Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 14 April 2008 (46th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLVI No. 10)
2008-04-14
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
April 14, 2008
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVI No. 10
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Members' statements today are by the following members: the hon. the Member
for the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace; the hon. the Member for the
District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the Member for the District
of Placentia & St. Mary's; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de
Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley; the hon. the
Member for the District of Ferryland.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Carbonear-Harbour
Grace is a Member of the Executive who would need leave of the House in order to
present a private members' statement.
Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Carbonear-Harbour
Grace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the 2007-2008 Conception Bay
CeeBee Stars on winning their third consecutive Herder Memorial Trophy this past
weekend -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: - with a 4-1 victory over the Deer Lake Red Wings, taking
the series in six games. It has been thirty years since a senior hockey team has
accompanied such a feat. As a result, the CeeBees will hang a 7 th
Herder Banner at the S.W. Moores Memorial Stadium, in Harbour Grace adjacent to
those for marking wins in 1960, 1961, 1965, 1967 and, most recently, 2006 and
2007 and again this season.
On a personal note, Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure two weeks ago to see Jim
and Carl Penney, two former captains of the CeeBees, honoured at Mile One
Stadium. Jim and Carl both coached me in minor hockey and softball and played on
various teams with me, and I can honestly say, Mr. Speaker, are true role models
for the community. As we celebrate this latest Herder win, it is also important
to recognize the great CeeBees of the past, like the Faulkner brothers, Dick
Power, Joe Hunt, Mac Martin, Doug Moores, Harry Hunt, Kevin Williams, John
Parsons, Neville Pike, and Stan Moores, just to name a few.
I would also at this time, Mr. Speaker, like to acknowledge the tremendous
volunteer effort that drives the reigning Herder Champions behind the scenes.
Finally, to the fans of the CeeBee Stars, thank you for your dedication and
commitment to your hockey team. The Herder Memorial Championship series reflects
the pride and enjoyment that the people of this Province take in senior hockey.
While the packed houses at Mile One Centre in St. John's and the Pepsi Centre
in Corner Brook demonstrate our love and respect for the game, it is important
to recognize the CeeBee's fans who are present game in, game out at the S.W.
Moores Memorial Stadium in Harbour Grace, who come from all areas of Conception
Bay North, and who have supported the CeeBees for years.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud today as MHA for the Carbonear-Harbour Grace
District, home of the reigning Herder Champions to ask my hon. colleagues to
join with me in congratulating the Conception Bay CeeBee Stars, the 2007-2008
Herder Memorial Champions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse
au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to congratulate Dr. William Fitzgerald on recently receiving the
Order of Canada for his thirty year career in health care. He was bestowed this
honour at the 102 nd Order of Canada investiture ceremony at Rideau
Hall on April 11.
Mr Speaker, Dr. Fitzgerald is currently the Chief of Surgery at the Charles
S. Curtis Memorial Hospital in St. Anthony, and is well known and respected by
the patients in Northern Newfoundland and Labrador and the Lower North Shore of
Quebec. For thirty years Dr. Fitzgerald has provided exemplary care to residents
in these areas and mentored many young doctors with the Labrador-Grenfell Health
Association.
Mr. Speaker, Dr. Fitzgerald is also widely known for establishing screening,
detection and management program for colorectal cancer in southern Labrador and
has been credited with saving many lives through this program. Dr. Fitzgerald is
also a valuable volunteer in the community and is greatly admired for his
dedication to the people of the region and the patients of that region.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Dr.
William Fitzgerald on being inducted into the Order of Canada.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Placentia & St.
Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to deliver accolades to the
Trinity-Placentia Minor Hockey Association. The Association serves the
communities of Whitbourne, Markland, Long Harbour-Mount Arlington Height, in my
district, and several communities in the neighbouring Districts of Bellevue and
Trinity-Bay de Verde.
Mr. Speaker, the Trinity-Placentia Association had its year-end banquet and
awards last Sunday night, capping off what has been an outstanding season. The
Association recognized the achievements of its teams at this year's
all-Newfoundland tournaments, where the Under 20 Girls' team won silver in
Whitbourne, the Under 15 Girls' team won silver in Mobile.
