May

19, 2009

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 22

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Lewisporte; the hon. the Member for the District of Kilbride; the hon. the

Member for the District of Ferryland.

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 recognize the significant achievement of a

resident of Mount Pearl, Mr. Gary Martin.

Gary has been a resident of my district for many years and is well known in

the sports community. Gary has recently been named an RBC Local Hockey Leader.

This honour is awarded to those individuals who have shown dedication and

commitment in the area of Minor Hockey. As a coach, leader and official involved

with Minor Hockey in Mount Pearl, Gary has certainly demonstrated a level of

commitment that is second to none.

Aside from bragging rights, Mr. Speaker, Gary has earned a trip to the Hockey

Hall of Fame in Toronto, as well as the honour of being a Torch Bearer for the

2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. Gary also reserves the right to donate

$10,000 to a minor hockey cause of his choice.

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

Gary Martin on this prestigious award, and commend him on the hard work and

dedication he has given to Minor Hockey in Mount Pearl. We, as a community, are

lucky to have him.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Elsie Voila Rideout, known as

Aunt Elsie, from Campbellton on reaching the ripe old age of 100. Aunt Elsie was

born on May 17, 1909 to Archibald and Vicki Hillier. She married Maxwell Rideout

in 1931 and they had five children. Aunt Elsie was a very hard working

individual and travelled with Max around the coast on their mail and passenger

boat, The Margaret Rose .

They started the first restaurant in Campbellton in the 1940s on what is now

Harbourview Hill. In the 1950s they moved the business to the Campbellton River

where it was called the Drive In, now known as The Bistro.

Aunt Elsie was famous for her hooked rugs and she would spend up to eight

hours at a time working on them. Elsie and Max had the first telephone in town,

they also had the first radio and the first car, which was a 1929 Chevie. Max

died in 1997 and in 2002 Elsie decided then that the fourteen room house was a

little too large for her, so she moved to a private senior's home and later to

North Haven Manor where she now resides. She sold her house in 2003 and it is

now known as The Inn on the Hill bed and breakfast. The home is still kept in

its original form and still lovingly known as Aunt Elsie's place.

Mr. Speaker, I visited Aunt Elsie this weekend at her room in North Haven

Manor and she still has a wonderful smile.

Members of the House, please join with me in congratulating Aunt Elsie on

reaching this great milestone.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, about twenty-five years ago Craig Pendergast and

Brian Murphy and a few other residents of Donovans Road were appalled at the

mess of garbage that had accumulated in the woods and along the beach of Second

Pond. The area was a mess with car wrecks, old appliances, chesterfields and

other assorted litter which built up over years of illegal dumping. They decided

to do something about it. They organized the whole neighbourhood, and formed the

Donovan's Road Action Group and with the financial help of local businesses,

the Gould's Town Council, the Gould's Lions Club, they hired trucks and

equipment to clean up the illegal dumpsites and car wrecks.

In the early years they had to work long hours to get ahead of the mess.

Every year since the Donavon's Road Action Group has its clean up usually in

June. Today St. John's Clean and Beautiful is a major sponsor.

All the neighbours and especially the children look forward to it because it

has evolved into a social event that includes a barbecue and prize distribution

after the cleanup has been done.

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

group, especially Craig Pendergast and Brian Murphy, for nearly twenty-five

years of dedicated hard volunteer work to keep the Second Pond area the natural

beauty it is.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize and congratulate

Brandi O'Keefe, a Level II student from Baltimore School in Ferryland.

Brandi has been selected as Newfoundland and Labrador's 2009 Lester B.

Pearson Scholarship winner. This qualifies Brandi to attend Lester B. Pearson

College of the Pacific in British Columbia starting in September 2009.

Lester B. Pearson United World College of the Pacific is a unique two year

pre-university school for 200 students selected from around the world based

solely on their personal merit, potential and demonstrated commitment to engage

actively in creating a better world. All students attend on a full scholarship

and live together while studying the International Baccalaureate program and

pursuing explicitly the mission of the United World Colleges to make an

education a "force to unite people, nations and cultures for peace and a

sustainable future."

The International Baccalaureate is a demanding academic program and only

above average students can be expected to cope with it and at the same time

participate fully in the life of the college. This honour is awarded to talented

young students who demonstrate high academic achievement and have an active and

proven interest in the world.

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

being awarded this prestigious scholarship and wish her a successful and

enjoyable tenure at Lester B. Pearson College of the Pacific.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to provide information about Budget 2009 and initiatives in that

Budget which support the efficient operations of both the Provincial Court and

Supreme Court in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Court is a court of record and therefore it must

ensure that documents are maintained and accessible as they could be required

for future proceedings. To maintain the integrity of the court records, Budget

2009 has funded a new Manager of Information Management position. As well,

management of financial information of the court is essential to its operations,

so we have also funded a new Manager of Accounting position, which is something

that the Provincial Court has sought for many years. Both of these positions are

important to the functioning of our court system and we are pleased to fund them

in Budget 2009.

Mr. Speaker, we also recognize that the Aboriginal people of the Province

face language barriers during court proceedings. Prior to this year, the

Provincial Court in Happy Valley-Goose Bay had a full-time Innu Court Clerk and

a part-time Inuit Court Clerk, both of whom provide counter services in

Aboriginal languages. As a result of Budget 2009 both positions will now be

full-time. This action will ensure that both Aboriginal groups receive court

services in the appropriate language.

Mr. Speaker, the complexity and the number of new estate transactions has

increased in recent years. In order to ensure the proper functioning of the

Estates Office of the Supreme Court, government has created the position of

Assistant Estates Administrator. This new position will support the day-to-day

operations of the office.

It is also incumbent upon government to provide appropriate court facilities

within the Province. This year we are providing $666,000 for pre-planning of new

court facilities for the St. John's area, and $7 million to complete the

courthouse in Corner Brook. As well, we will provide an additional Deputy

Sheriff position for court security in the Corner Brook courthouse.

Mr. Speaker, our courts are vitally important entities of the justice system,

and these are wise investments in that system. Government has responded to the

needs of both Provincial Court and Supreme Court to ensure the proper

administration of justice for all those involved in the court system.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for

an advance copy of his statement.

Anything we can do in this Province, of course, to improve efficiencies in

the court system and to ensure that people have access to proper language and

language

interpretation skills are certainly beneficial to the system.

I would point out to the minister, in addition to the interpretive skills

that we are currently providing in Happy Valley-Goose Bay we do have a

situation, for example, in the Clarenville women's correctional facility where

there is a high proportion of Aboriginal women there. I do not know if the

interpretive services are available at that institution, so it would be nice to

know that as well.

I also note that the minister is talking about investing substantial dollars

in pre-planning for a new courts system in the St. John's area. We are well

aware, of course, that there was a consolidation study already underway which

apparently the minister already has the draft of, and we are supposed to have

the final study submitted to the department by the end of May. We look forward

to seeing a copy of that, and hopefully we will not have to go through too many

FOI requests to get it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

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

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. It is good

to hear these various initiatives being spoken about today. We know that they

are in the Budget, but we understand the need to have them picked out and spoken

to.

I especially am happy to see the information with regard to the positions,

the Court Clerk and part-time Inuit Court Clerk, becoming full-time; and that

will be full-time and permanent, I would take it, as long as the need is there.

I think that we all recognize the need to help the Aboriginal peoples

overcome the language barriers that exist for them in dealing with institutions

like the legal institution and with the court system. Aboriginal people in

Labrador in particular are over-represented in the court and corrections

systems, and if we are going to deal with the issues that they are facing then

recognizing the barriers that they face, particularly the language barriers, is

one way to do that.

People need to understand their laws and rights fully in order to exercise

them, and sometimes these laws and rights that we have also clash with the

culture of Aboriginal peoples as well, so I hope that this is a step towards

helping to get a better understanding, also, of the cultural aspects that they

face as barriers in dealing with our legal system.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my hon. colleagues of this government's

commitment to student summer employment in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, a student summer job is often a young person's first exposure

to the labour market. It is a great way to establish good work habits and an

understanding of the value of earning a living. Recognizing this, Budget 2009

included an investment of $3.45 million towards the delivery of a student summer

program for high school and post-secondary students throughout this Province.

This year, Mr. Speaker, provincial government funding will enable over 600

high school, Level I, II and III students to secure work with not-for-profit

organizations, community agencies and municipalities in approximately 480 summer

recreation, heritage and community improvement projects.

In addition to supporting high school students, Mr. Speaker, the provincial

government also assists individuals attending a post-secondary institution - or

those planning to attend one in the upcoming year - secure meaningful summer

employment with both not-for-profit and profit employers.

Through our Student Work and Service Program, students gain up to fourteen

weeks of on-the-job experience. In addition, Mr. Speaker, students also receive

a $50 tuition voucher for each week worked. For example, if a student works for

the full fourteen weeks, then they will receive $700 to the overall cost of

their tuition. This is an excellent way for students to gain valuable work

experience and save for school, thereby reducing their debt burden.

I am pleased to announce that this year we will match 1,155 post-secondary

students with employers for meaningful summer employment.

Also this summer, the provincial government will continue its financial

support of the Conservation Corps of Newfoundland and Labrador. A grant of

$597,800 will fund up to twenty-five Green Team projects and employ 100 youth

and students primarily in rural areas of the Province.

These Green Team projects are aimed at addressing environmental and cultural

heritage issues and are run in partnership with local community organizations

and the corporate sector. Through this program, our youth and students will

contribute to conserving the environment in our Province while developing their

own skills and enhancing their environmental awareness.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, the provincial government is pleased to support

student summer employment again this year and I would like to wish all our

students a safe, enjoyable and rewarding summer.

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. I can

assure you that we are very pleased to see this program proceeding again this

year. No doubt about it, it is a very important project for our Level I, Level

II and Level III in the high school, and also those who will be going on to

post-secondary. I am sure each and every member here has received calls from

constituents as well as the various organizations wondering if there will be

funding this year, and it is good to see this happening.

