December

9, 2008

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 47

The House met at 1: 30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Today we will hear the following members' statements: the hon. the Member

for the District of CartwrightL'Anse au Clair; the hon. the Member for the

District of Topsail; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the

hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North; and, the hon. the Member

for the District of Bellevue.

The hon. the Member for the District of Topsail.

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate a resident of

Topsail District.

Mr. Speaker, on October 25, 2008, the Mount Pearl Chamber of Commerce

announced the recipient of the tenth annual Mount Pearl Best in Business Awards.

In particular, the Mount Pearl Chamber of Commerce has created a Premier's

Award to recognize outstanding achievements and contributions made by small

business, and this year's recipient was Dallas Mercer Consulting.

Mr. Speaker, Dallas, who is a native of Harbour Grace, established their

business in 2002 after recognizing that employers have an important role to play

in the disability management process. Over the past six years, Dallas'

business has grown to include her own office building, a staff of ten employees,

and a fully equipped training centre where courses are offered on a regular

basis.

Mr. Speaker, she provides clients in all provinces of Atlantic Canada and the

Province of Alberta with a variety of services, including disability management,

return to work support, appeals representation and training.

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

Ms Dallas Mercer, recognizing her achievements and the contribution she is

making as a member of the business community of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise today to recognize local excellence in international student

competitive debating.

Team Canada Debate is a group of nine high school students from across Canada

selected for their exceptional abilities and skills in debating and speaking at

international tournaments.

This year, we are proud to have two members from our Province on Team Canada:

Jonathon Lomond and Sam Greene, both of St. John's. Just earning a spot on

this team is a remarkable achievement and shows their level of dedication and

skill.

Earlier this year, both of these students travelled to the Pan-American

Championships in Peru, which saw Canada dominate. Sam Greene place first as an

individual, and Canada won the event overall.

In September, Sam represented Canada at the World Championships. Canada was

defeated in the quarter-finals, but Sam placed sixth overall as an individual.

In February, Sam will be travelling to Athens, Greece, to represent Canada at

another World Championship.

Jonathon Lomond has just returned from an international debating competition

in the central European republic of Slovenia. Not only did Canada win this

event, but Jonathon Lomond placed first overall as an individual debater, the

only undefeated competitor at the tournament.

This week, Sam Greene and another local and skilled debater, Samuel

Fitz-Tate, represented Holy Heart of Mary High School and won the North American

high school debate championships.

I would like to congratulate all these students and their coach, Simon Lono,

who has acted as provincial debate coach and director of provincial debate

operations for almost twenty years.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Pearl Chamber of Commerce Best in Business Awards.

The tenth annual Best in Business Awards banquet was recently held at the

Reid Community Centre in Mount Pearl, and recognized businesses and business

owners alike for their dedication and commitment to the community at large.

Mr. Speaker, this year's nominees and winners are corporate leaders in the

community, and I would like to take this time to congratulate them. In

particular, congratulations to Dallas Mercer Consulting, who won the Premier's

Award; Gladys Dunne Law Office, President's Award; H.J. Bartlett Electric,

Community Commitment Member of the Year Award; Naturally Newfoundland, Youth

Entrepreneur of the Year Award; A&W, Commonwealth Foods Limited, Employment

Equity Merit Award; and, TD Canada Trust, Business Environmental Achievement

Award.

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

winners of the 2008 Best in Business Awards, as well as the Mount Pearl Chamber

of Commerce for hosting this wonderful event. Special thanks to the organizers

and volunteers who make this annual event possible.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, on Friday evening I was honoured to join

hundreds of other residents in the official opening of the Bay Roberts eleventh

annual Festival of Lights for 2008.

The evening began with an illumination parade to the Wilbur Sparkes

Recreation Complex. Members of the special events committee and the councillors

for the town served hot chocolate and treats to all those in attendance.

The highlight of the celebrations was the lighting of the Christmas tree and

the award-winning illumination park. The Christmas illumination park was a first

for this Province and won an award in the national competition last year.

Mr. Speaker, daily, from 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. additional displays can be

observed this Christmas season. For those visiting the site, all you have to do

is just turn your radio to 88.5 FM and listen to twenty, minute songs of the

season which are synchronized with the lights, a must for all to see.

Mr. Speaker, I join Mayor Littlejohn and the councillors in saying thank you to

the special events committee and the sponsors for a tremendous job in presenting

Festival of Lights 2008.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise here in this great House today to tell you of six students from the

Swift Current Academy who partnered with FFAW, DFO and DFA, and who conducted a

field lab study collecting information which will assist in the controlling of

the green crab population in Placentia Bay.

These six students are: Janell Maye, Victoria Smith, Neil Crocker, Codey

Upshall, CJ Hickey and Cody Stacey.

These students were given the task to find the answers to the following

questions: How many? Where are they? What are they doing? What are they eating?

What is the effect on the environment? Are the numbers increasing? Are they

spreading in other areas? How are they spreading?

Their research took place over the 2007 and 2008 fishing season, taking in

thirteen fishing communities within Placentia Bay. These students were part of

the presentation that the hon. Minister of Fisheries and myself attended on

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 in Swift Current, along with members of DFO, FFAW,

DFA, families and teachers.

It is the research of these students which will assist in the conservation of

the shellfish fishery and improve the habitat and vegetation in the areas that

green crab exist, in Placentia Bay.

I ask that this great House join me in congratulating the six students of

Swift Current Academy in a job well done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education and Government House

Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, advancing technology, especially to benefit rural

areas of the Province, is a goal of the provincial government. The Internet and

the World Wide Web open up a new learning dynamic as people can study anywhere

on the planet.

I am pleased to inform this hon. House that due to an investment of $1.5 million

in distance learning at Memorial University last year, enrolment has increased

significantly. For the fall 2008 semester, collective distance education

registrations have increased 13.1 per cent since 2007. Undergraduate

registrations are up 12.8 per cent, while graduate registrations have grown by

15.6 per cent. The most significant growth was seen in the science faculty, with

an increase in undergraduate registrations of 41.1 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, this funding has allowed the university to fast track course

development. Full undergraduate degrees are now available in business, arts,

police studies, nursing, technology and maritime studies. Graduate programs are

now available in physical education, nursing and education. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, the masters in physical education is the first on-line graduate program

in physical education in Canada.

A fundamental belief of this government is accessible, equitable education.

We believe that students deserve a quality education, regardless of where they

live in Newfoundland and Labrador. At the K-12 level, we have increased funding

to the Centre for Distance Learning and Innovation by $1.6 million this year.

This funding is improving the distance education experience for students.

Thirty-six distance education high school courses are now offered at 109

schools, which represent 80 per cent of all senior high schools in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, advances in distance learning technologies have opened a whole

new world to the students of today compared to our generation technologies

that make distance education a truly interactive experience. This is evident in

the performance of our CDLI students. I am pleased to report, Mr. Speaker, that

these students are achieving scores in key subject areas such as math, language

arts and the sciences, that are equal to or even higher than those in regular

high school classes.

With these investments, Mr. Speaker, we are taking courses to the students.

As the increase in enrolments clearly indicates, students throughout

Newfoundland and Labrador have the desire to take advantage of every opportunity

available, and this has spurred the growth of distance learning.

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.

I want to thank the minister for an advanced copy of her statement and to say

that we are pleased to see that government is still investing money into the

various school programs and at the university.

It is a known fact, Mr. Speaker, for the past thirty years Memorial

University has demonstrated a record in leadership in distance education. The

first courses using e-mail were introduced back in 1988 and on-line courses were

introduced in 1994. So it is good to see that funding is still going forward to

this great institution to continue on with distance education. As the minister

in her statement has said, it is also being advanced throughout the Province now

from K-12 and that is a great thing for all the students in our Province, and

any money that can go into education to assist our students is welcome news.

The only thing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add, is that I know there are

still some communities in areas of rural Newfoundland that are having difficulty

and some don't have high-speed Internet. So, hopefully down the road this will

be corrected. I know there are more of them being hooked up to the Internet

system, but, Mr. Speaker, overall we support this initiative.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

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

very pleased to see the improvement in the access to distance learning. It is an

extremely important program to have in place, especially as the numbers of

children in rural Newfoundland are going down, and they cannot access high

school where they are living without the distance learning.

I do think it is very important though that the government accelerate funding

into distance learning so that students have equal access to distance learning

through high-speed

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having great difficulty hearing the hon. Member for the District

of Signal Hill Quidi Vidi. I ask members for their co-operation.

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

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

I was having difficulty hearing myself, so I appreciate your intervention.

As I was saying, I really encourage the government to put more money into the

resources that are needed for distance learning so that rural students have

equal access to high-speed Internet in order to be able to benefit from distance

learning.

There is also a point, too, I want to make, Mr. Speaker. While distance

learning is really important and in subjects like math and sciences and language

arts students can learn well, there is also the issue of interaction in

classrooms and, as the university does, students come together at different

points in their distance learning to also spend time together in the masters

programs and I do not think we can underestimate the benefit of students being

together in a classroom.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on November 14 and 15, the College of the North Atlantic held

its third annual Business Case Competition in Grand FallsWindsor.

Taking part this year were eight teams of business students and their coaches

from campuses across the Province, including, for the first time, a

"virtual campus" team that participated by distance through the use of

technology.

The two-day competition provided the students with a unique and valuable

opportunity to test their technical know-how developed in the classroom by

analyzing a business issue and putting into practice their skills and knowledge

of accounting, marketing, and HR management in a real-world problem-solving

exercise.

Mr. Speaker, this year's case focused on a small business struggling to

grow. The teams were handed the case that Friday afternoon and given a deadline

of 8:30 the next morning to analyze it and provide a final report for a panel of

judges. Each team also prepared a presentation and question and answer session

on their findings and recommendations. They worked late into the night and well

into the next day identifying the problems, researching, and developing possible

solutions for the company.

