years into it now. Once again,

even the memorandum is not adequate. We need government more involved in showing

how its involvement with the Federation of Co-operatives, how it is setting up

the venture capital fund, how these ventures are going to increase business in

rural Newfoundland and help with the diversification of the economies.

I do know that earlier this fall a new director was put in place for the

rural secretariat, and the rural secretariat has an important role. Its mandate:

to promote a coordinated approach to regional development, to act as a focal

point for government, to work with local and regional partners to build regions

and communities. It is a tremendous mandate that the rural secretariat has, and

it has been in place now for a few years. So, we are all, I would imagine I

certainly am looking forward to seeing a plan come from the rural

secretariat; a plan that is going to show how all of the things that government

is involved in, all the things it seems to be touching, are coordinated. How the

efforts that are going on in various sectors and under various hats, as it were,

how all of these are part of a plan that really is a plan for community economic

development, a plan that has a vision.

Like, do we have a vision for our fishery? Do we have a vision for secondary

processing in our fishery, for example? Do we have a vision that can get

promoted in communities? That communities can know that if they go in that

direction there is going to be money there for them, whether they do it as an

individual entrepreneur or if they do it in a co-operative way, where a

community itself would be the co-operative, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker. Which

is a way that some communities have gone outside of Newfoundland and Labrador as

well as inside Newfoundland and Labrador, forming co-operatives that are there

for the good of the whole community, not just for the good of a group of, say,

for example, just a group of the workers who are inside of the co-operative but

ventures that benefit the community.

Where is the vision of this government? That is what I have a problem with,

Mr. Speaker. I see something like this bill and the amendments, which are

important. I see the government getting involved in things like the venture

capital fund. I see it entering into the MOU with the Federation of

Co-operatives, but I am still not sure what the vision of this government is.

What is it that it wants to see in place in ten year's time in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador in particular? What is it that it wants to see in

twenty year's time on a community level, with regard to the community

economies? With regard to keeping people in the communities, whether those

communities are communities of some hundreds of people, like the people on Long

Island, for example, or whether the community is a community of thousands of

people, like in Grand Falls-Windsor, or whether the community is one of our

cities? What is the government's vision? I keep asking that question. I have

been almost two years asking that question now. Well, it has been two years,

actually and I keep waiting for an answer.

The government has to become more proactive in putting out its vision. It has

to become more proactive in working, not just with the business community but

with all aspects of our communities, knowing that the economy of a community is

the economy of the people in the community. If we are going to have growth in

this Province, if we are going to have growth that is sustainable in this

Province, not just growth that comes at a given moment because of big resources

coming in from oil and gas or large resources coming in from mining, but if we

are going to have sustainable development, that means in ten, twenty, thirty,

forty, fifty years time, we are still going to be an area where people can live

wherever they want in this Province, where they can live there and make a living

there and have the services that are required, then we have to have a plan in

place that shows that we have a vision and we know how to get there.

I am happy to have had the time, Mr. Speaker, to speak to this Act. While it

may look like a dry piece of work dealing with securities and dealing with

investments, in actual fact it is extremely important because it is at the basis

of work that we need to do in this Province, it is at the basis of dealing with

our economic needs.

Last week I asked the Premier what the government was doing with regard to

stimulating the economy in this time of great need right now, where we have an

economic crisis going on, on a global level, and the Premier gave me an answer

that included long-term plans like the development of the Lower Churchill, and I

think he talked about Hebron and he talked about which I didn't think was

an appropriate answer at all to my question he talked about what he was

offering workers in this Province.

He didn't at all talk about putting an influx of money into small

community-based business. He himself didn't talk about, for example; well, we

have an MOU with the Federation of Co-operatives. Maybe we can put more money

into the formation of co-operatives. Maybe that is something that would help

stimulate the economy.