Mr. Speaker, we also reference in this one about the Green Team projects. I

have seen how that program is very valuable to a district, teaching our young

people the environmental issues in our Province. I can honestly say that there

are other projects taking place in my district. I am sure we all heard talk of

the group Gaia, the work that they are doing environmentally, not only in their

high school but throughout the surrounding communities.

Mr. Speaker, we just want to say that we are pleased to see this program

going ahead again this year. Any program that is to help our students in this

Province is always welcome and we wish them every success throughout this

summer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

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

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

good this program is and how our community groups benefit from the program,

especially when you look at the one involving high school students in particular

because these are the summer students that mostly get used in my district by the

community groups who use them.

Also, in our office, we have benefited from the Student Work and Service

Program with the hiring of post-secondary students. I was glad to see actually a

memo today saying that caucus offices are going to be able to have somebody

again this year and I am pleased about that.

There is one thing in the memo - and I just received this, just before coming

in. So I did not have time to check it and I would like the minister to check.

It was my understanding that the post-secondary students received $50 cash every

week plus the $700 voucher. So I think there is an error in the way that - the

minister is nodding yes, so I think she recognizes that. I just wanted to make

sure that the $50 cash was not being stopped.

So I 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, tomorrow at 7:30 a.m. government will be locking the nurses out

and effectively throwing our health care system in this Province into chaos.

Mr. Speaker, with only hours left to reach a settlement, I ask the Premier

today: Why would your government want to hold the health care system hostage on

non-monetary issues when these issues could be settled under binding

arbitration?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Well isn't this the pot calling the kettle black. As

a Liberal government who ten years ago legislated nurses back to work, took away

binding arbitration and at that time offered 7 per cent. Our offer that was on

the table, which was part of the package, was over four times that. If nurses

end up legislated back because they choose not to go back to work, our template

offer will be three times the 7 per cent that a Liberal government legislated

nurses back.

From a lockout perspective, there is no lockout. Nurses have given us notice

of strike. When you go on strike, you go on strike. There is nobody locking

nurses out. We are invoking an essential services contract that was agreed to by

the nurses, that the nurses signed, and we are invoking it because the President

of the Nurses Union, Ms Forward, has indicated that she wants to put greater

pressure on the health care system. So the very reason that we are invoking the

essential services contract is to protect health care in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

But we are talking about the situation in the Province today, Premier, not

what happened in the past. We are talking about people today in this Province

that are lining up in the O.R. rooms.

I ask the Premier, again, Mr. Speaker, we are not dealing with monetary

issues, we are dealing with policy issues, we are dealing with wording issues

and I ask the government opposite: Why will they not go to binding arbitration

and avoid a strike in this Province and allow the health care system to

continue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we just left Grand Falls and the central

region where over 700, 800 people lost their jobs. I spent the weekend watching

television, looking at General Motors workers trying to hold on to what they

have: trying to hold on to their jobs; trying to prevent their salaries from

being cut away completely; trying to hold on to their pension benefits; trying

to hold on to their health care benefits.

We have offered starting nurses $60,000 a year coming right out of school.

Our experienced nurses are going to $75,000 a year, $74,000 and change. They

will be the second highest in the country; they will be the highest east of

Ontario. Our recruiting nurses will be either the first or the second. So Quebec

and all the Maritime provinces, Atlantic Canada, will be number one or number

two.

This government has stepped up in spades. Not only did we answer the

recruitment problem, we answered the retention problem. We dealt with

educational leave. We added steps on the front end. We added steps on the back

end. We also nearly tripled standby and shift differential and that was all part

of the package that included the two principles and they want to go to binding

arbitration. We can do no more and we are at a loss to understand why nurses are

not taking this deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

But the issues that are driving this right now is not monetary issues, Mr.

Speaker, it has to do with policy issues.

[Applause from the Gallery.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Order, please!

I remind our guests in the galleries that they are always welcome to come and

observe the proceedings here on the floor of the House of Assembly but they are

not to take part, to show their approval or disapproval of anything that happens

here on the floor. So I ask guests for their co-operation or I will have to ask

them to be identified and have to be removed from the galleries. For your

co-operation, please.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government had already agreed to concessions around monetary issues. These

are issues outside of that and we have asked this question time and time again

of government but we have not gotten a clear answer.

I ask again today: Please explain to the people of this Province, to the

people who use our health care system, exactly why government wants the market

adjustment clause in this contract?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in addition to everything else that we

have done for health care in the Province, whether it is from an information

technology perspective, whether it is the hundreds of millions of dollars that

we are spending on infrastructure, whether it is the over $100 million that we

spend on pharmaceuticals, all the other money that we put into equipment. What

we have done for health care professionals is not only have we given the highest

raises across the country, which is the template, which is over 21.5 per cent

compounded, which is unheard of in the rest of the country in these difficult

economic times, we have actually gone up two notches on the front end to make

sure that young nurses actually want to work in the nursing profession here, and

that is over 31 per cent. We have also then taken and recognized the experience

of our senior nurses and have increased a step there, so that they are nearly at

$75,000.

Then we went down the list and we said, what else is important to nurses,

because I have met with the nurses. I have met with individual nurses. I hear

from nurses all the time. There was educational leave, and we set up a special

committee and we gave enhanced experience credits.

Then we looked at shift diff which was a really big issue the last time

around. We said, okay, we have to do something with that; and the same way with

stand by fees. We nearly tripled that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have done everything we can to make it a very generous package.

Coupled with that was the deal with regard to the two principles. There was

never agreement where you can cherry pick this and cherry pick this and cherry

pick this and have it your own way. That is not the way it works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When government realized the critical situation that faced nurses in this

Province and the recruitment and retention issues, they did the right thing.

They stepped outside pattern bargaining and they negotiated a deal.

I ask the government again today: Why do you arbitrarily want the right to

negotiate with nurses singly on where they should be placed in the system and

how much they should get paid for certain jobs? Why not allow those clauses in

that agreement to be settled independently so we can put this behind us?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I sat with the ministers in a boardroom on

the eighth floor, and I guess we must have met with sixteen or twenty nurses

from all over the Province. That was a year ago. I asked those nurses

individually: What are your issues? Some of them said: We are working double

shifts, we are tired and we are exhausted. Some of them said: We can't even

plan our daughter's wedding because we don't know if we are going to be able

to get off work to go to our daughter's wedding. If there are funerals, we can't

get off work.

That was a recruitment problem. When you get into specific areas of the

Province where you have recruitment problems - and that was the major issue that

came from the nurses' union from day one when we started this process, about

seventeen months ago. We felt we had to have the flexibility, as we do right

across government in all of the other unions and all the other professions, that

when there is a need, when there is a demand, we have to be able to offer an

attractive salary to ease the very problems that nurses say exist; the fact that

there would be extra people there, there would be extra staff to work, so that

if a nurse did have to get off for her daughter's wedding she could. That is

the reason we stepped up there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is obvious that there is no really clear justification or answer as to why

government will not deal with those two particular clauses in another fashion.

To say that everyone else accepted it is not a good enough response.

Mr. Speaker, nurses were prepared to provide services in our health care

system minus the overtime shifts, but government has decided, I say, Premier, in

our opinion, to lock these nurses out.

I ask you today: Why would you choose to lock these nurses out when they were

prepared to work regular shifts and provide the service to the people of the

Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to correct something up

front. There is no lockout. You cannot have a lockout when individuals have

already served notice of a strike, so there is absolutely no lockout in this

particular case here.

Each of the health authorities have entered into an essential service

agreement with the union. It has been agreed to and negotiated signed off,

in fact, by both parties. There is a

section in those agreements that spells out

and the union has signed off on this indicating what will happen in the

event of a strike. So, they serve notice of a strike;

section 7 of those

agreements tell you exactly what will happen when there is a strike.

One of the things that is spelled out in that agreement is the essential

employees: employees who will be actually assigned to certain work situations,

assigned to various units, in the event that there is a strike.

Clearly, (

a) we have the nurses union saying that there is a strike, and if

there is a strike then obviously those provisions in that agreement must

prevail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, will you admit today that we have a health care system in this

Province that is being run on overtime, and when that overtime was going to be

pulled back the system was at risk of collapsing? Does that not sound like a

system that needs work, needs repair, and does not need to have closure invoked

upon it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, in Newfoundland and Labrador unions have a

legal right to strike. We respect that. We respect that very much. That is why

one of the things that we obviously want to do as a system is to respect that

right to a legal strike, while at the same time providing a level of comfort and

security to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that they will have at least

emergency services, and people who need critical care in the event of a strike,

that that is going to be provided. These essential service agreements spell out

what will be essential during a legal strike situation.

Any time we have an offer to do something different than that, it puts the

health system in a very untenable situation. Unless we are assured, unless we

can be certain, as a Province and as a government, as a people in this Province,

that essential services will be provided during a strike, then we have a

responsibility as a government to invoke whatever agreements we have in place,

such as essential service agreements. We have a responsibility to invoke those

agreements, particularly when they have been signed off by the union.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the government has already stated that recruitment and retention

of nurses was a key part of their ongoing negotiations, but they also stated

that any settlement that would be imposed upon nurses will not include the extra

monetary benefits that were previously negotiated.

I ask the Premier today: Besides having some personal vendetta with nurses in

this Province, why would you want to remove the monetary benefits that were

designed by your government as part of that negotiation to address recruitment

and retention in the first place?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, my mother is in hospital now. She has just

had surgery. That was, I think, last Wednesday. Since then, at St. Clare's

Hospital, she has received absolutely outstanding treatment from the nurses who

took care of her. They are courteous, they are capable, they are professional,

they are efficient, and they are tending to her every need as they do with every

other patient who is up there.

Let me tell you something: There is nothing personal about this under any

circumstances whatsoever. I have the greatest respect for nurses, and I will

continue to have the greatest respect for nurses, but we are in a situation here

where the nurses' union have chosen to go a legislative route.