I was pleased to be invited to speak at the awards banquet where the winners

were announced. The team from the Bay St. George campus took bronze; the virtual

campus, silver; and winning gold was the Grand Falls-Windsor team of Amy

Ballard, Linda Davis, Sarah Kelly, Eun-Jae Yu, and coach Susanne Ivey, who

earned the right to travel all the way to Qatar next March to compete in an

intercontinental case competition being hosted by the College of the North

Atlantic campus in that country. I am sure that it will be a thrill and an

honour for them to compete in Qatar.

Mr. Speaker, the energy and effort that the students and coaches put into

this competition went well beyond the intensive two-day period. They prepared

for several weeks, team building and honing their analytical and presentation

skills.

On behalf of hon. members, I want to recognize the College for providing such

opportunities for students to apply their skills and gain valuable practical

experience. I congratulate the winning team and applaud the professionalism,

dedication, and commitment to excellence demonstrated by every student that

participated. Mr. Speaker, I know that they will pursue the rest of their

education and careers with the same vim and vigour they displayed in the

competition, which certainly stands them and our Province in a very good stead.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I appreciate the minister providing us with an advanced copy of his

statement. I certainly would condone the program and the competition. I know the

students from Port aux Basques campus competed I believe now for a number of

years and, in fact, placed last year in the events which were held in central as

well. It is a great educational experience. It goes beyond the classroom. The

persons that I have spoken to who took

part in it, is that they loved the

competitive spirit of it. It is done not only team versus team but also amongst

themselves as to who can contribute most to the particular enterprise. It has

been a great experience, besides the social positive aspects of it, of course,

they get to see other campuses. They get to see the level of competition that

they face here in this Province and what they are going to see when they get

into the workplace. It is a really hands-on type of experience for them, so we

would certainly congratulate them, first of all, and in particular the team that

is going to be leaving to go to Qatar, and we wish all the best to the program

in the future.

Thank you.

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for the

advance copy of his statement.

I am happy to join with him in congratulating both the College of the North

Atlantic as well as all the students who took

part in this competition, and

especially those who won medals. This is a wonderful experience for them, and it

will be multiplied by going to Qatar and taking

part in the Intercontinental

Case competition.

The college has a good track record when it comes to competitions. Another

big one every year, of course, is the Skills Canada competition, which involves

students in trades and technology. Again, a competition in which the students of

the College of the North Atlantic show how good the programs are that are going

on inside our public college system.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, with the ongoing economic turmoil that is taking place around

the world and across the country, we were pleasantly surprised today to learn of

the Province's surplus, and that it has increased from $554 million to $1.27

billion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I only get thirty minutes in Question Period, so I ask they keep the applause

short and the answers coming.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed good news, especially what you have

seen in our Province over the last few months, with the price of oil down and

nickel falling. I think everybody in this Province would certainly be pleased to

know that we are in the fiscal position that we are today, but what my question

is about earlier the Premier had made statements saying that we were on

target in terms of our budgeting and where our surplus was. We certainly were

not expecting to see the amount of surplus that is there today.

I am just wondering why the Department of Finance would have forecast that we

were on target a few months ago, but yet be showing today that there was a

surmountable increase. I am just wondering what occurred in that period of time

that would have changed how they forecast their numbers.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated certainly over the course

of the last month that we expected to exceed our surplus, and that was certainly

the case.

Our estimates at the beginning of the year are conservative estimates because

we do not want to exceed expectations for the people in the Province. We are

very pleasantly surprised and absolutely delighted that we have a surplus which

is exemplary right across the country. I think we should stand, as Newfoundland

and Labradorians today, and be extremely proud of what we have accomplished.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We can monitor the price of oil, and we budgeted it at

$87. We did have a ramp up; it went up to over $140. Now it is ramped down to

$40 - $44 today, I think - however, production is a variable. The year before,

production at Terra Nova, if I remember correctly, was down by two or three

months, which has a significant impact on the bottom line.

Until you know where you are throughout your production - for example, if

Terra Nova went down, or Hibernia went down, that would have a dramatic effect

on our numbers. We are never really sure, until we actually get there, exactly

what the numbers are going to be because probably the bigger variance is not

only the price of oil but also the production of oil. That is why we had to be

very careful in our comments. We did certainly indicate that we were going to

exceed our surplus.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask because we need to have confidence in the numbers that are being

released. If there was a shift in the position of what Finance was projecting a

few months ago until now, obviously that would be a tremendous concern for us.

In the announcement, the minister also noted that the Province's pension

funds are being negatively impacted because of this economic downturn and the

slumping financial markets. I would ask today if you can provide me an update on

the recent losses in our pension fund, and what impact that will have on a

go-forward basis.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Leader of the Opposition is aware, in 2006 we paid $1.953 billion into

the Teachers' Pension Plan, and a further $982 million into the Public Service

Pension Plan 2007, trying to bring these pension plans up to the funding levels

of 80 per cent to 85 per cent, which is suggested.

The recent downturn in the economy and what has happened, Mr. Speaker, has

resulted in approximately, right now, a shortfall of $1.5 billion in terms of

our pension funds. That is not unexpected in light of everything that has gone

on, and some of the figures I think I gave last night in terms of losses by the

banks.

One figure, though, that becomes important, Mr. Speaker, although we have

decreased our debt servicing charges by approximately $200 million, there could

be a result in the pension cost next year of an extra $180 million.

At this point there has certainly been a loss, but one that we feel is

manageable and that we will keep under control.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister cited that infrastructure funding in his economic update is a

key factor to helping the economy continue to create jobs and to create activity

over the next little while.

In light of what has happened in Grand Falls-Windsor with AbitibiBowater

shutting down, the layoffs in Wabush Mines, and the downscaling of other mining

sectors in the Province that we are aware of already, I would like to ask the

minister: Is government going to put more money into an infrastructure program

this year over and above what was contained in the six-year plan of which we are

into the third year now?

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are acutely aware of what is taking place in Grand Falls-Windsor and in

Wabush, but I think we have to keep in perspective - and I think there was a

letter to the editor today from the union in Grand Falls - that AbitibiBowater,

this is a process that they have been on to for a while in terms of they were

putting no money into the mill, they were looking for a way out. As for the

Wabush Mines situation, that is one we are monitoring closely.

It might interest the Leader of the Opposition to know that myself and the

Premier met with a number of business people today and we talked about this

infrastructure. Essentially what we were told - and these are leading

businessmen in this city, or in the Province actually - is that there is nothing

further we can put into infrastructure; we do not have the capacity. The $4

billion six-year plan is as much as we can handle right now along with the Vale

Inco, Hebron, and then hopefully the Lower Churchill. So we are at capacity,

there are not enough workers, and there is simply no way that we can do anything

more with infrastructure right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not really buy that argument when you look at the thousands who are on

the way home from Alberta, who are going to be looking for jobs in the next year

as well, so you might want to enter that into your calculations.

Mr. Speaker, infrastructure spending is no doubt one of the things that has

been cited that is necessary to drive the economy. Last year, the Province

committed to $440 million in infrastructure in the last budget. I understand a

lot of that money was not spent simply because tenders came in over budget and

were not contracted.

Can the minister give me an update today on how much of the $440 million was

not spent on the targeted infrastructure that it was allocated for in the last

budget?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am looking at my notes, Mr. Speaker. My recollection of last year's

budget is that we had budgeted $673 million for infrastructure spending, and in

the update today we have indicated there is approximately $500 million that has

been spent and we will spend another $1 billion over the next two years.

It is important, and whether or not the I understand that the Leader of

the Opposition does not understand. Nor would I necessarily expect her to. The

reality is that this is not artificial spending here. We are not borrowing to

spend on infrastructure. We are taking $1 billion and putting into

infrastructure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: What we are doing is we are trying to be cognizant of the

cost. We are looking at the fact that sometimes there is only one bid, and we

are looking at cost overruns. If contracts cannot proceed because of that, so be

it, but we have to be prudent. We have to ensure that we are getting the best

value for our dollar, and that is something that we are continually monitoring

as a Cabinet, under the guidance of the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, I understand full well and I understand that there was

infrastructure money committed in the Budget and announced that has not been

spent.

I ask if he can provide an update on what amount of that money still has not

been spent in infrastructure in the Province, and if there is any possibility

that it will be spent in the next fiscal year?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, as I outlined today, if there is one thing that

the Liberal Opposition should understand is that when we took office in 2003 the

debt stood at $11.5 billion, it is now down to $9.2 billion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: The deficit, the current deficit at the time was almost a

billion dollars. Today we are into surplus for the fourth year in a row. So, it

is not a matter of what you think or what you understand, what we are telling

you - and you can take it from the economists, you can take it from the

accountants - the money is being spent. And, for the information of the

Opposition Leader, the year is not over. It does not end until March 31. We will

continue to spend money on infrastructure as planned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You know, it is actually laughable when you listen to the minister and he

talks about how they came into this with a deficit and now we have a surplus. I

would like to remind him sometimes where that surplus comes from. Where the

royalties come from and from what deals they come from, minister.

Mr. Speaker, in the announcement that was made today there was no stimulus

package I guess in terms of support for the resource sectors or the

manufacturing sectors in the Province. I understand that they did finally meet

with some people in the business community, of which a few days ago they did not

seem to think they needed to consult with anyone except the inner circles of

government.

I ask the minister today: Is government looking at any specific programs that

will help local producers or manufactures to weather the downturn that we are

seeing in the economy?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, as the Opposition well knows, we have had

a Business Advisory Board in place for I guess the last four years. Is that

correct minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We have met with them on a regular basis and they have

kept us informed. They have given us advice, we have listened to that advice, we

have acted upon that advice, and we put in place our fiscal and monetary policy

as a result of it.

Since then, everybody knows that what we put in place here in order to be in

the position that we are in, which is an extremely good position the

Opposition should be up actually lauding the position we are in. We are

basically putting lots of money into the infrastructure and creating jobs,

reducing debt, lowering taxes, we have funded up our pension funds at a time

when they needed to be funded up, what they never thought we could do.