Today, in this House, an individual from the community was recognized because

of his work as an entrepreneur in the tourism industry, but there are all kinds

of communities out there doing things in the tourism industry. Wouldn't an

influx of money into environmentally beneficial tourism be a way to go that

could help with stimulating the economy in Newfoundland and Labrador? Because,

Mr. Speaker, we did not need the economic crisis worldwide to say that we needed

stimulation of the economy in this Province. We do not have to stimulate the

economy when it comes to the large-scale economy, the money that we are getting

from oil and gas, the money that we are getting from mining, from these

resources in particular. If we are talking about living on the northeastern

section of the Avalon Peninsula things are pretty good, but when we are talking

about the small communities that are out there, when we are talking about the

communities on the Bonavista Peninsula, the Northern Peninsula, the Baie Verte

Peninsula, the Burin Peninsula, the Port au Port Peninsula, when we look around

this Province there is an awful lot of stimulation needed in the rural areas of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

I would really hope that having this discussion today, having this bill on

the table today, will encourage this government to think about what real

stimulation of the economy is. Real stimulation of the economy is putting money

into solid community-based employment, and that is not something we are doing,

Mr. Speaker, not when it comes to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the time, and I look forward to hearing if the

minister can make a connection between passing this bill, that will happen here

in the House over the next week or so, with the need for economic growth in

rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, certainly I want to just highlight some of the

things that I said in my opening remarks with regard to this bill, a very

important bill in regard to amending the Securities Act.

First off, these requirements are updated and harmonized and will benefit

investors in a number of ways which I referenced in regard to what I said in my

opening remarks. We also are reducing red tape and we are providing investors

with the right to take legal action against companies who (inaudible)

securities. It also enhances the ability of consumers to obtain information.

They need to become an informed investor, which is very, very important in

regard to any market, especially today's markets.

Also, as well, it has to be noted in regard to some of the comments of the

Opposition House Leader, in some of the questions that he had, which I will

certainly answer in Committee, is that the harmonization and these amendments in

regard to the Securities Act is required regardless of which structure will be

presented in Canada in the future, be it the passport system or be it a single

regulator. We still have to go through this process in regard to harmonizing and

amending our current Securities Act as it sits today.

I want to put that out there. Regardless of what happens in the future in

regard to Canada and securities, and the suggested one regulator by the federal

government, we still have to go through this process. Rather than delay this, we

certainly do, at this particular time, as we did in the past, we support the

passport system. The passport system will certainly be a single regulator, too,

the way the mechanism works, in that not having just one single regulator in

Ontario or some other province, the passport system recognizes, under the

passport system, all jurisdictions recognize the regulations under securities in

the jurisdiction that there is a transaction being enacted. Then, in turn, that

one single regulator would actually transact and regulate that. So it is

actually a single regulator, but through a different system that the passport

system identifies.

In saying that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit again and then when this bill goes to

Committee I will certainly answer any and all questions from my hon. colleagues

across the House. I look forward to any other comments that they may have.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 49 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 Securities Act. (Bill 49)

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

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

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Securities Act," read a

second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.

(Bill 49)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 22, second reading of a bill,

An Act To

Repeal The Midwifery Act. (Bill 56)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 56,

An Act To Repeal The

Midwifery Act, be now read a second time.

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

Act". (Bill 56)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to be able to speak to the issue of raising Bill 56, and there

have been some questions raised in the House of Assembly. Today, for example,

during Question Period there were some questions raised by the Leader of the

Opposition around the midwifery bill, Bill 56, and why we were repealing it

before we introduced new legislation. There were some questions around the

practice of midwifery.

The practice of midwifery and discussions around the regulation of it has

been a topic of some discussion for quite some time in Newfoundland and

Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and some of it dates back to probably the mid-nineties,

when there was fairly intense campaign to lobby the government of the day to

enact legislation to govern midwifery in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

I want to make some comments, Mr. Speaker, around midwifery and the practice

of midwifery, but I really want to put this bill into some context so there is

not a misunderstanding of what it is we are trying to do here.

Fundamentally, Mr. Speaker, Bill 56 is

an act to repeal the midwifery act as

it now exists. So, in understanding why we are introducing this bill here to

repeal

an act, you need to understand the act that currently sits on the books

in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the current legislation in this Province, the act as it sits

today, referred to as the Midwifery Act, was

an act that was created back in the

early 1950s, and in the early 1950s in Newfoundland and Labrador there really

was not a discipline of midwifery. That was not a profession that was

established with a basic training for it, a structure in terms of how it

functioned, where it functioned, but midwives evolved in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

If you go throughout rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, you will hear

stories of someone's mother or someone's grandmother who was a midwife. If

fact, the other day - two or three weeks ago - I was driving and I stopped into

a service station on the highway. It was one of those that had a book stand in

the middle of the convenience store, and it was a book stand of a lot of books

by Newfoundland authors, and one of them, actually and I just forget who

wrote the book but one of them profiled midwives of Newfoundland and

Labrador. If you pick up the book and scan through it, you will see references

to aunt so-and-so, or some lady who lived out in some remote part of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and there is a story about her.