If nurses decide today, or if nurses decide any time over the next three or

four weeks during the strike, that they want to accept the contract, the

contract will be there as it was offered in the beginning, all of the items

included; however, if the nurses' union chooses to put us in a situation where

we have no alternative than to legislate then their goal, as I said all along,

is to go to court, which is the national agenda; their goal is to hopefully win

a court case and end up in arbitration. If that is their goal - and this is

where it could end up if they win the case - we have no other choice than to

legislate the template under those circumstances.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Premier, it is always a choice, and

it is your choice to make as a government. If you really want to show respect to

the nurses, as you say today, I would ask the government to give a commitment

that any agreement, whether it be through legislation or otherwise, would

reflect the monetary negotiated package that was originally sought with nurses

to deal with recruitment and retention.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the choice is with the nurses. We told the

leaders of the nurses' union over a month ago that we were giving a final

offer. It was a very generous offer. We stepped up on absolutely every area we

could. We went beyond the template, significantly beyond the template, because

we recognized that there were certain needs for nurses in recruitment,

retention, and all of the other needs, so we went as far as we could.

We actually started this process seventeen months ago because we felt that

the most critical issue in the Province was nurses, and recruitment and

retention. That is why we tried to negotiate seventeen months ago. That dragged

on. Both parties did their very best. I remember even last May - late May, June

- we met with Ms Forward and basically said we would like to get this matter

resolved now. At that time she had indicated that she could not pull a

negotiating team together for the summer. Then we sent into September. We have

tried everything since, but it appears that no matter what we try there is a

national agenda here to have this matter tested in the courts, and Newfoundland

and Labrador will be the example. If that is the goal then there is nothing we

can do about it only make a very generous offer and ask nurses to accept it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Again, Mr. Speaker, there is always something government can

do, and binding arbitration is the answer.

Mr. Speaker, this heavy-handed approach of removing benefits like this from

the negotiating package will have a further impact. Most of the eighty students

this year who will be graduating indicated that they will not stay in the

Province under the NAPE-CUPE contract template.

I ask the Premier today: If you are serious about recruitment and retention

issues, and addressing those issues, why not commit to the additional provisions

to try and get most of those eighty nurses, if not all, to stay and work in

Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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.

I am told that one of the comments made outside on the steps earlier today

was that this strike is unnecessary. Well, I certainly agree with that, Mr.

Speaker. Twenty-one and a half percent is a very generous offer in itself, and

addresses recruitment and retention, but when you look at an offer of 31 per

cent that would make our nurses, the senior nurses, the highest paid in Eastern

Canada, I do not know what more we can do, when you look at the fact that we

have broken pattern bargaining, as we were requested to do.

Mr. Speaker, we have tried to demonstrate to the nurses that we appreciate

the work they do and we care about the situation. Unfortunately, as the Premier

has pointed out, a package offer was made and it is not a matter of, well, we

will take what we like and we will go to binding arbitration on what we do not

like. It is a package, Mr. Speaker, and that package has been rejected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I have to remind the minister that the offer, he

says, stands. Well the offer stands, Minister, only if it is your way, if it is

your government's way. Outside of that, the offer is off the table. So, Mr.

Speaker, this is about punishment, not progress, when it comes to dealing with

the nursing issues and the issues in the health care sector.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister again: How does he propose to launch some

kind of a package that will entice those eighty nurses who are graduating this

year to stay and work in Newfoundland and Labrador if you are going to drop the

entire monetary piece that was associated with this?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Another one of the comments, apparently, that was made outside today was: See

you in court.

Well, Mr. Speaker, this is not about court for us. What this has been about

from day one is addressing the recruitment and retention issues, and 21.5 per

cent is still a very generous offer. Another comment was made that we are the

only Province without an agreement. Well, we are also the only Province that put

on the table a 31 per cent offer, 27 per cent for senior nurses, and, by any

extent, 21.5 per cent should be able to address recruitment and retention.

The fact that the union chooses not to accept our offer and takes the

position, we will see you in court, as the Premier has pointed out, is very

unfortunate. One has to wonder, Mr. Speaker, is it really reflective of the

majority of nurses out there or is it simply the agenda that the union appears

to have?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

But this is a government who always likes to get one up on the nurses. So,

minister, why not get one up on the nurses today, stop the opportunity for them

to go to court and go to binding arbitration and have this issue settled once

and for all?

MR. SPEAKER: If this is a question, I ask the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition to pose it now.

MS JONES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I said to the minister, the government likes to get one up on the nurses: So

why not get one up on the nurses in the court challenge you keep referring to

and send these issues to binding arbitration immediately? That eludes the

opportunity for them to be able to do that.

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, it appears to be some kind of misconception or

a perception that we want to go to court or that we are somehow afraid to go to

court. Mr. Speaker, the case that is continuously referred to by the president

of the union is one that imposes a duty to bargain in good faith. Well, I would

suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that a 31 per cent offer is certainly a very good

offer. That the right outline in that case, Mr. Speaker, is to process, not

outcome. Essentially, at the end of the day there is give-and-take in

negotiations. We have given, Mr. Speaker. We broke the template. We have

increased the wage offer to 31 per cent and we have increased shift differential

and standby rates. So, Mr. Speaker, if you want a deal, then there has to be

some give-and-take.

I refer the hon. member to her comments in 1999 where she said: You will get

all the concessions you want but that is a very idealistic world. There has to

be give-and-take. Her comments about the president of the union, Mr. Speaker,

are certainly opposite of what she is saying today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister needs to be more concerned with what

he is saying today. He is the one who the entire health care system is resting

on your shoulders today and your government's shoulders to fix these problems.

Mr. Speaker, we already know that the four health authorities have finalized

some contingency plans. We know that last week the minister had a thick binder

on his desk over there called the strike plan for the health care sector.

So maybe the minister can tell me today if you have read that plan and maybe

you can update the people of the Province as to what level of care they can

expect during this lockout and whether any other services besides emergency

cases will be dealt with?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I indicated in the House last week, each of our four authorities have

indeed developed a contingency plan using the essential service agreement as a

guide to determine the number of staff that they will have available in each of

the units throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, in each of our facilities,

whether it is an institution-based or community-based programming.

I said last week as well, that emergency services and critical care areas,

particularly, we are going to be really focused on. In fact, the staffing levels

in most of those areas remain consistent with what they might be today.

People will still get their chemotherapy treatment that they need, people who

are on dialysis will continue to get dialysis services, and will be able to

the system is designed, and that is why these agreements are in place. These

agreements are in place to ensure the people who need essential services get

them. People who need emergency services get them. People who are now in a

hospital setting needing critical care will get them, and those people with

chronic disease that need ongoing intervention will continue to get that

service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In light of the fact that there were failed communications attempts during

the Cameron Inquiry by government and Eastern Health to communicate with the

public, hopefully there is a better plan in place around this particular crisis

in our system.

I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, because there are a number of patients

waiting to hear whether their booked surgeries and their treatments will take

place. So I ask the minister: How far in advance of

schedule procedures will

patients be notified of any cancellations?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Each of our four authorities started to take action to respond to the notice.

There is a seven day notice was provided by the nurses' union. When the

authorities received those notices they started a process then to start to make

the adjustments in the planned schedules starting this week, tomorrow.

I understand that public notices have been advertised in newspapers, and

there are some radio ads, where people are being advised of clinic changes,

provided with toll-free numbers to contact, inquiries to be directed to a

particular phone number, calls are being made to patients to cancel procedures

and postpone procedures.

So that process of advising the patients and the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, both through public service announcements and through direct contact

by the authorities, is a process that started when the seven day notice was

provided.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister, as well: Will the operating rooms be functioning at

emergency only capacity or will there be any additional capacity available to

address non-emerging procedures and treatments that people have been waiting

for?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: We will rely very heavily on the clinicians who are

providing support and services to patients, to determine when a patient needs to

have a surgical procedure performed that might be important to have it done

sooner than later, something that cannot be postponed, cannot be delayed. That

is why we rely on those individuals to make that clinical judgement.

Elective procedures will be cancelled, but we will rely on clinicians to make

the determination whether or not it is safe for the patient to have their

surgery delayed for an extended period of time. When those clinical people make

that judgement call, it is our responsibility as a system to provide that

response, and in fact, the essential service agreements make a provision for

that to happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the clinics that will be impacted by this lockout is the diabetes

clinic in the Innu community of Sheshatshiu. Diabetes, as we know, is a major

factor for Aboriginal people, and this clinic gets a great deal of use in the

community.

I ask the minister: What services will be available to those patients during

this lockout?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Just to correct the member opposite, because she is fuelling

a notion out there that this is a lockout. It is not a lockout, Mr. Speaker.

We are acknowledging, as the Nurses' Union have said, this is a legal strike,

and it is a legal strike. So it is not a lockout.

With respect to the clinic in Sheshatshiu, nursing services in that clinic

will be impacted as a result of this strike. Physician services will continue,

the clinics will continue, Mr. Speaker, and physicians who work in that clinic

will continue to provide services. All of the other individuals who work at that

clinic will continue to be there and support the services of that clinic.

Sheshatshiu is a short distance from Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and services are

available in Happy Valley-Goose Bay as per the essential services agreement, I

say, Mr. Speaker. So those individuals who have chronic illnesses that need to

be managed will be provided a level of support during this period of a strike.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is the right of all unionized workers involved in the

collective bargaining process to expect an arbitration process if negotiations

reach an impasse. The Nurses' Union and government have reached that impasse.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why is he determined to deny the nurses the

legislated right of binding arbitration?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, when there is a notice of strike, like we have

been served with last week, our primary responsibility is to ensure that the

safety and well-being of patients are provided. That is one of the reasons that

our health authority, working with the Nurses' Union, negotiated essential

service agreements.