Do you know what is most important? Do you know what I like the most? Barack

Obama is listening to what we are doing here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: That is a great compliment to this Province, because I

have a lot of respect for that person. Obama outlines initiatives to create 2.5

million jobs; make public buildings more efficient; repair roads and bridges;

modernize schools; increase broadband access

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: He will do it right because we did it right and he can

have our (inaudible) any day of the week.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, at least we know that the Premier has opportunities for other

employment. Maybe he will become the advisor to Mr. Obama or President Obama,

Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, also today, the minister again gave notice to the public sector

unions in this Province that December 31 is a deadline for them to either accept

government's wage offer or risk losing a portion of what is currently on the

table.

I ask, minister: Why are you arbitrarily choosing a date for these unions to

come to the table and to sign a contract, as opposed to going through the

appropriate collective bargaining process and work through these issues jointly?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: There is no arbitrary date. December 31 is a very good date;

it is the end of the calendar year.

Mr. Speaker, 20 per cent in any day and age is a more than generous wage

offer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Absolutely.

MR. KENNEDY: Twenty percent compounded over four years is 21.5 per cent.

We saw PSAC accept or they would have been legislated 6.85 per cent

increase. We have seen increases in other provinces. The teachers in Ontario

were told to take 12 per cent or the deal would be off the table.

What we have done is we are saying to the unions - and I wrote them a letter

on Friday after informing most of them in person that this is the way it is.

There is an economic reality to this world; that we will be going into deficit,

potentially going into deficit next year. We need to get some economic certainty

and labour peace. Now, you can quibble or argue, call it what you like

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: - over the ands and the ors, but at the end of the day, this

package is about money, and 20 per cent is something that we stand by and is

more than generous.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the minister why he is not using that same kind of a

tactic to negotiate a settlement here, as opposed to arbitrarily pushing the

backs of union leaders against the wall.

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, after I came into this portfolio I met with all of the union

leaders. I have met with a number of the union presidents on numerous occasions,

and all but one meeting went well.

So, it is not a matter of arbitrarily imposing our will upon the unions. What

we are saying to them is, CUPE accepted this deal back as far as March, I think

it was March or April of last year - that it is there and it is time to

either do it or not do it, but it is time.

Now, the 20 per cent is there. I would say if I were in their position, 8 per

cent before Christmas would be especially generous. If you want to stimulate the

economy, you put 8 per cent into the hands of 38,000 people prior to Christmas

and watch what will happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just one final question with regard to the statement on the economy piece.

The minister also indicated that they were working with the other Atlantic

Premiers, they had identified three infrastructure projects that they felt the

federal government should invest in: the Atlantic Gateway, the creation of green

energy transmission, and affordable housing.

I ask the minister: Are there other infrastructure initiatives that your

government has identified for Newfoundland and Labrador that you will be putting

forward to the federal government, asking them to make those investments and to

fast-track them at this time?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: If I may speak to that - because the Atlantic Premiers

met yesterday in Prince Edward Island, and Minister Skinner represented me at

those meetings - the position that we put forward with regard to the Atlantic

Gateway is a very comprehensive position, a very well thought through strategy

that has been worked through by the previous minister and the current minister,

which deals with, first of all, an Oceans Agency for Newfoundland and Labrador.

We think that Newfoundland and Labrador should be the equivalent of the space

agency in Canada the Canadian Space Agency - Newfoundland and Labrador

should be the Oceans Agency. A big venture, a big expenditure, it would create a

lot of jobs here, put a lot of employment here, but we would be the Canadian

leader in that particular area, and hopefully world leader, so we are nicely

positioned.

The second piece of the Atlantic Gateway is we are trying to position

ourselves as a North Atlantic Gateway, to open us up so that we can get up into

the Northwest Passage, the arctic sovereignty issues, in order to service

Greenland, Nunavut and Iqaluit, and also to position us from a Canadian

perspective so that we are ideally positioned. That would include looking at

upgrading the facilities in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Argentia perhaps. St.

Anthony would be another port that would be upgraded. That is part of it.

If I may just have fifteen or twenty seconds, Mr. Speaker, the second piece

is the whole transmission. What we are saying is, because the Lower Churchill

will not start tomorrow, if we are going to get a piece of this infrastructure

money, we would like to get into the transmission side of it. That is a fairly

significant capital expenditure. We are saying we should try and build the

Atlantic transmission from Labrador to the Maritimes if, in fact, that Maritime

route becomes open.

The third piece is affordable housing. We feel affordable housing is a

really, really important piece in this Province, so we have launched that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS : The penitentiary would be there as well, but if you go

in with too big a list you will end up with nothing, so we are trying to

prioritize, establish our priorities, and hopefully the Canadian government

I have already spoken to Peter McKay. I spoke to him last Friday for an

extensive period of time. Certainly, on the first two items he was very

receptive and the other item is a joint exercise from all the Premiers.

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.

The Department of Justice is responsible for the security of all government

information and privacy information in this Province. Yesterday, the department

released a report on corrections with redactions, or blacked-out information.

The security features used to withhold this potentially sensitive information,

including names, was amateurish at best.

I ask the minister - this is the fourth time this year, the fourth breach in

this year of private information from government - what assurance do the people

of the Province have with regard to the protection of their private information

by government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

We have a law in this Province that we are all bound by; it is called the

Access to Information and the Protection of Privacy Act. Under that act it

specifies that the people of this Province are entitled to information that

government would have involving them, but the act also points out the fact that

there are certain situations where we cannot disclose the information. It is

mandatory that we do not disclose the information. One of those is when it has

to do with the release of privacy information.

When the report, the corrections report, yesterday was put on the Web,

unfortunately, through inadvertence, the report was put on in a way that I think

one of the media in the city was able to take the report from the Web, cut and

paste it, change it to a different format I am certainly not an expert in

this area and the redacted information became available.

We were advised about that. The officials of the department acted

appropriately and quickly to correct the matter. That has now been done. While

it was unfortunate, the important thing is that we have the report that is going

to lead this Province to bring corrections in this Province into the light after

many years and many decades of darkness.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Whether it is accidental or because somebody tampers, the bottom line is that

private information is getting out about people that ought not to be out there.

The question is: What are we going to do to ensure in future that it does not

happen? It is fine to say we apologize and we are sorry and we took it down, but

the fact is people were impacted.

Mr. Speaker, I personally brought this to the attention of the minister

yesterday here in the House of Assembly about the potentially private

information that was in the possession, not only of the media. The Opposition

had a copy of it, the media had it, it is in the public domain, as a result of

the Department of Justice's sloppiness, quite frankly. You advised me at that

time minister that the information was not to be disclosed. In fact, you gave me

a warning not to disclose it here in this House yesterday. Yet, the media had it

all over the airwaves yesterday and the supper hour broadcast.

I ask the minister: Have you determined whether it was in fact unlawful for

this information to be revealed, and do you intend to pursue any legal remedies

for so doing?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as I previously said, the information that

was put on inadvertently enabled the redactation', if that is a correct

word, to be removed. There is - when privacy information is released, if it is

disclosed without authorization, there is a sanction contained in the

legislation if it is wilfully released without permission. In this course, there

was no intent to release the information. It wad done through inadvertence. It

was unfortunate. The problem has now been corrected and we will now move forward

with this wonderful report. The issue is not some minor computer glitch. The

issue is the fact that after decades of darkness this Province is going to pay

attention to correcting what is going on in the prisons of this Province, and it

is about time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

I guess we will see in the future, Mr. Minister, whether it is a simple case

or not. We already know, for example, that government may be facing lawsuits

from the fired superintendent and the deputy superintendent as regards to

wrongful dismissal suits. Now you have opened yourself up, I would suggest, to a

lawsuit from them and others for a breach of their privacy rights.

I ask the minister: What action have you taken since yesterday to ensure

appropriate redress is made to these individuals as a result of this breach?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice contains a civil

litigation division that provides legal advice to government. If any citizen

feel that their rights have been somehow breached or impacted by any action of

government, they certainly have the right to take whatever action against

government they consider appropriate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Minister, we understand having seen some of the information that was blacked

out, that some of the blacked out information, in fact, dealt with security

issues in some of the institutions around the Province. Obviously, it was

blacked out for the reason that you did not want certain individuals, probably

inmates, to become aware of it, but I suggest now they are indeed aware of it.

Based upon that, I ask: What has been done, or has any immediate actions been

taken, particularly in the Labrador correctional facility and the West Coast

correctional facility where two pieces of this blacked out information, I

suggest very security sensitive, is now in the public domain? Has any action

been taken to ensure that those security risks and life safety issues, in fact,

have been removed in those two facilities?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

When my predecessor, the present Minister of Finance, who was the Minister of

Justice, announced the fact that the commissioners had been retained, it was

clearly announced at that time that all the information would be released,

subject to privacy and security concerns. Obviously, the information, through

inadvertence, was released through the media. I understand the Liberal

Opposition also was able to do the same thing and get the information. The

information should not be disclosed.

Anyone who introduces privacy information that should not be put out, while

they are not governed by ATIPP, as we are, would be governed by federal privacy

legislation and the appropriate remedies will be examined, and in due course,

the necessary information would be obtained and government will take the

corrective action.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Minister, I appreciate your answers in regards to how it got out there

and so on, but the last question was dealing with the issue of just actually

very sensitive, I would suggest, security information about these two facilities

out there, and it could very well be in the hands of people who should not have

it.

My question was: Have you done anything since yesterday to ensure that those

two particular institutions where those security risks have been identified have

now been corrected?

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I have confidence in the new management and

leadership in the prison correction system to take whatever actions is necessary

as a result of the fact that a member of the media, one of the medias in this

Province, releases information which should not have been released.

Thank you.

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I say to the Minister of Transportation, I do not

know if they did have it figured out. They had it out there in the first place

and it never should have been.