In fact, there were several names in there and I went looking for them, to

see if they were in the book, because these are people that I knew from my part

of the Province who were noted to be midwives and delivered many, many children.

In fact, my youngest sister was delivered by a midwife in our family home.

There were some of these names that I would have recognized, and I think

members of this House could tell similar stories about midwives in this

Province, so they evolved over time.

The legislation that currently is on the books was a piece of legislation to

regulate that group of individuals. It was not a piece of legislation that

acknowledged it as a discipline, acknowledged it as a profession standing alone

by itself. At that time, back in the 1950s, there was no such thing as any

special training for these individuals. Most of them acquired the knowledge from

their mothers and grandmothers, knowledge that had been passed on from one

generation to the other. The legislation that is currently on the books does not

do anything at all, I say, Mr. Speaker. In fact, a part of the legislation that

is in existence now calls for the creation of a board and that board has not

been in existence for over thirty years.

Repealing the legislation as it sits today is not an affront to midwifery, it

is not an affront to those who have chosen this as a profession, nor is it a

reflection at all of our government's commitment, our government's intent

and our desire, to create legislation to govern the profession of midwifery in

this Province. Just to the contrary, I say, Mr. Speaker. We need to understand

the manner in which midwifery has evolved over time here.

Now, the other thing I think is really important to understand here, Mr.

Speaker, as we start talking about the practice of midwifery and what it is our

government is intending to do - we have been fairly clear, Mr. Speaker, in our

commitment to look at creating legislation to govern midwives in this Province

as a part of a larger piece of legislation dealing with a variety of health

disciplines.

It is our intent to create an umbrella piece of legislation that will cover

off a range of disciplines. This is not intended to be an all-encompassing list,

but to give you, Mr. Speaker, some sense, and to give members of this House some

sense, of others who may be governed by this particular piece of legislation. In

this Province today, lab technologists are not a regulated discipline.

Speech-language pathologists are not. Midwives are not. There are a number of

disciplines in the Province that we want to move towards a process of creating a

legislative framework for which the practice I think that becomes extremely

important, I say, Mr. Speaker, and it is our intent to have midwives included in

that particular piece.

In fact, I said earlier that the activity around midwives and the discussion

around midwives and the regulation of them in this Province goes back to the

mid-1990s. It evolved to a point where, back in I think early 2000 or 2001

sometime, there was a committee that was put in place to make some

recommendations to the then minister. I believe it was a former administration

in 2001 or 2002, around that time. The minister of that day decided that the

creation of legislation to regulate the practice of midwifery was appropriately

done through a piece of umbrella legislation like I am suggesting here, like I

am proposing that our government would do. In fact, the minister of that day,

the minister back in 2001-2002, deferred the stand-alone regulation around it,

or deferred the decision around creating a separate piece of legislation for

midwifery, deferred it to a point in time when this umbrella legislation should,

in fact, be fully developed and fully flushed out. Nothing else went on beyond

that. That particular activity, or the notion that we would move towards that as

a Province, died.

Then, in 2003 our government came to power and that is where we are today,

fundamentally evolving to that point where we too would recognize that this

umbrella legislation is necessary.

One of the things that is different, I say, Mr. Speaker, the difference

between now and 2001-2002, is that now, in my role and my capacity today as the

Minister of Health and Community Services, I have directed my officials in my

department some time ago to start a process in drafting the legislation, do the

necessary research that was required, and start putting in place a policy

framework, an appropriate legislative framework, that would be necessary for us

to bring this legislation to the Legislature sometime in 2009. That is our

commitment, Mr. Speaker, and that is the kind of timeframe that we are talking

about.