So we have mapped out in those agreements what level of service will be

provided by a board, by an institution, by a community and by a service. Within

that agreement as well, there is mapped out the number of nursing people that

will be provided. The agreements will reflect the number of nursing people that

will be provided by the union.

In some cases, the Regional Health Authority, in providing individuals who

are trained as nurses, who are now working in management positions, who have

done some refreshers, are now going to be able to work with those unionized

employees to continue to provide safe care to the patients who need it, as

outlined by these essential service agreements.

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the nurses' union asked for binding arbitration before they

gave notice of strike. That happened after the government said no to binding

arbitration.

I ask the Premier: Why is this government afraid of going to binding

arbitration?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: The first and foremost consideration, as I said a moment ago

in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, we respect the

union's right to a strike. We respect the collective bargaining process. The

union have made a decision that they want to go on strike and they have served

notice, as a provision that the legislation provides for.

Our responsibility, then, together with the health authorities, is to ensure

that we have an arrangement in place; we have an agreement in place, a

formalized agreement signed off by both parties, that here are a list of

programs and services that are deemed to be essential during the event of a

strike. Our responsibility in respecting the union's right to strike and

respecting our responsibility to ensure that patients in Newfoundland and

Labrador continue to get a level of service that protects their health and

security in the event of a job action.

These essential service agreements lay out for us, and lay out for the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador, the level of service that can be expected during a

work stoppage like we are about to have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again the minister and the government refuse to answer the

question of why they are saying no to a binding arbitration. I point out to them

that this is not being lost on the people in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the nurses wanted to go on an overtime strike which means a nurse

would work only his or her regular forty hours a week. Mr. Speaker, this

Province's four health authorities have made it clear that they are unable to

function without nurses working massive overtime.

Mr. Speaker, now that we have confirmation of this horrible state, I ask the

Premier: What plans does government have to fix this glaring problem?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I just want to refer the member opposite to the question

provided by my colleague a moment ago with respect to recruitment and retention.

One of the things that we acknowledge: we need to deal with recruitment and

retention in this Province. That is why we have made such a generous offer.

Unprecedented, I say, Mr. Speaker. Nowhere else in this entire country, not only

within the health sector but with any other unionized environment in this nation

in recent past have we seen an offer of 31 per cent, have we seen an offer of

tripling certain benefits like standby and shift differentials. Unheard of, I

say, Mr. Speaker.

Clearly, our government recognizes our responsibility and recognizes the need

to deal with recruitment and retention. That is why we stepped up to the plate

and made such an attractive offer. I think our offer - the offering in and of

itself - speaks volumes to our intention to try to deal with recruitment and

retention, and we would ask the union to accept that offer as being what is very

generous and more generous than anywhere else in the entire country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand we have time for one more question, so I ask the Minister of

Health: There are over 200 nurses scheduled to complete their clinical

placements in the Province's hospitals - a lot of them were supposed to start

today - and this lockout will delay these plans and affect many who are supposed

to graduate this summer. I ask the minister: What will be the impact of this

lockout on the nurses who could have continued their training and their work

terms, by the way, under the overtime strike provision?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I am resisting taking the time up in Question

Period to keep correcting the member opposite but I think it is important,

because it is an important message for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

to understand that this is not a lockout. This is a legal strike that the nurses'

union have served notice on government that they will start a legal strike

tomorrow. It is not a lockout.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the clinical placements of new graduates,

unfortunately, with disruptions like we are going to be experiencing as of

tomorrow there are going to be some benefits that some of these students may

have had that now will be postponed for awhile. Mr. Speaker, it is our intent to

ensure that those clinical placements are still provided. The orientation and

training that those individuals get are going to be critical to their ability to

continue their careers and be contributors to our system, so I say, Mr. Speaker,

those arrangements will be made when the strike is over.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

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

It gives me great pleasure to rise and have a comment again today and present

the ninth petition on behalf of the residents of the area from Rose Blanche to

LaPoile, right on up to the Codroy Valley, and that is with respect to dialysis

services. I have made this petition a number of times. The people out that way,

by the way, including the Town Council of Port aux Basques, are waiting even for

a letter of acknowledgement from the Minister of Health and Community Services

that he is aware of this problem. Everybody out there is, of course,

particularly the patients and the families that are impacted by this situation.

We have, at any given time, eight to ten people who commute from their homes

to Stephenville or Corner Brook - usually it is Corner Brook - to avail of the

dialysis services. Three times a week, regardless of what the weather is, they

are required to do this. Many of them need someone to travel with them. They

need an escort because they are just not physically capable of handling the trip

themselves. Some of them are not in a position to drive, for example. Some of

them commute by way of taxicab. Others have their family commute with them. In

any case, the bottom line is that we need to have some kind of treatment

facility available in the Port aux Basques region.

The minister, as I say, does not seem to be aware of it, even, let alone

trying to resolve it, but the people out there came up with their own resolution

of it, and solution to the problem, if the minister were prepared to listen. For

example, you need both a technical component and an equipment component. The

people in that area have already said they would be prepared to raise the money

for the equipment themselves. We have staff there in the facility who are

prepared to be trained to provide the dialysis. We realize it takes some period

of time. For example, you would need eight or ten people, of course, to have a

rollover in case of vacations and whatever. The staff there are prepared to

undergo that training. It takes anywhere from six to eight weeks to do the

training. We realize you cannot do it all at one time, but they are prepared to

go about it in a rational, logical fashion, so that is there, Mr. Speaker.

Again, we have not had as much as an acknowledgment from the minister. Maybe

if he can at least let us know that he is tuned in and aware of the problem, we

can certainly discuss the details of the solution with him. The folks at Western

Health are now engaged. I understand that they have, in fact, gotten a committee

together, finally, and we are looking at where to put it into the building.

Apparently it takes a certain amount of space to accommodate the equipment. To

do this you need chairs for the people who are receiving the treatment and so

on, and that study is underway. We are also aware that there are different kinds

of dialysis for different people. Some can avail of home dialysis; others need

to have the satellite type treatment. We realize that, and that is being worked

out; but, to get things rolling, we at least need to have a commitment from the

minister and the department that once these solutions are finalized they are

prepared to back it. Otherwise, we may have a lot of labour in vain.

Obviously, the people who need this treatment on a daily basis are certainly

entitled to avail of medical services in this Province as well as anyone else

located anywhere else in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure today to be able to stand with another petition for the

residents of Long Island with regard to the causeway petition that has been put

forward, Mr. Speaker.

I know that from time to time we get many petitions sent forward to us and,

just for explanation for the minister, in case he does not understand it,

usually when you receive petitions and you are critic for a different department

you bring them forward on behalf of the people who live in that particular area.

I know those petitions have been sent to members on the government side as well

as others on this side of the House, so anytime I get an opportunity to stand

and represent the people of this Province, I will do that, Mr. Speaker.

I know back in 2003, it was announced that those people would have a causeway

for Long Island, and we know that has changed. Today we are hoping that the

minister I know he is planning on meetings with those people, they had to

cancel them on a couple of occasions due to the weather conditions - but when

they do meet, Mr. Speaker, that they can come to a successful conclusion. Not

just the people of Long Island but all the communities in the surrounding area

are also signing those petitions because they know those people have a very

legitimate concern.

They are asking that they would be reconsidered for this particular causeway

because there are many issues that come forward from time to time that are not

in the best interests of the people who live there.

As they said, they had a ferry service for some twenty-six years and in their

petition they are asking that a new ferry be supplied to them. What they are

really saying in the petition is that they would prefer a causeway because they

believe that this link is the most feasible in the long term for government.

They bring forward various issues, whether it is with regard to health care or

students or transportation of goods. In each and every petition that we receive,

Mr. Speaker, there are many people who sign those petitions on their behalf. I

believe, as critic for the department, those people deserve nothing less.

They are just asking that government reconsider the issue. Where there was an

announcement made for this causeway and now it has been cancelled, they are

asking that government reconsider their issue, that a fixed link be built

between Long Island and Pilley's Island in Green Bay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I appreciate another opportunity to present a petition on behalf of the

residents of Franois, Gray River and Ramea, with respect to the shortage of

trained staff at the Ramea Medical Clinic.

There are supposed to be two nurse practitioners there. We only have one, and

that lady has, in fact, been there for some years. She is a resident of Ramea

and is quite happy and quite contented there. The problem, of course, is she can't

work twenty-four seven 365. We have a constant ongoing problem of trying to have

sufficient support staff for her.

Now, in some cases we get an LPN. There is an LPN, in fact, who is now

engaged on a full-time basis, but an LPN can't perform all of the services, of

course, of a nurse practitioner. Even though we are undergoing some training

with the nurse practitioner right now and I think it is a matter of six or

eight weeks that it takes to train a nurse practitioner. She is, by the way,

voluntarily engaged in doing that training. She needs to go to Calder in Burgeo,

as well as in Corner Brook, to get some of the training that she needs. She

still won't be able to perform all of the services of a nurse practitioner.

Basically, that clinic is down to 50 per cent of its personnel. There is a

shortage in Port aux Basques, for example, as well as in Stephenville and Corner

Brook, but as opposed to having one out of a system in those larger areas, when

you take one of the two away, you obviously have a more drastic problem here.

We proposed a solution to the minister again. They talk about recruitment and

retraining, and it is not a complicated solution. They already, right now, you

allow anyone who is a first-year graduate or someone who is from outside the

Province to avail of the recruitment bonuses. It is not permitted, right now, to

allow anyone in the Province to avail of that.

Our suggestion is, if you are dealing with rural Newfoundland and

government acknowledges we sometimes have needs that are different in rural

communities than we have in larger communities, for example. So our suggestion

and the community's suggestion that was posed to the minister was: Why not

allow the recruitment bonuses to apply to anyone who is in the system, who might

avail of that opportunity to go serve a period of time in the community of

Ramea?