My last question for the minister. Minister, I heard a comment by yourself in

the media today, the first time I think I have heard, with regards to the

penitentiary, the possibility of the Province building a penitentiary for

provincial prisoners, and I noticed the Premier alluded to it today in his

answers to one of the questions as well on where it would fit on the priority

scale as a possibility.

I am just wondering: How serious are we at this point in terms of the

possibility of a go it alone approach with regards to the building of a

penitentiary, and has any work, in fact, been done to date or is this just a we

hope to sort of thing in the future?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I thank the hon. member for his question.

The position of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is quite simply

that, we have a correctional system, a unique system, here in this Province

where we house both provincial and federal prisoners in our correctional

institutions. Obviously, the new institution that is to be built in this

Province, it is in the interests of the federal government to join with us in

building that new facility, and we continue to call upon them and we continue to

engage them to do so.

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.

As we know, Mr. Speaker, each day there are new developments in the global

economic crisis; however, in the financial update that we received today from

the Minister of Finance there is nothing new announced to deal with this rapidly

changing situation.

The Finance Minister's statement mentions that he will evaluate later on

whether or not we have the ability to accelerate infrastructure spending in

spite of knowing that the surplus will be over $700 million greater than that

which was forecast.

I have to ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Why is he not evaluating the

situation now with the information that he has, and use some of the surplus to

accelerate infrastructure spending now?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, we are evaluating as we go along.

Nothing new! A $1.27 billion surplus, reducing debt to $9.2 billion, funding

pension plans, creating jobs, and mega projects: Nothing new! I don't know

what the hon. member's definition of new is, but this all seems to be fairly

new to me.

What I would suggest, Mr. Speaker and perhaps the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi didn't hear my answer to the Leader of the Opposition. We met

with a number of leading business people today and we discussed the issue of

infrastructure. The indications that were given to myself and the Premier were

that we do not have the capacity. They cannot take on any more work. There is no

further construction that can be done. Between Vale Inco, the building of

hospitals, schools, and highways, we are on bust and that is as far as we can

go.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The Minister of Finance has referred to increase in jobs. Well, right now our

unemployment rate in this Province has not changed since 2007. We are stagnant.

We have gone up .1 per cent. We need jobs here.

Why didn't the minister look at things like getting new training going,

getting more women trained in trades and technology, putting more money into the

jobs, into the training and jobs that will help us deal with the infrastructure

issues?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal HillQuidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did ask a question. I am asking the minister why more money, new money, is

not put into the area of training so that we can deal with the infrastructure

needs, because the needs are there. The Premier talked about the schools. We

need more money. I have a school in my district that has been waiting years for

improvements and extensions, so speak to that, Minister, or the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education and Government House

Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, certainly this government has been very proactive

in trying to ensure that we have more skilled trades people in Newfoundland and

Labrador. One of the initiatives that we have brought in is the skilled trades

program in our high schools and, Mr. Speaker, we have asked for schools to have

50 per cent of participation in those programs to be females.

We also have Centennial Scholarships from Alberta and two-thirds of those

scholarships, Mr. Speaker, go to women who are training in the skilled trades.

We have doubled the capacity of our skilled trades at the College of the North

Atlantic and, Mr. Speaker, we had a task force on skilled trades, which we take

very seriously, and we will continue to implement the recommendations of that

Skills Task Force.

I gave a Ministerial Statement just last week, Mr. Speaker, that spoke of the

increase in numbers of females in non-traditional trades being apprentices, and

government's investment to make sure that we hire apprentices in our

government departments, boards and agencies.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are very committed to ensuring (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act Respecting Certified General Accountants.

(Bill 72)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

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

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Rooms Act, No. 2. (Bill 71)

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.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, to be honest with all hon. members in the House, I was not going

to stand today with a petition on a long-term care facility, but when I heard

the tremendous applause our leader got on her first question about the statement

today, I said I cannot miss this opportunity.

My hon. colleague from the District of CarbonearHarbour Grace, the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, I was going to let him go

today, where he had to come down with his financial statement on the economy and

so on, but I want to take this opportunity again today to present a petition on

behalf of the residents of the Conception Bay North and the Trinity South areas

with regard to the long-term care facility for Conception Bay North.

My hon. colleagues in that particular area know the two facilities that I

reference, and I am sure all hon. members, if they went there, would want to see

something done with those facilities.

I understand that when this government took over in 2003, as they stated,

they did not have the financial abilities that they have today, and the proposal

that was put forward for a long-term care facility for Conception Bay North was

placed on hold. No problem with that, Mr. Speaker, but the economy has changed,

four new facilities have been built in this Province in various areas, and all I

am doing is asking the government, on behalf of the residents on that area, if

they would reconsider the recommendation that came forward in 2007, and

hopefully that we would hear some good news in the budget this year with regard

to a long-term care facility for the Conception Bay North area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

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

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

I am pleased to stand and speak again to the issue that I raised last week,

the petition with regard to improving medical transportation and the Medical

Transportation Assistance Program here in this Province.

I have to say also that, with the good news that was released today by the

Minister of Finance I would hope that the petition that is being presented by

thousands of people with regard to the weaknesses in our program will probably

get an easier ear.

Surely we can find the money to ensure that all patients, no matter where

they live in this Province, can travel without burden to get the medical care

that they need. It is a shame that people have to carry a burden for something

that is not their responsibility.

They cannot help it if they have a disease, especially cancer, and cannot get

treatment for the disease where they live. People in our Province should not be

penalized because of where they live.

The out-of-pocket expenses for cancer patients in this Province are getting

higher. A recent study done by the School of Medicine found that 34 per cent of

rural cancer patients pay more than $200 out of pocket for travel and lodging

for a single visit to an oncologist. That is one in three people. One in eleven

cancer patients pay more than $1,000 for one trip, and some pay over $5,000.

Only 6 per cent of patients can take advantage of the Province's Medical

Transportation Assistance Program.

I really call upon the government, and call upon the Minister of Health and

Community Services, and call upon the Minister of Finance, to recognize the

injustice that sick people in this Province are suffering, and to right a wrong.

We have the money to do it. If there is anything we should give some priority

to, it is this call for covering the medical travel costs of people in this

Province.

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

Government Services, Motion 4, pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not

adjourn at 5: 30 o'clock p.m. today being Tuesday, December 9, 2008.

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

Services, Motion 5, pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at

10:00 o'clock p.m. today being Tuesday, December 9, 2008.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that this House do not

adjourn at 5:30 o'clock today, Tuesday, December 9.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: It is also properly moved and seconded that this House do

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

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, before I call legislation from the Orders of the

Day, I would like to just make comment as to the composition of the Public

Accounts Committee because there have been some changes in that committee and

just for a matter of public record, to ensure everyone understands who is on

that committee.

The committee consists of the Member for Port de Grave, the Member for

Placentia & St. Mary's, the Member for the Isles of Notre Dame, the Member

for CartwrightL'Anse au Clair, the Member for Grand Bank, the Member for

Burgeo & LaPoile, and the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

Mr. Speaker, moving on to the Order Paper, I call Order 22, second reading of

a bill,

An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law. (Bill 53)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 53,

An Act To Remove

Anomalies And Errors In the Statute Law be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors

In The Statute Law." (Bill 53)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in my seat here today in order

to speak to second reading of Bill 53. Now the bill is entitled,

An Act To

Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law and the

short title of the bill

is called the Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act.

The purpose of the bill is clearly set out in the explanatory notes. The

purpose of the bill is to bring before the House, this particular House of

Assembly, matters in the statute law in the legislation that has been passed in

this House that requires legislative correction as a result of amendments or

enactments that have been made in previous sessions. The amendments set out in

the bill were brought to my attention, as Attorney General, through the Office

of the Legislative Counsel, which is in the Department of Justice. The

amendments are technical in nature and they are not matters of policy.

I understand, on an average, the Minister of Justice presents a bill similar

to this every year or every eighteen months or so when in the judgement of the

Office of the Legislative Counsel there have been a sufficient number of

amendments compiled by then to warrant a bill.

I will just give some examples as to the type of amendments we have here. In

clause 9 of the bill it refers to the Limitations Act. The Limitations Act is a

law in this Province which says that if a person has a cause of action or a

remedy against somebody else, that they have to pursue that cause of action or

pursue that remedy in the courts of the Province within a certain period of

time. There is a typographical error contained in the Limitations Act. It refers

to economic loss arising from negligent representation, and the word should be:

negligent misrepresentation. So that gives a rough idea of the type of clauses

that we are dealing with here, and as I said, they are technical rather than

matters of policy.

Clause 10 of the bill proposes an amendment to the Lobbyist Registration Act

which provides that a consultant lobbyist within the meaning of the act who is

engaged in lobbying in the City of St. John's or the city council has to file

a return with the registrar within ten days.

Bill 14,

An Act To Amend The Lobbyist Registration Act, was introduced in the

spring session of the House of Assembly this year. The bill introduced

amendments to extend the provisions of the Lobbyist Registration Act to the St.

John's municipal council. The City of St. John's, in any entity, is

controlled by the city. The requirement for persons already lobbying the city

when the amendments came into force to file a return with the registrar of

lobbyists was inadvertently not included in the amendments when it was extended

to the city. So the act will correct that.

Clause 12 of the bill amends paragraph 81.4 of the Mental Health Care and

Treatment Act, which act was introduced into this House in December of 2006. The

section deals with the transfer of patients to and from the Province and

contains an erroneous cross-reference in paragraph 81.4. The cross-reference

should refer to subsection 3 as opposed to subsection 2.

Another example would be clause 15 of the bill. That clause proposes to amend

subsection 22(2) of the Public Enquiries Act, 2006, by changing the wording with

respect to defraying the cost of the inquiry.

Clause 20 of the bill, as an example, proposes to amend another typographical

error that is found in paragraph 28(2)(

e) of the Water Resources Act. The

paragraph currently states, "where he or she is believes it to be

advisable". The bill proposes obviously to remove the word "is".