The Atom boys won silver in their division in Trinity-Placentia. The Peewee
team won silver in the D division in Mount Pearl, and the Bantom boys won the
gold medal in the Provincial C tournament in Placentia.
What is amazing about this Bantom team, Mr. Speaker, is that nine of those
boys, and their coaches, have played together throughout their entire minor
hockey careers, and have won gold medals in their respective divisions for the
past six years quite an achievement.
Mr. Speaker, as a former minor hockey coach and hockey parent, I appreciate
the tremendous generosity of time and effort by all individuals, including
coaches and volunteers, as well as the minor hockey moms and dads. It is obvious
that the Trinity-Placentia Minor Hockey Association has a great thing going.
I ask all hon. members to join me and my colleagues, the hon. Member for
Bellevue and the hon. Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde, in expressing our
congratulations to the Trinity-Placentia Minor Hockey Association for a job very
well done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Rachael Brown, a
Grade 8 student at Amalgamated Academy in Bay Roberts, who recently won the Club
Level Competition of the Lions International Twentieth Annual Peace Poster
Contest.
The poster will advance to the second round at the district competition, and
the final round of competition will conclude at the international level.
Mr. Speaker, Rachael stated that the true meaning of peace lies within
ourselves, uniting our family, community, nation and the world.
The Peace Poster Contest is one of many ways the Lions Club of Bay Roberts
works with the youth and stresses the importance of peace, tolerance and
international understanding.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all those
who participated and received recognition, and I wish the Bay Roberts Lions Club
every success in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured and proud to stand in this hon.
House today and pay tribute to the students and staff of Elwood Regional High
School, and their many recent successes.
I was very proud last week to hear that Allison Kelly, an Elwood student from
my hometown of Howley, was the provincial winner of the Canadian Securities
Administrators' Challenge Contest. I would like to congratulate Mila Major, a
Level III student, for taking first place in the provincial essay competition
sponsored by the Royal Canadian Legion. For earning the top essay award
provincially, Mila won a trip to Beaumont Hamel as part of the ceremonies to
take place on July 1.
It is indeed noteworthy that this is the third consecutive year like the
CeeBees that an Elwood student has captured the top spot and won the trip.
Also worthy of note is that Elwood participated in the regional drama
festival in early April and took the award for best performance, and earned the
right to represent the region at the provincials in Carbonear in May. The school's
drama instructor, Jordan Stringer, captured the best director award.
Jeremy Gordon, a student from Elwood, entered in the Rant like Rick promotion
as part of The Rick Mercer Report television show. Jeremy won one of
seven national awards for his rant on the price of healthy food.
Chris White, a Level III student from Elwood Regional High School, has just
been offered a $10,000 entrance scholarship to attend UNB.
Mr. Speaker, I would like all members of his hon. House to join me in
extending congratulations to Elwood Regional High School, students and staff, on
their recent accomplishments.
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, more efforts are being made today to recognize the value of
volunteers in our communities for the tremendous contribution they make to
society. These volunteers come from all walks of life, both genders, and from
all ages.
When our young people step forward to volunteer in school or with community
groups, we take particular notice. I would like to highlight a particular group
in Ferryland District who do just that the Goulds Leo Club, a group of young
people affiliated with the Goulds Lions Club.
The Goulds Leo Club has been in existence for five years and is made up of
high school and post high school students from the Goulds area. This group
provides many hours of assistance in many community events and activities.
Some of the events the Goulds Leo Club have been involved with include:
decorating the Janeway Children's Hospital for Christmas; working with the
Goulds Recreation Committee to set up a haunted house at Halloween for children
in the community; taking
part in the Goulds Lions Club Christmas Parade, by
collecting food items for the local food bank; taking
part in environmental
projects such as highway cleanup, instilling environmentally friendly practices
for today and the future; holding public speaking contests for Junior High
School students at St. Kevin's Junior High School; and, participating in and
running events in the Goulds Winter Carnival.
The list goes on for the volunteer activities of these young members of the
Goulds Leo Club. Several members have taken the next step at the Goulds Leo Club
and joined the Goulds Lions Club to continue to serve the community. I would
also point out that the Goulds Leo Club recently celebrated their Fifth Charter
Night Anniversary.