Again, it is a matter of informing the minister, letting the minister get

tuned in. This is my eighth time doing this. I do not know if he is tuned in or

not yet. Everybody in Ramea, everybody in Franois, everybody in Grey River is

tuned in. I think I have tuned in the other 512,000 people in the Province, but

whether the Minister of Health knows about it or not now is anybody's guess,

because he has not even acknowledged yet that he is aware of the problem.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity. I will continue to press

this most urgent need upon the Department of Health and the Minister of Health

and Community Services, and hopefully, hopefully, some time in the near future

he will either respond himself or have someone in the department or someone in

Western Health address this problem.

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 Motion 5 that this House not adjourn at

5:30 p.m. today, Tuesday, May 19, 2009.

Further, Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 6, pursuant to Standing Order 11 that

this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Tuesday, May 19, 2009.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The motion is that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock p.m. today

Tuesday, May 19.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

A further motion that this House do not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock p.m. today

Tuesday, May 19.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

and President of Treasury Board, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An

Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 29)

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

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

of Finance and President of Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, Bill 29, and that this bill

be now read a first time.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000," carried.

(Bill 29)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 29)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 29 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 29 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 29 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Environment and Conservation, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled

An Act

To Amend The Wild Life Act. (Bill 30)

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

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

of Environment and Conservation shall ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An

Act To Amend The Wild Life Act, Bill 30, and that Bill 30 be now read a first

time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 30 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Wild Life Act," carried. (Bill 30)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Wild Life Act. (Bill 30)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 30 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 30 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 30 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Resources, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Repeal The

Government-Kruger Agreements Act. (Bill 31)

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

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

of Natural Resources shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To

Repeal The Government-Kruger Agreements Act, Bill 31, and that Bill 31 be now

read a first time.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

"An Act To Repeal The Government-Kruger Agreements Act," carried.

(Bill 31)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Repeal The Government-Kruger Agreements Act.

(Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 31 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 31 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 31 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, from the Order Paper we call Order 11, second

reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 10)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 10,

An Act To Amend The

Highway Traffic Act be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic

Act." (Bill 10)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Human Resources, Labour and

Employment, that Bill 10,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act be read now a

second time.

As you can remember, in the fall session I brought forward, in regards to me

being the Minister responsible for Government Services and thus responsible for

this bill, The Highway Traffic Act in general. I brought forward some amendments

in the fall that I consider to be very, very important to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador in regards to safety on our highways.

Just to mention a couple of them to refresh people's minds in the House of

Assembly, is that we doubled the fines in regards to speeding in construction

areas. We saw that over the last number of years with all of the construction

and the highway repaving of our provincial highways and on the Trans-Canada

Highway, people did not keep it in their minds that there are people out there

on highways working for us, that is the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in

regard to upgrading our highways and making them safe and fit to drive on

because we have invested a lot of money in regards to provincial roads at that

time.

We amended some other parts of the act too, as well, in regards to other

safety issues. One to do with buses and the placement of exits in regards to

those buses and that kind of thing.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments that I am brining forward today, which are a

continuation of the ones that we brought forward in the last session, for the

most part are housekeeping items to remove unnecessary red tape, duplication,

obsolete provisions and providing a clearer language where we all can understand

the Highway Traffic Act as it pertains to our highways and the regulations

thereof, especially our police officers too, as well. Sometimes when you read a

piece of legislation you can certainly interpret it one way, one person can and

another person can interpret it another way.

There have been a number of revisions to the Highway Traffic Act over the

years but the last major revision to the act occurred in 1989, which is a long

time ago. We have seen a lot of growth in Newfoundland and Labrador since then.

Our highways have certainly expanded. We see more traffic on our highways. So,

we have to keep up with the times too, as well, in regards to the legislation

pertaining to the highways of our Province and our provincial roads. The

amendments are a continual process to change them and make sure that we are not

outdated and using redundant provisions.

One of the things that I would like to highlight in regard to some particular

changes is with the seatbelt use. We are proposing eliminating two seatbelt

exemptions for a person driving a vehicle in reverse and for people entering and

exiting a vehicle frequently. In that regard, Mr. Speaker, data and research

have shown that when a person is driving in reverse without a seatbelt they can

be seriously injured too, as well, no differently if they are going in a forward

motion. It depends on the speed that they are moving at. We have the

responsibility to make sure that people are safe within their vehicles. So we

are proposing the elimination of being able to take off their seatbelt when

driving in reverse.

The other one is in regard to people who have to leave their vehicle in

regard to - I am just trying to remember exactly an example of what that kind of

a driver would be. Maybe a taxi driver would be one of them. Anyway, that is

fine enough in regard to having to remove themselves from their vehicle or enter

their vehicle on numerous occasions, but serious accidents can certainly happen

in between those occasions as well.

In the meantime, with the consent of the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs

and the hon. Minister of Transportation and Works, we have agreed that we would

leave in place the provision that allows a garbage truck collector to be able to

not wear a seat belt because we find, especially in the cities and towns that we

have, that these people actually stand up while they driving and they get out

and then put the garbage in and then they drive the vehicle standing up. What we

also have reflected in the amendments is that when they are moving from their

collection area to a waste site or a collector area that they would have to wear

a seat belt in that regard from point A to point B, and anything over twenty

kilometres an hour as well; because, again, their safety is utmost to the people

and to us as a government so we have to make sure that they respect the law in

that respect and also that they are safe. The bottom line of it is that any

injury they would have would come off the bottom line of the town or the city

that they are working for, so we would not want any of those injured as well.

We must remember, even though these amendments are certainly housekeeping

amendments and red tape reduction amendments - and clarity in the act - that the

Highway Traffic Act is there for a reason. It establishes the safe operation of

a vehicle in regard to our provincial highways and the Trans-Canada Highway

itself, and it also sets the structure of Motor Registration as well in regard

to how that whole operation works and provides the services that it does to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to sit and listen carefully to the hon.

members across the House who might have any comments in regard to this proposed

amendment to the Highway Traffic Act, and hopefully I can answer at this

particular time any of the questions that they may have in regard to clause per

clause.

I could go down clause per clause right now, but I think that would probably

be a waste of the valuable time of this hon. House, so I would like to actually

take the questions and then hopefully I can come back with the answers where

they are clear and they are comfortable with the act itself.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit and I will listen carefully to the hon.

members.

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

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

It is a pleasure to be able to stand today with regard to Bill10,

An Act To

Amend The Highway Traffic Act.

I know the minister mentioned the legislation that was brought forth here in

this hon. House last fall with regard to dealing with issues with drivers

speeding and not obeying the rules in areas where construction was taking place.

No doubt about it, that was an honourable move that was made by this House last

year to correct that situation. Because all too often, and I am sure we have all

experienced it, not only on our major highways but throughout our districts

where there is construction ongoing from time to time, individuals have very

little regard for the signage that is up, very little regard for the

individuals, whether they be workers with the Department of Transportation and

Works or whether they be working with some individual construction company, to

see how they operate their vehicles on the highway. As a matter of fact, from

time to time I have even had the opportunity to see where police cars were on

each end of the construction site so that they could give a warning to the

individuals.

When you see people, whether it is getting ready to paint the lines on our

highways, whether it is paving or upgrading or ditching or what have you, I

think it is a major issue that safety would be first and foremost in the minds

of each and every driver here in the Province when it comes to seeing the

workers on our highways.

The minister also mentioned the legislation with regard to the issues of bus

safety, another very important factor. We know it has been brought forward, I

think it was in 2004, by the Auditor General, and again in 2009, and we bring it

forward here in the hon. House from time to time, issues that we have presented

to us by callers, whether they be parents or even from some of the drivers

themselves who are working for some of those bus operators.

Again, it is a very important piece of legislation to know that the concerns

are being put forward, because the cargo that we transport on those school buses

is our most valuable resource, and we all say that. It is our young people, and

nothing could be any more important than to see that their transportation back

and forth to school is being dealt with.

Mr. Speaker, at one time the bus transportation was always within our smaller

communities and going at very low speeds, but now we know here in St. John's

and other areas we are transporting our students on the main highways where it

is 90 kilometres to 100 kilometres, so it is very important that bus safety

would be brought forward in the manner that it was.

The other issue I think that was involved in the last piece of legislation -

before I get into Bill 10 today because it all ties into the rules and

regulations for traffic on our highways - was the surrender of driver's

licences and various issues pertaining to I guess drivers who were not in the

proper form when they were on our highways. That is very important, because all

too often - and I am a firm believer that our police force do their best,

whether it is the RNC or the RCMP or whether it is the inspectors through the

department. They do their best and you cannot be everywhere at the one time, but

I think there should be more inspections. All too often - we see it coming up

close to Christmas, we see it coming up again like this past weekend, the

twenty-fourth of May weekend. I think it is crucial that periodically throughout

the year on times when drivers are not expecting anyone to step forward and have

the highway blocked where they can check out and see, because all too often when

they set up those roadblocks we hear about how many people were convicted of

having an alcohol level that was not acceptable for driving on our highways,

where from time to time they found out that they did not have a driver's

licence or they did not have any insurance on their vehicles and so on.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is very important, and I will get into the one that he

mentioned with regards to seatbelts and the exemption when I get to the

particular areas of Bill 10,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.

We know that under this bill, under the analysis it shows different issues

that are being discussed here, whether it is registration of vehicle

requirements with regards to dealer plates and how plates are attached, the

terminology with regards to markers and stickers and so on, and how they are

attached to a vehicle, the overtaking of another vehicle and so on.

So, Mr. Speaker, there are quite a few issues with regards to this piece of

legislation that is very important. It also comes down to seatbelt use and so

on, and reporting, whether it be by registered nurses or optometrists and

various professional people on the reporting of incidents, whether an individual

is safe to drive a vehicle and so on.

Well, Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I have to say about Bill 10, and that

is in the explanatory notes. All too often we get a piece of legislation where

there is only one notation explaining probably a fairly lengthy bill or it could

be a short one, but this one here under the explanatory notes, it goes right

through each and every clause and explains what is happening and what is about

to take place, the sections that are to be deleted, any additions to it or if it

is just an error in some spelling or punctuation or what have you. It is very

detailed, and I can assure you it really helps. When you are going through a

bill sometimes it can be confusing but when you see it in this format, I have to

say it makes it all that much easier.