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of different pieces of legislation that are

going to be affected by this legislation. Various ministers will be here and if

there are any questions about that legislation they can be directed to the

appropriate minister and any information will be provided.

As hon. members are aware, from considering this type of legislation in the

past, the amendments are technical in nature and don't involve matters of

policy.

I would therefore urge passage of the bill and I look forward to any comments

from the other members of the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words with respect to this

particular bill.

As indicated by the minister, this is truly a housekeeping bill. Over the

course of time practitioners in the field, whether they be lawyers, dentist,

massage therapists or whatever, in the course of their lifetimes they come

across certain fact situations, and when they look at the legislation that

governs their practices and what they are allowed to do and now allowed to do,

they realize that the Act that was passed by the Legislature sometimes has

errors in it.

Sometimes there is just a change of practice. It could be something as simple

as a name. For example, I notice here there is one reference they are

changing from a board to a college, as I saw it there. On page 8 they talk about

a board. Now, instead of a board they are going to call it a college. You are

talking a lot of grammatical stuff. It could be an "and" or a

"but". There might be a misrepresentation versus a representation, as

the minister alluded. So, we had to do some housecleaning.

In fact, I guess it would be fair to call this full session in the fall of

2008 a housecleaning session. First, we had to drag the government here kicking

and screaming to get the doors of the House open. Normally, we do have a

parliamentary calendar which, to my knowledge, has been respected by the

governments of the day going back years and years and years. The House normally

opens within a week of the Remembrance Day holiday on November 11. Yet, in the

fall of 2003 we didn't see any session because the government changed. Again,

in the election of the fall of 2007 there was no fall session whatsoever again.

In 2003 it might have been justifiable because you had a new government for the

first time in fourteen or fifteen years. Certainly, in 2007 there did not seem

to be any justification for not having a fall session.

Here we are this year, as we say, and we had to drag the government, kicking

and screaming, to come in here again. It cannot have to do with the legislation.

It must have to do with the Question Periods, because very day the House is

open, of course, the Opposition gets to ask questions. As much as the ministers

might like to say that they would love to get the questions, very rarely do we

ever get an answer, number one.

There are two pieces that happen in this House. There are two parts to this

House being open. Number one is the Question Period, which gives an opportunity

for the Opposition. It is part of the democratic system to ask questions in the

people's House of the government. That is a very important part of our

democratic institution. Of course, the more condensed the session the less

opportunities that an Opposition has to do that. That is favourable to

governments. They do not want to get questions asked of them because, even if

they do not, it is implicit that they should give some kind of answer. They do

not want to be here, Mr. Speaker. That is the role of government.

We know what the Premier's position is, by the way, on the House of

Assembly. We know what this Premier's stated position is. I believe you can go

back and check one of the Maclean's magazine articles, and he stated

quite clearly what he thought of the House of Assembly back a few years ago.

Notwithstanding what he thinks about the system, it is a system that has existed

for hundreds of years. In fact, I think we go back to 1832 here in this

Province, ourselves, as having this hon. democratic system. As much as you might

dislike it, you have an obligation as part of the system to be here, to keep the

people's House open.

I believe there was even an incident back a few years ago when one leader was

out captured in the newspaper of the day banging on these doors, or the doors

down in the old Colonial Building where the House used to be, saying: Please,

open up the people's House.

I believe that the Premier of the day, Premier Peckford, would have liked to

keep the House adjourned for years if he could. I think they might have went

something like twenty-one months one time and he never opened the House. They

actually had to come and try to beat down the doors of the House.

I think, Mr. Speaker, it is fairly obvious that this government does not like

to be here in this House. That is for the Question Period part. Then we will

look, of course, at the agenda when they do get here. One thing about it, when

you finally are shamed into having to open the House and finally come here, when

you finally get here, then the question is: What bag of work do you bring with

you? What is your workload that you have outlined to show what progress you have

made in terms of a legislative agenda to the people of this Province?

You go down through our list - and I am looking at what we call the Order

Paper that we use every day in this House, that gives the progress of bills and

so on. If anybody goes through this, the first thing you will notice is that I

think thirteen of the things that we dealt with in this House have to do with

repeals. Now, folks, that is not new. For those of you who are not familiar with

the word, it means there has been act that we no longer think is necessary and

we are going to clean it off. Not a lot of rocket science as to how you are

going to debate that. You do not need to have a super brain to get in here and

debate that you are going to repeal something, I wouldn't think.

Now, mind you, I think there was a lack of brain power that went into some of

the decision making as to how some of these bills got to be repealed. I will not

go in today on my lengthy debate and comments that I made the last time about

the Pickersgill bill. Anybody who would disgrace, in my view, or belittle the

Pickersgill endowment by what you did in repealing that one ought to be ashamed

- and I said so.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that second reading of a bill relates to the general

spirit of the bill, and talks about the overall containment in the bill. I ask

the hon. member if he would contain his remarks to the relevance of what is

contained in the bill.

I just had an opportunity to look through the Explanatory Notes there, and

some of the comments that the hon. member makes right now are certainly not

within the spirit of the second reading of this particular bill.

I ask the hon. member for his co-operation.

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

You certainly will have my co-operation.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I think the very title of the bill, anomalies and

errors, is pretty broad and general.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Now, if you want to talk about anomalies, I will give

you a few anomalies that we deal with. If we want to get into the words

anomalies and errors, I definitely think it was an error to try to repeal the

Pickersgill endowment act. That was definitely an error, Mr. Speaker. There is

no question, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take second reading very seriously. There has been

ample time put forward, and the hon. member has spoken many times on the act

that he refers to. The act is still within third reading and if he wants to make

further comments on that particular bill, that he would reserve his comments

until that particular bill is called.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I would just point out as well, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the issue of

relevance, but normally the Government House Leader and the Opposition Leader,

we appreciate that there is a book of business that needs to be done in any

given day, and usually those things are done in the confines of good taste with

the House, and there will be no difference today on any piece of legislation

here, but we are talking about errors and anomalies. As the minister says, it is

a housecleaning thing and it is a housekeeping thing. My comments talk about

housekeeping and anomalies and errors in general. With all due respect, we are

here on a housecleaning mission this session.

Of all the things that we are dealing with here, as I pointed out, we have on

the Order Paper in this House, this session, fourteen repeal bills. We have ten

amendments which deal in some cases with like here, under this anomalies and

errors bill, we have taken probably ten or eleven different statutes and made

little corrections in them. Well, in these other ten amendment bills that we

have brought in we have done the same thing. Some have one amendment and some

have two or three amendments, but nothing of substance, no big overhauls in any

of the legislation that we saw here. So, that was thirteen repeals, ten

amendments, and we have this bill itself, an anomaly bill. If you put that

together, that is about, in my count, twenty-four pieces of legislation which

are fairly insignificant.

Mr. Speaker, I only see four actual new acts. As we have pointed out before,

publicly, we did not see any book of business of substance from a legislative

point of view, and that is disconcerting. For example, we hear about

whistleblower legislation three years ago or certainly committed in the Blue

Book in 2007 and here we are a year later, after commitments being made, and

we do not see it.

We had the minister stand up yesterday and slam the Leader of the NDP because

she dared mention that she is not going to support the repeal of the Midwifery

Act. When she looks up, in all good taste and fairness, and says: Well, why

would you repeal one if you do not have the other one prepared? we do not

get an answer. We still have to go consult with some people.

Well, there was no consultation on the repeal one. Yet, there was no

preparation on bringing in a new one. That is what is amazing about this

government. You talk about all the good we are doing, and the great managerial

skills. Well, part of managing is managing the whole system, and part of the

system is the House of Assembly.

If you look at the book of business that we have done here, or are expected

to do here, this government did not bring anything, really, of substance. Now, I

must say, there are two of substance: we have the emergency preparation piece

that is going to come from the Municipal Affairs Department and is going to be

debated later today, and we are going to have, as well, the fire department

issues, and fire protection services in the Province, that is going to come from

the minister, I do believe, some time later this week.

Those are two fairly substantial pieces of information and legislation that

the people in this Province, the municipalities in particular, are concerned

about, and that involved - for example, everybody has had briefings, and it is

much appreciated that the minister's staff took the time out to go to the

Opposition offices and brief them on these two very important pieces of

legislation. That is part of the workload of this House. That is why that was

good and that is why it was appreciated.

Other than these two bills, we have an overhaul on the chartered accountants

bill, I do believe, and other than that we do not have very much in this session

when it comes to the government showing that they actually brought in some kind

of substantive workload, legislatively, to deal with.

That is the only comments I would make, is that it is very disconcerting that

all these things that need to be done and yet we do not see it. We will come to

the spring session, and everybody knows that the spring session is basically the

budgetary session. The Minister of Finance will come in here for a few weeks, we

will debate Supplementary Supply from mid-March onwards to April some time, then

the Budget gets dropped, then we are into debating the Budget and we are into

all kinds of Estimate Committees at night and in the morning and everything

else. You do not stop. Then on top of it, the government, in the midst of all

that last spring dropped in, I do believe, forty or forty-five pieces of

legislation, amendments again and so on.

Somewhere the system has gotten screwed up. We do not have anymore, it

appears, a budgetary session, and then in the fall we have a serious get down

and do a legislative session. This government comes in in the spring and tries

to jam it all in one time and then not open the House in the fall. That is not

how it is intended to work. That is not what our accepted Standing Orders - not

our Standing Orders, I should say, because it is not technically a Standing

Order, but certainly an honoured practice in this House, a practice note is part

of our Standing Orders, that we have a fixed calendar. The calendar is not being

honoured by this government, and when they do open it they do not have a

prepared legislative session. Not only do we talk about when you open it, but

when you do open it you do not get the legislation in a timely fashion in most

cases. If this work is being done in a proper order there is no big rocket

science about some of this stuff. It just needs to be studied or briefings

given. That can be done in a timely fashion, but it seems like it is only after

you protest these things that you get it done.