There is another thing that came up this afternoon in Question Period that I

think is important noting; that the practice of midwifery, and the notion that

we should bring forward legislation to create a legislative and a regulatory

framework so they could practice in this Province, the notion that you would do

this in response to a shortage of physicians I think it is an inappropriate

characterization, I say, Mr. Speaker.

We need to be very careful as we talk about the need for midwives, the role

that they play and how they actually are a part of a team. As I say, Mr.

Speaker, our objective, our motivation here if you will, our motivation here in

wanting to create legislation to govern midwives, has nothing to do with the

supply and demand of physicians, nothing to do with the supply and demand of

nurses in this Province, I say, Mr. Speaker. They are separate and apart from

that. The practice of midwifery in this country is autonomous from nursing and

autonomous from physician practice. I say, Mr. Speaker, fundamentally we need to

look at midwives as an autonomous body. They have their own educational program

in a variety of universities throughout Canada, they have a four or five year

degree program that they will complete and they will be a part of a team.

Jurisdictions such as ours, and other jurisdictions around the country,

inasmuch as midwives will be involved in the delivery, low-risk delivery, of

babies in this Province, you do not put them in place in response to a shortage

of nurses or a shortage of physicians.

The other question that has risen around the practice of midwifery in this

Province is: well, we are doing it in Labrador, so why don't we just do it

again on the Island portion of the Province? I want to point out, Mr. Speaker,

that in Labrador we have a very different arrangement. In Labrador there are

about ten individuals who are practicing as midwives there now, but these

individuals are practicing as an extension of their licence as a nurse. These

individuals are registered with the ARNN. They have a licence to practice

nursing in this Province and they are governed by that legislation. In order for

them to practice as midwives in Labrador they first had to be a nurse. That had

to be registered, eligible for registration and become registered with the ARNN

which gives them a licence to practice nursing in the Province. They can go

anywhere in Newfoundland and Labrador to practice their chosen profession of

being a nurse.

However, through a special arrangement with the ARNN, as I understand it - I

was not around when this happened but as I understand it there was an

arrangement between the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association and the

Association of Registered Nurses in Newfoundland and Labrador, that they came to

an understanding of how nurses who held this special licence and would have

these credentials and advanced training would be able to practice midwifery

within a geographic location as defined in Labrador. The midwives in Labrador

are different again from the conversation we are having here and they are again

different from what will be the subject of the new legislation.

We envisage under the new legislation midwifery being an autonomous

profession, separate and apart from nursing. In other words, in the future

midwives in this Province will not have to first make an application to the ARNN

to become a part of that association and hold a licence to practice nursing in

this Province, but rather through this special legislation they will make

application to become registered as a midwife in this Province, an autonomous

profession practicing with a set of guidelines that will define their scope of

practice and define through regulation how they will be a part of a health care

team; how they will use technology, for example, the kind of criteria that may

require them to bring other individuals into the process in the event of a high

risk pregnancy or some complication that may arise that may require a different

skill set than they may bring. There will be a set of regulations like that, Mr.

Speaker, but fundamentally they will be an autonomous body. They will not be

nurses first and midwives second. They will not be midwives as an add-on to

being a nurse like we had the circumstance in Labrador.

I say, Mr. Speaker, it is really important to create these distinctions

because we have debated some other bills in this Legislature in the last week or

two where we have been repealing legislation that is no longer valid. Members

opposite have taken advantage of the opportunity because somewhere or other in

the title there is a belief that it means something. A spin I do not like to

use the word but I will use the word - a spin has been put on what we have been

attempting to do here to create some impression that we are trying to undermine

something or that we are not being straightforward in telling people exactly

what we are trying to do.

I am taking some great pains, Mr. Speaker, in introducing what is, in the

normal course of events, repealing a piece of legislation that has been on the

books since the early 1950s that has no relevance, does not apply to anybody

now, does not regulate anybody now, does not influence the practice of

midwifery, does not apply to a single soul who is existing in this Province

today. Despite all of that, I find it necessary to take great pains in providing

a detailed explanation of this this afternoon because this is an important

topic, as we have seen in Question Period today, lends itself to some

significant manipulation of what government's intent is, some significant

manipulation of what we are trying to do in the repealing of this legislation

and bringing into question our long-term interest, our long-term commitment to

making sure the midwives are regulated to practice in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Leader of the Official Opposition for her

press release back in May of 2008 in response to questions in the House here.