"This Bill would amend the Highway Traffic Act to update various

provisions to reflect current practice, to consolidate requirements and

eliminate redundancies."

That is what this bill is about, Mr. Speaker. I guess it is really

housecleaning to some degree but also bringing in other very important clauses

to be added to this bill. Changes taking place in the act have more to do with

the cleanup of the act, to make language consistent throughout the act and to

make it easier for

interpretation.

We see this happening with several pieces of legislation through the spring

and fall session of last year and also for this session. I am sure what

government is doing is bringing each and every bill up to a standard where it is

with more modern day language because some of the pieces of this act, I can

assure you and I am going to touch on some of them with regards to different

sections, where once there was a rule that if you were going to pass someone you

had to honk your horn and so on. So, different clauses like that will be

eliminated from this bill.

"Clause 1 of the Bill would repeal and substitute paragraph 2(

q) of the

Act to make it consistent with current drafting practice. This clause would

further repeal the

definitions of "transporter" and "transporter

plate" as these terms are no longer used and are not required."

Like I said, Mr. Speaker, that is where most of this legislation in this

particular bill is coming from, is to eliminate different words that were used

at one point in time but will not be used in a fashion as they were in the past.

Under clause 2 of the act which "would revise

section 10 of the Act to

ensure consistency in the use of the term "marker". We are also used

to the terminology of stickers from time to time and the language referred to a

sticker can mean anything. Someone could try to pull a fast one. Yes, I got a

sticker on my vehicle, but there could be a wording on it from some company or

from anything with regards to it but if you call it a marker, I guess this is

where government is coming from and there will be no confusion in the future to

have to deal with that because stickers on a plate are now to be known as

markers under this piece of legislation.

"In clause 3 of the Bill, subsection 11(2) of the Act would be amended

to delete the requirement that registrations be signed in pen and ink." We

know, with the technology we have today, we can go online. We don't have to

sign anything. There are certain times we have to sign, yes, but in the past it

was in the legislation that you had use pen and ink to sign any documentation,

any application, that you made, whether it was an application for your license

or anything within the department. We know now, Mr. Speaker, that this is not

needed anymore. I know I go online, and I am sure many people in this Province

do, because the minister, only last week, explained the new format that is being

used. All you do now is go online, and as long as you have your pin number and

your insurance number you can order the stickers for your vehicle. I have to

say, within a matter of less than a week I had mine back. The process that we

are going through now is completely changing to what it was in the past, Mr.

Speaker.

Under 11(5) of the old act, the registrar may prescribe different forms of

application to be used in respect of the registration of different vehicles or

classes of vehicles or in respect to the same vehicle or class of vehicles used

for different purposes.

Mr. Speaker, we know that from time to time when we get something in the mail

the registrar's signature has to be on it, but that doesn't have to be

signed with pen and ink anymore. I guess, it is just photocopied or whatever

process is used to see that that is required. The requirement now to sign with

electronic pen is really not pen and ink. It is not really reflective of a

signature.

Mr. Speaker, furthermore the application process and different sections of

the application ask for a signature, so in actual fact the application is an

appropriate signature.

Under clause 3, that is what is being done here. We eliminating the fact that

we are always having to sign with pen and ink. That requirement is not needed

anymore.

"Clause 4 of the Bill would repeal and substitute

section 12 of the Act

to streamline registration requirements. The proposed change is consistent with

changes made to the definition of "resident" in an earlier amendment

to the Act." This is where we come into, Mr. Speaker, with regard to

section 13 of the old, where they talk about a commercial vehicle. The

commercial motor vehicles owned or operated by or on behalf of a non-resident

should not be operated in the Province unless it is registered under this act.

Mr. Speaker, there is a change now with regard to this, because under clause

4 this is what has to be done. We all know that each and every vehicle has to be

registered, and there are guidelines that have to be followed with regard to

whether you purchase a vehicle outside of the Province. To bring it back home is

one thing, or if you are living in another province and you travel here to the

Province, to come back home and to stay here, if your vehicle was registered in

another province, you have ninety days to take care of that.

Mr. Speaker,

section 5(1) of the bill would amend 16(1) of the act to require

compliance with

section 16 for the purpose of registration. So this piece of

legislation goes into great detail with regard to registration and the use of

either one plate or two plates in certain instances.

I am of the impression that, for clarification, I think, a truck - a vehicle,

a car, we only use one plate, but with a truck you can have two plates. Also

with regard to 16(1) this just allows the registrar to not allow approval of

registration because of fines owing or arrangements to pay from a person. The

Department of Justice recommended it would be clear under no circumstances.

Section 22 of the act would repeal clause 6 of the act. This section, which

requires dealers to accompany prospective buyers when test driving unregistered

vehicles, is impractical and unnecessary as the prospective buyer is already

required to have a driver's licence.

So the old act, what it was saying here, is that if an individual went to a

dealer to buy a vehicle they would have to have someone in the vehicle with

them. I do not think that is required any more under this piece of legislation.

I would say that is highly outdated.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) time.

MR. BUTLER: We will continue on, regardless of what some hon. members

think. You have an opportunity to go through the bill, and I can assure you that

I will take the time, if possible. I might not need it all, Mr. Speaker, but I

will take most of it anyway.

I have to say that when someone takes a vehicle for a test drive they do not

have to really have anyone accompany them. That was probably the way of the

past, but not any more.

Clause 7 of the bill, subsection 23(1) of the act would be amended and

subsection 23(2) would be repealed. These provisions, which require a dealer to

keep a written record of a vehicle upon which a dealer's plate is used, placed

an uncertain administration upon any dealership. So, under this piece of

legislation, in clause 7, that will not be required.

When we go to clause 8, these provisions are now outdated under sections

28(2) and (3) of the act. They refer here to "a lost identification

plate or a vehicle licence would more appropriately be returned to the registrar

or the nearest traffic officer." That is very appropriate. What better

place to return a found plate than to the registrar?

The other issue that we find from time to time, and I know this is very

important throughout the Province, what we are finding here now, a lot of

people, rather than register their own vehicles, they have a system in place

where they take the markers I am going to use markers for my first time now

in referencing something, seeing it is in this legislation where they

actually take the markers from the individual plates.

As a matter of fact, I had a constituent come into my yard one day who was

dealing with an issue. When he returned to his car, he looked and they had the

full corner clipped off his plate. Rather than take their time and try to peel

it off, they just had a pair of snips or whatever and took the full corner off

and were gone with the issue.

Mr. Speaker, I know it is a job to bring in legislation or anything to deal

with that, but in some cases people might know the person owning the plate and

they would return it to the proper authorities. People are up to everything, and

that is one of the issues that is very troublesome for many people who go

through the correct process and register their vehicles legitimately.

Section 30 of the act would be repealed and substituted in clause 9 of the

bill to reduce the level of detail respecting the attachment of plates to any

vehicle. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that is probably only a minor issue for

many people but it is a very important issue, bringing in the legislation that

your plates have to be attached to your vehicle in a very appropriate place and

in a certain format. Because many people, you see them from time to time going

around and they have them tied on, they have them on different areas of their

pickup, and there is one purpose for that: because, when they go back home they

can take that plate off and put it on another vehicle. I think it is good to see

this in here, to make sure that plates are attached properly to a vehicle. That

would eliminate that situation.

In clause 10 of the bill,

section 34 of the act would be repealed and

substituted to ensure consistency in the use of the term "marker"

throughout the act. I already touched on that, Mr. Speaker, but the terminology

of sticker is not going to be used any more and marker is used throughout this

piece of legislation.

Clause 11 of the bill would repeal

section 41(4) of the act. This subsection

does not reflect current practices.

Subsection 45(3) would be repealed in clause 12 of the bill, as it is

redundant.

Like I said earlier, many of the clauses in much of our legislation now have

to be repealed, because legislation that was applicable at one particular time

is not any more, for whatever reasons, whether it is the technology that we use,

the different formats that we use, Mr. Speaker.

Clause 13 of the bill is another issue where 46(3)(

a) and (

c) of the act,

these provisions are contained elsewhere in the act.

Some of the clauses that are being eliminated here are for the very reason

that they are repeated, or the explanation is given somewhere else in that

particular bill.

Clause 14 of the bill would repeal 48(1)(

g) of the act. The registrar has

methods to determine physical and mental competency to drive in other provisions

of the act.

This is the same issue here, where that has been dealt with in another clause

of the act. This is removed because other sections really address this authority

of the registrar to determine the state of a person and their ability to drive.

Really, it is again to clean it up and make it more consistent with other

clauses throughout the act.

Clause 15 of the act would be updated and reflect more or less current

practices. In this particular case, sections 49(1) and (1.1) of the act by

this change being here, it would cut out various frauds by not using appropriate

signatures and so on.

Mr. Speaker, clause 16 of the act would be amended with subsections 50(2) and

(3) of the act, as those provisions are now outdated. The more appropriate route

for return of a lost driver's licence would be through the registrar or the

nearest traffic officer within the Province.

Mr. Speaker, in number 17 the bill would repeal and substitute

section 56(3)

of the act. This subsection, which requires inspections of a driver's licence

of a person renting a car, would be update to reflect current practices.

I think today, in this age, it is very common, if you go in to any dealership

to rent a vehicle - and from time to time I have had, I guess, the experience to

have to do that - you do have to show your driver's licence, and rightly so,

and this is reflected in clause 17 of this act. I guess, from time to time,

people have gone in, whether it is with false IDs now it is a job to do

that, because your photo is on your driver's license and it eliminates a lot

of those issues.