The point we are just trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is that this bill in

particular is pretty straightforward; Anomalies and Errors. Yes, you have to do

this housekeeping stuff and yes, you do it about once a year, once every

eighteen months or so. On some of the other issues we would suggest that it is

time for the government to be more proactive when it comes to the fall

legislative session. The

schedule should be maintained. There should be a proper

book of business that you are going to do so we can get something accomplished

here. We were here for a week, for example, and never had anything hardly to do.

Then we end up being in night sessions; night sessions in a session when there

was virtually nothing to do to start with.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, that is all the comments I would like to make on Bill

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

If the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General speaks now he will

close debate at second reading of Bill 53.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

If there is no one else to speak, I will speak now and close debate.

Just to make a couple of comments on what the former minister had to say, the

Opposition House Leader. It is certainly my impression from my knowledge of the

members in this House that members are very happy to be here when the House of

Assembly is sitting. We try very hard to get here. We knocked on a lot of doors.

We talked to a lot of people to get here and I think we all feel it is an honour

and a privilege to be here. Some of us who have duties outside of this House

find it very difficult when the House is sitting to be able to do those

ministerial duties and yet still be here in the House. I know that when I had my

previous portfolio I had to spend a lot of time outside of the House, but with

some portfolios it is a pleasure to be able to spend more time here in the House

and listen to the tremendous debate and the very significant debate from all

members of the House.

Speaking of Question Period, sometimes I think it should not be called

Question Period. Well, it is called Question Period; it is certainly not called

answer period. I do not think the Opposition is ever interested in our answers

but it is important that we get our answers out so that the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador can know what our policy is and know what this

government under Premier Williams has been doing to bring good government to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that was certainly evident in the

fiscal statement given by the hon. Minister of Finance today who brought down a

- who indicated that the Budget for this year or the surplus projected for this

year will be $1.27 billion. That shows we are in a very, very strong position

for this year. Unfortunately, the prospects for next year with the lower oil

prices are not as good.

I wonder, when you talk about Question Period, I know that the hon. member -

I remember the former Member for Labrador West, when he was here he always used

to give us notice of the questions he was going to ask. He was the only member

of the House that would do that and I asked him why he did it. He said, because

I really want an answer. He said I am not raising this to make you look bad or

to be funny. I really want an answer. So here is the question, get me the answer

and I will ask you next week. That is interesting. I understand over in England

that is what they do. I could be wrong in that, but in England if a Member of

the Opposition wants to ask a member a question, they have to give notice of the

question. That is why we love to be here, because we do not know where the

Opposition is coming from. We do not know what area they are going to ask us.

So, we look forward to coming every day.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Opposition House Leader for his

comments and I close debate on second reading and move second reading.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 53,

An Act To Remove Anomalies And

Errors In The Statue Law, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statue Law.

(Bill 53)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 53 has been now read a second time.

When shall the said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House? Now?

Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statue

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

House on tomorrow. (Bill 53)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 23, second reading of a bill,

An Act To

Provide For The Organization And Administration Of Emergency Services In The

Province. (Bill 59)

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that Bill 59, An

Act To Provide For The Organization And Administration Of Emergency Services In

The Province, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Provide For The

Organization And Administration Of Emergency Services In The Province".

(Bill 59)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to stand in this hon. House

and bring in Bill 59, the Emergency Services Act.

Mr. Speaker, since 2003 our government have invested significant time and

effort in ensuring that our Province is prepared for an emergency or a major

disaster. The Emergency Services Act provides the strong legislative framework

that our Province needs for emergency management and planning. There is no

question that preparation and management go hand in hand.

The comprehensive legislative review, which led to this bill being tabled in

the House of Assembly, was identified as a component of the strategy on improved

emergency preparedness in Newfoundland and Labrador, approved by the provincial

government in 2007.

When the Office of the Fire Commissioner and the Emergency Measures

Organization merged in 2007, the new provincial agency known as Fire and

Emergency Services - Newfoundland and Labrador undertook a line by line review

of the Emergency Measures Act. Owing to the importance of public safety, it was

vital to frame the legislation in a way that would reflect the current operation

of our provincial emergency management agency, and more importantly, to enact

policy that reflects a modern more effective emergency management system for the

Province.

My colleagues and I feel the Emergency Services Act is a leading example of

our government's commitment to protecting Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

when an emergency or disaster becomes too much for individuals and

municipalities to cope with on their own.

The citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador expect their provincial government

to be ready to provide assistance when an emergency or disaster strikes. We will

strive to assist individuals and communities to prepare for, respond to, and

recover from such events.

In that respect, there are many functions this new bill proposes that relate

directly to those priorities. To understand these functions, it is important

that we outline the way that our emergency planning and emergency management

currently transpires.

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues, and the general public, an

emergency essentially means any real or anticipated event which requires the

immediate action or prompt co-ordination of action as declared by the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the minister, a regional emergency management

committee, or a council.

Emergency management is comprised of four interdependent and risk-based

functions, commonly referred to as the four pillars.

The first pillar is prevention and mitigation, which aims to eliminate or

reduce the impact of disasters to proactive measures taken before a disaster

occurs, such as land management, public education, and protective

infrastructure.

The second is preparedness, which relates to the readiness to respond to a

disaster and manage its consequences through measures taken prior to the

occurrence, including emergency planning, resource inventories, and training.

The third pillar relates to response. It incorporates action taken during or

immediately after a disaster to manage its consequences, such as emergency

public communications, search and rescue, evacuation, and emergency medical

assistance.

The final pillar of emergency management is the recovery stage. Recovery

includes actions taken after a disaster to repair or restore conditions to an

acceptable level. It would include infrastructure and community reconstruction,

financial assistance, and trauma counselling.

The way an emergency unfolds is unique in different regions of the Province,

but usually begins with local first responders under the direction and the

authority of their own municipality.

When a response becomes too onerous on a council or region, Fire and

Emergency Services Newfoundland and Labrador will step in and co-ordinate a

larger provincial response.

The occurrence of emergencies and disasters as a result of natural and human

causes present a constant reminder of the need for all levels of government to

be prepared to respond. In this decade, this has been evident more and more on

account of events at the international, national and provincial levels. These

events range from the 9-11 terrorist attacks in the United States with

associated impacts on this Province, the 2003 outbreak of SARS in Central

Canada, and the floods in the community of Badger 2003 and Stephenville 2005,

which serve to clearly illustrate the need for the Province to be prepared.

Mr. Speaker, emergency planning is one of the most important efforts being

carried out to date to lessen the burden on residents and municipalities when a

disaster strikes. This past year, Fire and Emergency Services Newfoundland and

Labrador hired three regional emergency management and planning officers. These

individuals, located in Deer Lake, Grand Falls-Windsor, and St. John's, have

been tasked with working with communities to develop an emergency plan.

Currently, eighty-two municipalities and local service districts have emergency

plans in place covering a population of 364,420 people. Even though this means

that approximately 72 per cent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are covered

under a plan, there are still municipalities that have little or no work

completed. Our government continues to meet with cities and towns to provide

appropriate guidance and advice, and to promote regional planning initiatives

where possible.

Another important point to consider is that the provincial government is also

legislated to develop a business continuity plan or a provincial emergency plan.

Strong emergency planning has obvious proven benefits; thus, serious

consideration was given in this regard.

The purpose of emergency management is to save lives, preserve the

environment, and protect property and the economy. The protection of life is of

great importance. Keeping all of this in mind, the Emergency Measures Act was

outdated and required a rewrite that would result in repeal with the

introduction of new legislation. The new act establishes the Fire and Emergency

Services Newfoundland and Labrador as an agency in legislation, and essentially

provides the organizational and administrative framework for emergency services

in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the cornerstone of the Emergency Services Act is a mandatory

requirement for emergency management plans by the Province and by municipalities

within three years of proclamation. This requirement originates from the

comprehensive planning theme within the approved strategy for improved emergency

preparedness.

Strong partnerships, based on clearly defined roles and responsibilities,

taking into account all of the prevention, mitigation, preparedness and response

and recovery functions, is important to a fully functioning emergency management

system. Further to this requirement, to assist in decreasing the burden for

municipalities and local service districts, Fire and Emergency Services

Newfoundland and Labrador will define in policy what constitutes an emergency

management plan.

This policy will be flexible in this regard. In other words, communities of

different sizes, complexities, and their nearness to potential risk will result

in different plan development requirements, not unlike the planning requirements

that are associated with business and activity plans within government.

Mr. Speaker, Fire and Emergency Services Newfoundland and Labrador will

consult with Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador during their policy

development to ensure its views are fully considered and plan requirements are

feasible. At the current time, Fire and Emergency Services Newfoundland and

Labrador have a twelve-step approach to effective emergency planning. This

guideline document is for use by municipalities. Fire and Emergency Services

Newfoundland and Labrador also offer emergency planning training and emergency

management training to municipalities free of charge.

Municipalities need not worry. We will help you enhance the safety and the

security of each and every resident of your town. Relevant and active emergency

plans provide for an appropriate standard of care that emergency managers and

other authorities are obliged to uphold, to ensure due diligence is exercised in

their area of emergency management accountability to protect the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Under certain circumstances the demand of effective emergency response can

and does exceed the ability of local authorities and requires the provision of

assistance by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the federal

government, the non-governmental organizations and the private sector.

In the Emergency Services Act, the minister can declare an emergency in a

town or region if the town or region fails to do so. This power was retained

from the previous act and essentially allows for the minister to authorize

appropriate actions.

By their very nature, disasters and emergencies can generate confusion in the

roles and the responsibilities of governments and other agencies charged with

the responsibility to respond. Proper emergency planning can and should minimize

or eliminate this confusion by clearly laying out the roles and the

responsibilities of all entities and establishing their clear protocols

governing their interactions with each other.