The Leader of the Opposition indicates this is the heading: Opposition

pleads midwifery legislation being developed by government. It goes on to talk

about the comments that I had been making in the public domain that it was

clearly our intent to introduce legislation to regulate midwives in this

Province.

I say, Mr. Speaker, I want to make abundantly clear that no one in this

House, members opposite or people in the general public, or any individual who

have been actively involved in this discussion in recent years to somehow or

other connect our repealing of a piece of legislation today that happens to be

called the midwifery act, connecting that in any fashion and suggesting in any

fashion that that means that this government is less committed to establishing

legislation to govern midwives or that it is not our intent to follow through on

a commitment that I had made earlier or that we, in some way, do not understand

or do not agree with or not committed to introducing midwives in this Province

as being a part of our team to provide quality safe patient care to individuals

who want to have a choice.

If you look at the practice of midwifery, it is about having choices. It is

about the role they play in, not only in the delivery piece because we tend to

talk about midwives primarily. This might be a throwback in this Province to

what I was describing of fifty or sixty years ago: midwives showed up to

deliver. Midwives of today are very actively involved in the education, they are

actively involved in family planning, involved in the education process

throughout the pregnancy, working with the individual, the mother-to-be, the

lady who is pregnant, but also very closely with the family and understanding

what is about to take place in the birth, the introduction of a new person into

that home, and will work clearly with the family after the baby is born, which

are very critical components of the entire continuum of care to be provided.

An interesting statistic I read the other day with respect to the impact that

midwives have, and we were talking about the topic of conversation was not

about midwives, it was about breastfeeding, but in the course of that

conversation the point was made that those individuals who had the support of a

midwife throughout their pregnancy and through the delivery were more apt to

breastfeed than those who were not.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, there are well-recognized and well-documented benefits

to having midwives practice in the as part of a team, providing services to

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The birth rates in this Province

this question has arisen as well, because birth rates in the Province have

dropped in recent years. I think last year we had some 4,300, a little over

4,300 deliveries in Newfoundland and Labrador. The previous year we had just a

little over 4,400, and if you go back ten, fifteen, twenty years, the numbers

were even greater still.

So we are witnessing a decline in the birth rates in Newfoundland and

Labrador. Some have raised the question: Well, why would you want to bring

midwives into the picture now when you have a declining birth rate? That is a

fair question, I say, Mr. Speaker, but it goes back to an answer I provided and

a comment I made a few moments ago in the introduction of midwives into the

Newfoundland scene. It is not a question of whether or not we have enough

doctors or do not have enough doctors, whether or not we have enough nurses or

do not have enough nurses, and whether or not we have enough deliveries or do

not have enough deliveries. This is a part of giving women a choice, giving

families a choice, because I think one of the things we recognize, and it is

well-documented, is that midwives do provide a valuable service. They have been

research has clearly demonstrated that in areas where they have been well

utilized, there has been positive response from the family members, positive

outcomes and it starts a process, I say, Mr. Speaker, it starts a process in the

early development of the child.

One of the things as the Minister of Health and Community Services, I also

have a responsibility for early learning and child care. One of the things that

researchers have clearly told us is that the period of time from age 0 to age 6

is a critical time in the development of a young mind, so it becomes really

important if you think about that. Mr. Speaker, just think about that statement

for a moment. As much as many of us may not have thought about it very much,

fundamentally when a woman is going through her pregnancy, the development of

that child mentally and psychologically is starting to evolve. The support that

mother gets, the support that family gets during that pregnancy is critical to

the development of that child. Research has clearly indicated that to us. In the

early years, after the child is born, the early beginnings have become critical.

That is why, through the last couple of budgets in this House, the Minister

of Finance has introduced initiatives and commented on initiatives undertaken by

the Department of Health and Community Services through our four regional health

authorities, to assist young mothers to focus on nutritional supplements during

pregnancy, all with a view to ensuring children get a positive start in their

lives in this Province. The introduction of midwives as part of a team of

individuals providing supports through that pregnancy, through the delivery, and

the period that follows, the whole process of evolvement of midwives in the

provision of services is not just about the