The amendments in clauses 18 and 19 of the bill would repeal references to

the Registrar's Advisory Committee in the Act. This committee was established,

Mr. Speaker, back in 2002, I think it was, but they never, ever met and it is

now redundant as there are other processes in place to fulfil the functions

which were required of this advisory committee. I guess government in their

wisdom, and the minister and the department, knowing that this is not required

any more have seen cause to eliminate this particular section.

Section 21, Mr. Speaker, "Subsection 81(1) of the Act is repealed and

the following substituted:" It has to do with a registrar shall suspend

licence. It goes on to say in 81(1), "Where (

a) a judgement for damages

arising out of a motor vehicle accident is rendered against a person by a court

in the province or by a court in the jurisdiction outside the Province; (

b) damages have been assessed against the person; and (

c) that person fails, within

15 days from the date upon which the judgement became final, to satisfy that

judgement, the registrar, upon receiving a certification of that final judgement

from the court in which it is rendered, shall suspend the driver's license and

vehicle license of that person." That is under

section 21, subsection 81(1)

of the act.

I know, even by doing this, Mr. Speaker, we will still have individuals who

have gone through the court system, their licenses have been suspended, but they

will still take to the roads. That is why I mentioned earlier, the more

inspections we have on our highways, what we know as the roadblocks and so on,

the more of those we have the better it is, the better it is to make our

highways that much safer. I know what is happening here, that the person, if

they fail within fifteen days, and rightly so, this should be dealt with, Mr.

Speaker.

In Clause 22 of the bill,

section 96 of the act would be amended to repeal

the requirement for audible signals when passing. That is the one in the old act

where it says: when you are passing a vehicle you have to honk your horn. That

was a practice years ago but today we do not do that because I would have to

say, if you were coming in over Veterans Highway or coming into the city here

and you are passing a vehicle at the speed we travel this day and age, there

would be a lot of honking of horns coming in over those main highways. You no

longer have to do that and in Clause 22 of the bill,

section 96, this is what

has been done here.

The other one, Mr. Speaker, Clause 23 of the bill would repeal

section 138 of

the act, and this

section is antiquated and redundant. The protections of

animals are contained in

section 139 of the act. This piece of legislation that

is being taken away here has to do with, I guess, that we do not see it anymore

on our highways in Newfoundland unless someone's cow or horse happens to get

out of the pasture or what have you. What it was, when animals were roaming

fairly free, anyone with a traction engine coming upon an animal on a highway

had to take their time. They had to give them, I suppose in laymen's words,

almost the right of way. Today we do not have that.

It is just another example, this piece of legislation that we are dealing

with here in

section 138, of cleaning up the act by including all the language

in that particular area when it comes to the wellbeing of our animals I guess,

Mr. Speaker. Under Clause 23, that was what was in the old legislation. That is

where the government and the department is coming from to take care of that

piece of legislation.

Under

section 25 and

section 26, they would consolidate

section 174.1 and 174.2

of the act to address redundancy in these sections. What we are referring to

here, Mr. Speaker, under Clause 25

section 174.1, where it says, "A medical

practitioner licensed under the Medical Act, 2005 , a nurse practitioner

as defined in the Registered Nurses Act, 2008 or an optometrist licensed

under the Optometry Act, 2004 shall report to the registrar the name,

address, date of birth and clinical condition of a person 16 years of age or

older attending the practitioner or the optometrist for medical or optometric

services who, in the opinion of the practitioner or optometrist, is suffering

from a condition that may make it dangerous for the person to operate a vehicle

- it says in

section 2, "An action shall not be brought against a medical

practitioner, a nurse practitioner or an optometrist for complying with

subsection (1)," and, "A report referred to in subsection (1) is

privileged for the information of the registrar only and shall not open for

public inspection."

Mr. Speaker, I guess the minister will respond when he closes debate in

second reading. I have, I would not say a major concern about that, and that is

clause 25

section 174(1) with regard to the Act is repealed and the following

substituted. While I have a major concern, I guess we all know from time to time

mistakes can be made. It may be that an incorrect report can be put in. A

doctor, a nurse, or whomever in that field, could put a report in that may be

incorrect. God Forbid, but we have seen it happen through not only our medical

profession but in other aspects of our daily living where something can be done

and it would be incorrect. What happens then, if this report was an incorrect

report, diagnosed for the wrong reasons or what have you?

I know of cases in my area where people went to the hospital and came back

with a diagnosis that was not even their file. They came home and went through

this hard time, I guess. We are saying here, that no action should be brought

against them. Nobody wants to see, with anyone in their professions, a law suit

go against them. I do not know if there should be something here to add to that

section rather than just that, if this report comes in saying they are unable to

drive, just in case there is an error. Maybe there should be a timeframe or what

have you, maybe an appeal process even, where the individual could go back and

challenge that and try to get it clarified, not altogether for the sake of legal

action against anyone. I would not want to go that far with it, but I think

there should be some avenue open there with regards to this issue.

"Subsection 27(1) of the Bill would repeal paragraph 178(5)(

a) of the

Act to eliminate an exemption on the use of seat belts while driving in reverse.

The benefit of seat belt use in slow speed collisions does not substitute this

exemption." Where the minister is coming from here, I think: it is there

now that you could remove your seat belt when you are traveling in reverse, but

now it is going to be enforced that you have to keep your seat belt on.

Personally, I think that makes a lot of sense because many times you could be

backing up and going slow yourself but

AN HON. MEMBER: That would be backupable' legislation.

MR. BUTLER: That is more or less a piece of backupable' legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is not the person who is backing up probably. Someone could

be coming in another direction at a fairly hefty speed, not knowing what they

are doing, and strike that particular vehicle. Just because that person does not

have their seat belt on they could receive serious injuries as well.

When it comes to the seatbelt

section of it, when we talk about the

seatbelts, I know the minister said that the only option that is open now is

someone who is, say, a garbage collector in the various towns. I understand that

they have to get in and out of their vehicles, but I notice in my area and

probably in other areas, a lot of them do not get back and forth into the cab.

There are little side pieces where they can stand and hold on and so on, but I

do not think that eliminates the driver because he is usually always to the

wheel. He would have to wear his seatbelt, and those individuals, once they are

travelling from the community to the once they travel to the site wherever

the waste is to be delivered, they would have to use their seatbelts.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, another issue seeing we are on seatbelts. I am not

saying the law will ever be brought in, but - and I mentioned this earlier -

where our school buses are on those highways now where they are travelling at

tremendous speeds, and maybe there are many reasons why there are not seatbelts

in school buses but I have a major concern. When they are in the smaller

communities going from point A to point B but now when they are on those major

highways, Mr. Speaker, I think all too often now there is the option is

there - the major problem is that if there should be a serious accident with

sixty or seventy students on a bus with no seatbelts, I think it is something

that we should look at, Mr. Speaker.

Section 29 of the bill would amend 174 1(4)(

a) of the act to update a

reference. It is like I said earlier, a lot of the pieces of legislation within

this particular act is doing just that.

Section 25 of the bill would revise to ensure consistency in the use of the

term marker. This is something that is right throughout the bill where

individuals have to get used to the new term, and

section 29 of the act will do

just that, where individuals have to use the word term - to make sure that they

use the word marker rather than sticker in the future.

Mr. Speaker, one of the last clauses and one of the final comments I guess

that I have to make on this particular issue is with regards to "Clause 30

of the Bill would repeal and substitute paragraph 195(1)(

n) of the Act to

clarify that provision and revise it consequential to changes proposed in clause

10." Clause 32 of the act is a proclamation for that particular clause.

Other notes of interest, Mr. Speaker, the amendments that we mentioned

earlier or changes to the act in the fall of 2008, they are not yet proclaimed

but we know that changes to a particular bill can come into force. Therefore,

they are not actually in law yet, but hopefully before long they will. As I

said, there are a lot of clean up words and phrases to make it consistent and

simpler to the understanding of the general public.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, Bill 10,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic

Act, is

an act that covers quite a few areas. Some of them key components, some

of them very important. More of it is housecleaning and cleaning up the phrases

and the issues that have to be dealt with.

So, Mr. Speaker, having said that, I want to say that those amendments that

we are looking at here today in Bill 10, in conjunction with the bill that was

dealt with in the fall, which has not been proclaimed yet, I would have to say

it is in the right direction. It is to make sure that our highways are safer and

that people, when they register their vehicles, when they travel back to the

Province, that each and every individual and every vehicle is registered

properly.

I have to say, I do not see anything wrong with this bill. Just to bring up a

couple of issues there, and hopefully, the minister will be able to respond to

that when he takes his place.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

Just a few comments, not a lot, on Bill 10,

An Act To Amend The Highway

Traffic Act.

My colleague, the Member for Port de Grave, has gone through every clause and

explained what every clause is, and I do not see the necessity for my doing that

as well but there are a couple of things that I want to look at in particular.

Obviously, much of this bill is simply repealing outdated regulations. I

think maybe the Member for Port de Grave may have mentioned some of the outdated

ones. Some of them all of them actually, the outdated ones, are very, very

obvious.

I do not know if the Member for Port de Grave mentioned, one in particular

that really struck me when I read it I think he may have but when an

engine and person astride a horse meet, and what should happen when an engine

and a person astride a horse meet? Now I do know that that can still happen

today on some of the roads in the Province but I do not think that it happens in

the way that was envisioned by the old legislation. So, that is just one example

of outdated regulations.

The bill itself is a bill which has a lot of housekeeping things to deal

with. I think it also is probably, as far as I can see from some of it, part of

the red tape reduction. A lot of the amendments, many of them actually, are to

clarify the term: marker, which has been used to replace the previous term:

sticker. Because sticker is now going to be called marker then there were a lot

of clauses in the act that had to be changed to reflect the different word that

is now going to be used. So there really is not much to say about this act from

that perspective. It is mainly housekeeping and some red tape reduction.