Mr. Speaker, the Emergency Services bill focuses on a provincial emergency

and requires the Province to have its own Business Continuity Plan and emergency

management plan within three years of coming into force. While the Province has

dealt effectively with recent emergencies, most of which have been relatively

localized in their impact, response has occurred without the benefit of a

comprehensive emergency plan.

Mr. Speaker, organizations have recognized that ensuring continuity of

business requires that the functional operation of the full range of essential

business resources and activities be incorporated into strong business

continuity plans.

Prudent risk management practices dictate that in the event of a major

business disruption there should be a step-by-step process in place to recover

vital operations and to serve and protect employees and clients. While the

probability of a major disruption may be low, the potential impacts of such an

event on government operations are severe. The intent of business continuity

planning is to lessen the impact that an organization sustains as a result of a

natural event or other events in society. It will establish a process that will

accelerate and improve the continuation of vital time-sensitive functions and

restore full business operations to government.

While the provincial Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is leading the

way in the development of a business continuity plan, the new Emergency Services

Act will legislate that responsibility. The Business Continuity Plan is a

critical component of a provincial emergency plan, a second legislative

requirement. The provincial emergency plan will incorporate all municipal

emergency plans, the Business Continuity Plan, and a crisis communication

component. This will then be a comprehensive approach to addressing any major

emergency or disaster in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the final change I wish to point out today relates to a

section

of the old act where the provincial government has made a change. We have

identified concerns with the expansive nature of the delegation of legislative

powers contained in

section 13 of the Emergency Measures Act.

Section 13 authorizes Cabinet to suspend or amend any provincial legislation

during a declared emergency, including for example, the human rights code. There

are no expressly stated qualifications on the purpose of such suspensions or

amendments. It was important that the new legislation be aligned to provide

strict accountability and transparency. We are very proud of this change.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador expect that

their provincial government will provide assistance during times of crisis, and

if this expectation is to be met, the Province must maintain a high level of

preparedness to provide support when and where it is necessary to do so. Whether

it be by empowering local first responders and municipalities with a plan to

carry out response, or by properly delegating Fire and Emergency Services,

Newfoundland and Labrador as the responding organization.

We feel this legislation provides a strong, comprehensive approach to

ensuring our readiness in the event of a major emergency or disaster. Government

will continue to move forward to better prepare and protect our Province from

the dangers associated with emergencies, disasters, and fire.

I look forward to comments and constructive debate by the members of this

hon. House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Member for the District of Port de

Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to be able to stand with regards to Bill 59, An

Act To Provide For The Organization And Administration Of Emergency Services In

The Province.

Let me begin by saying a sincere thank you to the minister and her staff who

were so gracious I think it was last Friday morning, came to our boardroom,

met with us and with the Leader of the New Democratic Party. I must say, we had

an excellent brief, not only on Bill 59 but also Bill 60.

Mr. Speaker, as the minister has stated, back in June 2007, a review took

place of the Emergency Measures Act and the Fire Prevention Act. It was at that

time, I think it was, they came to the realization that it would be too

cumbersome to put it all in the one act. So that is why we are going to have

Bill 59 and also Bill 60.

Mr. Speaker, what is happening here with a lot of it is the modernization of

the language. The two acts in one, like I said, would be too cumbersome.

Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, from what we have heard - what we have heard is that all

of the stakeholders who are involved in the operation of this act, the

legislation and the wording of it, they have been contacted and hopefully had a

tremendous amount of impact in the legislation.

It is interesting to note, that in our Province today eighty-two

municipalities have already approved an emergency plan. This accounts for 72 per

cent of our population. So even though there are quite a few other

municipalities and local service districts who are not involved at this point in

time, I guess they are in more outlying areas because it seems that this has

been brought forward on a good basis where, I guess, the populations are more

gathered together, and I can reference as I go along with regard to the

Conception Bay North area. As I go through the bill that is some of the things I

want to speak about, what I have seen happen in our immediate area, in the

Trinity-Conception Bay area.

Mr. Speaker, the main focus of the bill is with regard to municipal and

regional emergencies but also it touches on a national emergency. From my

understanding, I think the legislation states that by May 1, 2012, all must

adapt to a plan. It is good to see that it is not only involving the main

municipalities, it is also local services districts, and I understand the Inuit

community as well. That is very important, because by all of them coming

together, the small local service districts may not be able to put a plan in

place on their own but they can work together with some of the larger centres as

they come together with this particular bill.

The minister mentioned the five themes. I have to say, from what I have

learned over the past several years, the main input, the main theme is the

education and communication part of it. I know all of the rest are very

important as well. What I have seen - and why I say that, I say it for a reason.

It was just last year in August, 2007 when we had Chantal, the major storm that

struck our Province. I know my area was devastated as well as the Member for

Placentia & St. Mary's. Why I say we should have education and

communication, all too often - this is no slight on the government today, there

were other tragedies when our party was in power. All too often when an

emergency takes place we see the Premiers, whomever they may be, the ministers

coming to a different area, whether it be federal or provincial. They come with

all good intentions. You will see various ministers coming because there are

issues that are going to unfold because an emergency has taken place, but all

too often, and I saw it happen in my area, that it was almost like a false

impression was left because the people thought when those people came and

comments were made that everything was going to be rosy, everything was going to

be taken care of. We know when it comes to an emergency plan such as that,

everything cannot be covered off on.

I know after it settled down I was swamped with phone calls from residents

throughout the area saying: How come I have not heard this, I have not heard

that? Now I have been told I am not going to receive this coverage or what have

you. That is unfortunate. That is back when Chantal struck. That was when I

called the Fire Commissioner's Office first. In the beginning they were a

little bit hesitant about coming to the area. They did not think there was any

need for it, but the problems grew. People did not understand what coverage they

would have. So, finally they came out. There was a meeting arranged at the Bay

Arena in Bay Roberts, and several hundred people came out. Once the Fire

Commissioner and his staff explained: this is what coverage you have, this is

the plan that is in place, they understood it fully.

My recommendation to the minister is when this plan comes in place, I think

if an emergency happens, regardless how large or how small it is, that the

authorities, the people in charge, the quicker they can get to the communities

and explain things to the people, the better it is. Like I said, a false

impression did set in in my area and I am sure it probably happened when there

was a disaster in Badger and other areas throughout the Province. I have to say,

that once the call went out, the individuals with the EMO at that time, there

was nothing they did not do to try to accommodate the people. Even though there

are people who were very upset because of what damages they lost, at the end of

the day I think by coming and communicating with the people is the answer to it

all.

As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, this also references local service districts

and Inuit communities. So once this falls in place in 2012, and hopefully

everybody will come under the act, we should have a good plan in place in this

Province regardless of what emergency should take place. Mr. Speaker, over the

years - and I guess one that we can look at, and as I stated earlier a national

emergency. We all know 9-11, and I guess really for the United States of America

9-11 was definitely a national emergency, but we also have to realize how our

Province from coast to coast became involved when that incident happened, when

the planes, travelling all over the world, landed here at St. John's and

Gander and Stephenville, and how the people, the volunteers of our communities

and our Province, came together and did what had to be done to assist those

people. Sometimes this all takes place very quickly, but if we have a plan in

place like this piece of legislation and we know the laws of the land, I believe

it will be that much more convenient for everybody.

I also remember only recently, and I am sure the Member for Harbour Main will

remember this, only several weeks ago there was a news story that went out that

a plane had crashed in his particular district, in the Cupids area, but how it

came together was unbelievable because here you have the fire departments, the

Search and Rescue, the volunteers, and they knew what had to be done. I know the

area that we represent, and the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace represents,

and those people have a plan in place. They are a part of the eighty-two

communities.

My hon. colleague across the way, they spent the whole night searching the

woods and the ponds for this downed plane. Search and Rescue boats were out in

the harbour, but what it was, it was a Chinese lantern or something that some

individual had set up in the sky and someone thought they saw a plane crash.

It just goes to show - one thing about it - it was almost like an exercise in

a school, a fire drill, to know how the students would get out of the school,

about how they came together. I know there was probably a lot of time lost for

the various individuals, the law enforcement and so on, but I will tell you one

thing: it was a lesson that was learned.

I remember another time with an emergency where a plan came into place, and

that was in the community of Upper Island Cove back a few years ago when a major

rock slide took place and one particular huge rock came down and took the full

side of an individual's house. I saw at that time what it is to have a plan in

place. Even though it was only a small local incident, it had a tremendous

impact on that community and how people had to be moved from their homes and

placed in hotels and motels.

I also remember, like I said, I mentioned earlier about Chantal, the flood

that happened last year. It is unbelievable what can happen in a short period of

time with 100-and-some-odd millimetres of rain falling. I can remember seeing

individuals who were standing by the brook that goes through the community where

I live - they were about eighteen or twenty feet back from the edge of this

small brook - and within a span of fifteen minutes, at about 10:20 in the

morning

AN HON. MEMBER: They were washed away.

MR. BUTLER: No, I say to the hon. colleague, they were not washed away

but they were up to their knees in water when the flood came. It was almost like

it just came up through the earth. I would venture to say, and the Minister of

Municipal Affairs who was in office at that time in that department knows full

well, it was almost like the water just came up through the earth, rather than

flooding over it. I would venture to say, if anyone had some mechanism to look

under the foundations, there is a lot eroding there.

Like I said, the departments all kicked in that time when they came together.

There were the fire departments and all the local areas. We had the Avalon North

Wolverine Search and Rescue. People came to the meeting from various

departments: Transportation - I think the Member for Lake Melville was the

minister at that time and people from the Department of Human Resources,

Labour and Employment. It is a major thing, coming together when you see an

incident happen like this. I am sure the same thing happened when we talked

about the incident that happened in Badger a few years ago.

As we look at the legislation we talk about, also, a provincial emergency.

Just since this government came into power we hear much talk about a pandemic,

if it should happen. Plans are in place and, from my understanding when we met

with the officials the other day, still, various officials in various

departments come together - not hoping that there is going to be a pandemic, but

various departments do come together and have plans in place if something of

this magnitude should unfold.

The bill also talks about a national emergency, God forbid, but we know the

world today. We hear so many stories of what can happen from one country to the

other, and who knows? At least we know that our provincial government is

planning, not only here in our own Province but if something should happen on a

national scale.

One of the clauses in the bill, and I think it is a good clause, outlines the

no liability, the good faith clause, and it expands on the clearity' of

that particular section.

AN HON. MEMBER: Clarity.

MR. BUTLER: Clarity.

I thank my hon. colleague across the way. He is very helpful.

What happens here, Mr. Speaker, when we have volunteers, whether they are

with the fire department or the Search and Rescue teams, all too often they go

in to do good and at least they are not going to be held liable if something

should go by the wayside.

Another issue in the clause that I think is very, very important, and we have

seen this happen I know I have - is the part when it comes to price gouging.

When an emergency takes place, Mr. Speaker, I saw it a few years ago when,

through a snow storm, the power was lost for two or three days back, I do

not know what year it was we saw what happened in the stores. The price of

everything went sky-high, anything that the people wanted, whether it was

candles, kerosene, other heating fuels, even clothing if they did not have it. I

saw it with Chantal, with regard to various pieces of equipment, generators,

sump pumps, or different types of pumps. It just skyrocketed when all of the

product in the area was bought up, and when they had to bring it in the prices

were unbelievable. I am glad to see that is there. It also touches on someone's

property; it will stay at the value of what it was before the emergency took

place.

Mr. Speaker, just to conclude, I am not going to go on much longer because I

believe this is a good piece of legislation, but to know that not only in the

area that I represent - and we know, as I said earlier, that eight-two

municipalities have plans in place. I know, for instance, one community in my

district where the fire department, in conjunction with the town council, just a

couple of years ago, had a student program. They went door to door in that

community and they have a list in place of any medical concerns, whatever they

may be, how minor or how large, and they have it all on file if something should

happen and they get a call to go to that residence. It is not only just to go to

the residence. They have a plan in place if anything should happen in their

community, and that is the same community that had the rock slide a few years

ago. I guess they learned from that and now they are prepared.

I have to say that all of those individuals are volunteers and they do a

tremendous job. To know that this piece of legislation that is being brought

forward here today by the minister - and we are looking forward to Bill 60

because, really, both of them go hand in hand to a certain extent.

I want to say, in closing, that we are very pleased with this piece of

legislation and just confirm that we will be supporting Bill 59.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

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

I am very happy to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 59,

An Act To

Provide For The Organization And Administration Of Emergency Services In The

Province.

I join with my colleague from the Official Opposition in thanking the

minister and her staff for providing us with an excellent briefing last Friday

morning both on this bill and on Bill 60, which is a sister bill dealing with

fire emergency services.

This is a very, very good bill, I have to say. I was quite pleased with the

explanations that we were given by the staff from the division. It is

comprehensive, and it is certainly up to date in dealing with the reality of

today in terms of emergency possibilities. It seems to be very timely that we

finally have this act coming out,

an act which is much more up to date than the

Act that it is replacing, both this one and the fire emergency act which is Act

60 which we are not discussing today but we shall be soon. Both of them are acts

that are replacing two acts that used to be in place, the Emergency Measures Act

and the Fire Prevention Act.

The Emergency Measures Act, in particular, in no way was related to - very

peripherally - what we are dealing with today because it was focused more on a

time when the emergency measure had to do with the fear of being attacked by

another country, which was sort of what was at the bottom of it. I think the

emergency that we are talking about in this act, the emergency services, is a

much broader issue that we are looking at with regard to the emergencies.

With the kinds of wild weather we seem to be having in this part of the

world, along with other parts of the world, for various reasons there are

all kinds of different theories on that. I am one who believes in climate change

and I am sure that is what we are experiencing. The incidents of storms, the

incidents of flooding, they certainly seem to be more frequent in the Province

now than they have been. This act is certainly timely with regard to dealing

with these kinds of incidents that have been going on now.

Before I talk sort of more generally, I just spoke to the minister and

pointed out something. I read the act at least four times actually and then we

had the briefing on Friday, but it was only this morning that I realized that

under the definition of emergency we have I am going to read it,

"emergency means a real or anticipated event or an unforeseen combination

of circumstances which necessitates the immediate action or prompt co-ordination

of action as declared or renewed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council," et

cetera. It only struck me this morning: Yes, but what makes it still an

emergency? Like, what are these events about? It dawned on me the answer was in

the very next section,

section (

h) where it says that the emergency management

plan is intended to prepare for, et cetera, et cetera, the provision for the

health, safety and well being of persons and the protection of property and the

environment.

It dawned on me that in

section (

g) that is what the emergency is, that the

events are actually a threat to the health, safety and well-being of persons and

the protection of property and the environment. I wondered, and questioned with

the minister why, perhaps, that phrase about the health, safety and well-being

of persons and the protection of property and the environment should not also be

in

section (

g) because it is what makes the emergency an emergency. The events

are a threat to our well-being as persons and our environment and property.

It is not a major thing, but it just struck me today that the definition of

emergency was not finished. I am not saying it is an amendment that has to

happen. I have told the minister, she is talking to her staff and if it is

thought as we look further on at that perhaps it should be amended, or

not that it should but that amendment makes the word emergency clearer, then

that could happen in Committee of the Whole. We could have that discussion and

the amendment could be brought forward. As I said, I have been talking to the

minister and I mention that now. It just makes it more clear what the emergency

is about.

There were a few things that I want to note. I think some of them have been

noted by my colleague from the Official Opposition, so I will not repeat a lot

of what he has said. I may repeat some but there are a couple of things, I

think, that he has not mentioned. One has to do with the fact that the emergency

management plan includes also a business continuity plan. I thought for the sake

of the public, who do watch us when we are having these debates and who are

interested in reading our legislation, just to explain what a business

continuity plan is.

What it means is that in an emergency there is business of government that

has to continue, that people still have to be taken care of. In emergencies

people still require the services of government. They require, for example,

receiving cheques that come to them from government. There are a wide variety of

services that still have to be provided by government. It is sort of like the

show still goes on. In an emergency there are still aspects of life that have to

be taken care of. What the business continuity plan is is that there is a plan

in place that would facilitate that all essential services that are absolutely

necessary for the well-being of the people, that those services can continue. I

think it is an extremely important part of the plan, and looking at the minister

I think I have interpreted correctly. It is a really important part of the plan

because we cannot underestimate the complexity of ensuring that services go on.

So whether the services are attached to an institution, like a hospital or a

long-term care home or something of that nature where we have to make sure

electricity continues and all of that, or whether it has to do with a cheque

being sent out to people, all of these are things that have to continue.

It is a very, very complex thing to put together the full emergency

management plan ,as well as the business continuity plan. I am delighted to see

that government is committed to having this in place within three years. We know

that a lot of things are in place now. When it comes to the emergency management

plan, we do know that already about 72 per cent of the population is covered by

plans that are in place, and that is excellent.

I remember once myself being part of an emergency. This was twenty years ago,

and we had a pretty good system in place. I was actually in Labrador. There was

a forest fire back in the 1980s and there had to be an evacuation of Sheshatshiu

and North West River. I was in Sheshatshiu doing some work and there had to be

an evacuation of Sheshatshiu, North West River to Happy Valley-Goose Bay. I

remember how smoothly that went and how well we were taken care of in Happy

Valley-Goose Bay because we were there overnight before we could go back after

the forest fire.

We have a history in the Province of knowing how to deal with emergencies,

but I think the government and the division that we now have in place have put a

lot of care into looking at what has not been in place and how we can

institutionalize the things that we have been doing very well but we have to

deal with things in a modern way. We have to deal with things with today's

technology and ensure that any gap that could be there has been taken care of.

I was also glad, and even though my colleague mentioned it I would like to

mention it again as well. I was really glad to see the section,

section 23

actually, which deals with price gouging because there is nothing as awful when

people are in an emergency and sometimes you see it happen both in our own

Province and in other places and you see it reported on the news, of people

being in a terrible emergency needing food or clothing, needing equipment,

things to keep their houses warm because of loss of electricity, anything, that

the price goes up. It happens. I do see here that it is covered. There is a

penalty for an offence. A person who commits an offence under

section 23, a

person who does put up a price, is liable to a fine of up to $5,000. It says

that the

section shall not apply to cost increases which in the opinion of the

minister are reasonable and have been necessitated by the declaration of the

emergency. I guess it is quite possible that you could have things having to

come in by plane, for example, instead of by road or instead of by boat, and the

extra cost of transporting what is needed could cause a price to go up. So there

are times when it would be reasonable, and it is up to the minister to judge

that.

The one thing that the

section does not say is who is responsible for

alerting authorities to the price gouging, but I guess there is probably an

assumption that if prices go up overnight because of the emergency, the public

would not be long letting it be known that it has happened. There is not

anything here for alerting of authorities with regard to the price gouging.

Maybe the minister could speak to that, how we think it is going to become known

that price gouging is happening. That struck me this morning, actually. I got to

do careful reading this morning of this document.

The other thing that it is not so much an issue with regard to how the

emergency measures happen, but it is an issue in terms of government always

being able to have the resources to deal with emergencies, et cetera is the

issue of the cost sharing, because of course, it is not just the Province who is

responsible for paying for emergency measures.

I think I have my figures correct, because I copied them down when we were

being briefed on Friday morning. Actually, what I will do is I will not name the

amounts because I could be wrong, but there is a first amount I think it is

about $570,000, where the provincial government pays 100 per cent of the cost

related to the emergency. Then you go up so many I think it is $1 million.

You get into a first million then it is 75-25; the Province seventy-five, the

federal government twenty-five, and so on. There is a change in the ratio of

what is paid by federal and what is paid by provincial, and that is the main

issue I want to make. I do not want to get into the figures because I could be

making mistakes because I did this as we were being briefed. The point is the

federal contribution.

It was sh