There is one thing though, probably two. One that I am not quite

understanding and when the minister stands I would like him to give some

explanation. Under clause 6, it is repealing subsection 20(2) of the act and

that is, "Where a bus or school bus or a commercial motor vehicle is being

operated for demonstration purposes it shall be accompanied by the dealer or an

employee of the dealer." The note on clause 2, the explanatory note says

that this regulation is being repealed because it is impractical and

unnecessary. I guess I would like a bit more of an explanation of why it is

impractical and unnecessary, and that might be connected to why this was a

regulation in the beginning.

It seems a bit logical to me because of the nature of commercial vehicles,

buses and school buses that there could be some logic to wanting the dealer or

the employee of the dealer present for the demonstration purposes of one of

these vehicles. If the minister could give me just a bit of an explanation on

that, I would appreciate it. It is not a big issue, but I am sort of curious

because it would have seemed to have been a bit of a safety feature. I

understand the explanatory note, because it says the person doing the test run

could not do it without being a licensed person. Nevertheless, knowing why it

was there in the beginning and why the drafters of the legislation think that it

is actually impractical and unnecessary to keep it in there, I would just like

an explanation on that.

There was one

section in the act that was not totally clear to me initially.

I did speak to the minister about it. Clause 25 of the act is referring to

section 174.1 of the act. The old

section is being repealed and a new

section is

being put in. While I understood the

section that was being put in I

misunderstood the subsection that came after it. I am going to speak to it

simply because it can be confusing, and it took me reading it a couple of times

and reading it with the minister before it dawned on me what it means. I just

thought, for the sake of people who would be affected by this, that it is

important to make sure we all understand what this clause is about.

Under clause 25, the old

section in the act is being repealed, and what is

now going in is 174.1(1), "A medical practitioner licensed under the Medical

Act, 2005 , a nurse practitioner as defined in the Registered Nurses Act,

2008 or an optometrist licensed under the Optometry Act, 2004 shall

report to the registrar the name, address, date of birth and clinical condition

of a person 16 years of age or older attending the practitioner or optometrist

for medical or optometric services who, in the opinion of the practitioner or

the optometrist, is suffering from a condition that may make it dangerous for

the person to operate a motor vehicle."

Then subsection (2), "An action shall not be brought against a medical

practitioner, a nurse practitioner or an optometrist for complying with

subsection (1)."

After reading it a couple of times and reading it with the minister, it

became clear. Obviously, if somebody has to be reported, they may take it as an

action against the practitioner. They may say: you don't have the right to do

this. You don't have the right to report me and say that I can't drive.

Subsection (2) actually protects the practitioner who may have to report the

person.

I think it is important that the practitioners understand that the amendment

to the act protects them, so that somebody who is reported on cannot take an

action against them, or if they try to they don't have any basis in law for

doing so.

I was glad to have that clarified for me with the minister, and I think it

was important for me to point it out.

Having spoken to those two points, I really don't have anything else, I don't

think. Wait now. I have one more tag here. No, I don't have anything else that

is questionable. They are all common sense, and obviously that is what this is

bill is about, making the act more modern and with common sense in place of some

of the outdated language.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

now, he shall close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, certainly I listened carefully to my hon.

colleagues across the House in regard to their support for this bill in regard

to what it stands for. When both myself and my hon. colleagues referenced the

amendments that we brought forward in the fall session, we addressed some safety

issues for our driving public, so I guess it is mostly today amendments that

will marry up with those amendments and then be proclaimed at a later date - not

too much later, because I think they are very, very important to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

There were some questions in regard to (inaudible). One referenced clause 25,

which is there for the protection of the medical people themselves, the

optometrist or the practitioner. That is nothing new, actually. They are

protected now as it is but we wanted to make it clearer in the act where they

are required by law to report, so we want to make sure that they are fully

protected under the legislation as well.

Also, there was a question in regard to misdiagnosis, if that could be

addressed as well. Under the act right now, any report that would come in from a

practitioner or optometrist would be reviewed fully by our medical consultants.

That is number one. Number two, they can actually appeal that on a second

opinion. They can go to another practitioner and come with a second opinion and

appeal it on that, and that would be reviewed by our medical advisory people as

well.

Also, they have access to the full report as well. All people do: the person,

the practitioners and the optometrist. They can actually, if they had to - which

I cannot recall or my staff cannot recall any case that went as far as going to

the courts to have it overturned, but there is a process that they can go

through and certainly their rights would be protected as well as protecting the

particular professional person as well.

One of my colleagues across the House, the Member for Port de Grave,

mentioned in regard to buses having seat belts as well. That is an issue that

has been the subject of research and some debate across Canada and elsewhere. We

all know, I suppose, as well, or I might point out that buses are designed in a

certain way for the protection of their occupants. It is all moulded and rounded

inside. It has no sharp and jagged edges. The seats are attached in a different

way than the norm. Buses in general are (inaudible) by Transport Canada and

other professionals, and are certainly thought to be very, very safe in regard

to the occupants, but we will continue to monitor any research or any new

developments in that area but we will not be mandating that all our school buses

would require seat belts at any time in the near future. We will wait on any

research or anything that might come forward through other jurisdictions on that

as well, but I do want to point out to the general public that just because they

do not have seat belts does not mean that they are not safe, because they are

designed in a special way for that reason and for the occupants that they are

carrying.

The only other clause that was referred to was clause 6, by my hon.

colleagues. I think it was the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi who referenced

clause 6 with regard to requiring a person to accompany a person who is doing a

test drive on a commercial vehicle. The reason why that was considered to be

inappropriate is that, first off, the dealer has the responsibility and would

not allow a person to drive a commercial vehicle unless they had the appropriate

class of licence. That is the reason why it is thought to be inappropriate and

not practical, because if we go in and test drive vehicles we have a licence to

drive a vehicle so we can go to any of the dealerships here in St. John's or

across Newfoundland and Labrador and test drive a vehicle by ourselves, with our

spouse or whoever we might want to take in a vehicle with us, just as long as we

have the appropriate licence thereof. The same thing applies here in regard to

having an appropriate licence. That is the reason why it is impractical, but

then the dealers can also require that one of their employees would accompany

that particular person. They can do that at any given time themselves, as well,

so we would leave that discretion up to the dealers. They have every right to do

it, and certainly they do double-check and check the person's appropriate

licence before they are allowed to operate the vehicle.

If that answers the questions, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat and close

second reading.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 10 be now read a

second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 10)

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

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

MS BURKE: Today, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Today.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act," read

a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by

leave. (Bill 10)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we will call, from the Order Paper, number 23,

second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991. (Bill

28)

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court

Act, 1991." (Bill 28)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is my duty today to speak to second reading of Bill 28, which is basically

a very straightforward bill, a very simple bill and a very short bill. The bill

reports two things. One is a housekeeping measure to correct an error that was

inadvertently made in the last session of the House when we amended the

Provincial Court Act. The second thing we are asked to do is reduce the tenure

of the chief judge of the Provincial Court from ten years to seven years.

The first

section will deal with the tenure.

Section 7(1) of the current

Provincial Court Act says that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, which is the

Cabinet, shall appoint a judge as chief judge. One of the Provincial Court

judges gets appointed as the chief. Subsection 2 of

section 7 says the term of

office of the chief judge shall be ten years.

We are proposing in this bill to reduce the term from ten years to seven

years. The former chief judge of the Provincial Court is Judge Milton Reid,

Judge Reg Reid as he is generally known, he has now retired from the position of

chief judge after many years of service to the Province.

Before we appointed a new chief judge, officials in the Department of Justice

had a look at the term and there was a feeling that the term of ten years might

be too long. It certainly was the longest term of any province in the country.

Before the act came into effect in 1991, the Provincial Court Act, the term

of the chief judge was set by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, and that was

the Cabinet, but when the act came in, in 1991, the term for a chief judge was

set for ten years. Since 1991 there have been two chief judges of the court. The

first was Chief Judge Donald Luther, who served this Province from 1991 to 2001.

Judge Luther, I remember well. He was a young lawyer who came to work in my

former law firm. He went to the bench there was a time when government was

attempting to induce young lawyers to become magistrates or Provincial Court

judges magistrates in those days. They were looking for people who had law

degrees. I remember having a discussion with Judge Luther as to whether he

should accept an appointment to the bench, given his relatively lack of

experience in practicing law, and we disagreed.

I felt that before someone went to the bench they should practice law for a

certain period of time and have some experience and live a bit and get to know

their fellowman before they place themselves in the position where they were

judging that fellowman. He disagreed, and I think he was right. He served the

Province very well as a Provincial Court judge, and then for ten years as chief

judge. I am told that the Provincial Court, under his leadership, was a very

modern and forward thinking institution in this Province.

Chief Judge Milton Reid, who I had the pleasure of working with in my

capacity as Attorney General and Minister of Justice for three years, and then

again, since the end of last year. He indicated to me a desire to he was

ready to retire. Thankfully, for the people of the Province, he has agreed to

remain as chair of a committee under the criminal code. I forget the proper

name. I think it is the mental health review board. So, we will have the benefit

of his leadership and his ability.

The current ten years, as I have said previously, is the longest in the

country. The average term of office for a chief judge in Canada, or in other

Canadian jurisdictions, is seven years. Ontario is a year longer than that.

Ontario has an eight year term. Many provinces, including New Brunswick and

Alberta and Quebec and Manitoba, all have seven year terms. So the proposal of a

shorter term of seven years as opposed to ten, the department feels would allow

for revitalization of the court. It would allow for opportunities for a change

of leadership for the Provincial Court judiciary, and as well as a new direction

from the court.

I believe Nova Scotia, and possibly two other provinces, still have the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Cabinet, by regulation, determine the term of a

chief judge. I think one of the jurisdictions, they appoint for a five-year term

and it is renewable, but given the principle of the independence of the

judiciary, I feel difficulty with the concept of renewing an appointment of a

chief judge because you can kind of hold it out of the judge: A chief judge did

not do what government wanted. The appointment would not be renewed, and I think

most people would feel that that is unseemly. So the desire is to go with a

fixed term and the question is what that term should be. It was felt that ten

was too long. Some put forward the view that it was