Mr. Speaker, to give freely of one's time and energy to do something for
the enjoyment of others is one of the greatest gifts in our society. These young
people are making a meaningful contribution to the community by their unselfish
will to give to others. They no doubt will continue to give and play a lead role
in our community in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in
applauding the great volunteer work of the Goulds Leo Club and thank them for
their efforts.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to address an issue that is
extremely important to coastal communities throughout this Province and indeed
across this country. That is the issue of the proposed ban on seal products,
from Canada, into the European Union.
I am pleased to report that my hon. colleague, the Minister of Natural
Resources, just recently returned from delivering our message to the member
states of the European Union.
Mr. Speaker, 85 per cent of the Canadian harp seal harvest happens off the
shores of Newfoundland and Labrador. Sealers have stated that up to 35 per cent
of their annual income comes from the sealing industry. The proposed ban by the
European Union is unjust and it threatens the livelihood of these people.
This trade action under consideration by the EU is being done with total
disregard for the livelihood of over 6,000 individuals in this Province. Indeed,
the 1983 European Economic Community ban on the importation of whitecoats and
bluebacks reduced the total Inuit income in Labrador alone by one-third.
Clearly, this action can have serious negative impacts on people who are
depending on this industry.
Our government is also pleased to work with the Government of Nunavut on this
very important matter and this truly Canadian issue.
The Canadian seal harvest is one of the best managed harvests of animals
anywhere in the world. It is humane, it is sustainable, and it produces a wide
variety of sealing products such as seal meat, clothing and seal oil capsules.
This is an issue that is being decided by people who are heavily influenced
by misinformed and misguided anti-sealing groups.
I would take this opportunity to remind our colleagues in the European Union
that when these groups are finished with seals, they will likely move on the
harvest of deer and boar and other harvests.
In April of last year, I personally wrote the federal Minister of
action under the World Trade Organization on the grounds that a ban on seal
products by the European Union would violate European international trade
obligations under the WTO.
in September of last year that they would move forward with a formal complaint
against the European Union to the WTO.
Mr. Speaker, this is a time that requires leadership on the part of our
immediate and swift trade action against any member of the European Union that
chooses to pass trade bans against Canadian seal products.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not mention that our
protect the safety and livelihoods of Canadian sealers over this past weekend,
by boarding and seizing the Farley Mowat and arresting its captain and
chief officer for violations against Canada's Marine Mammal Regulations. As a
country, we have stood by for far too long while anti-sealing groups disrupt
sealers as they go about making a living in a well-regulated, humane and
sustainable manner.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank the hon. minister for a copy of his statement today.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say to the Minister of Natural
Resources, I am pleased that she took the opportunity to go to the European
Union and to deliver the message of seal hunters, not just in our Province but
all those in the country. I think we have to continue to ensure that we spread
our messages around the world, that this is a humane hunt and a humane industry
that provides for a livelihood of many families throughout Canada, not just in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to say I am pleased that the federal government is
finally taking some action as it relates to the anti-sealing groups who have had
a presence in our country, in my opinion, for far too long in exercising the
kind of controls that they have. I want to commend the minister for taking the
action that he has in recent days, and especially for laying the charges that he
did against the Sea Shepherd Society and Paul Watson and those people who have
been involved because their propaganda has been running roughshod over Canadians
and around the world for far too long in my opinion and it comes a point when
some of these things have to stop.
I have absolutely no problem with people who want to express their opinions
but the opinion of this man has been not only insensitive as it relates to other
human beings, but he has been a complete obstructionist. He has had false
rumours, Mr. Speaker, and false information that he has chosen to spread, and to
what avail? To the advantages of his own society and his own groups in trying to
build a war chest for animal welfare on the backs of people in our Province who
are earning a decent living from a very legitimate industry. Actually, I find it
absolutely disgusting that this man could even have any protest or any claims to
what is happening to him today in the court systems in this country.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you to the minister for his advanced copy.
I am very pleased to be able to stand today, along with the Leader of the
Official Opposition, and in solidarity with the minister, to tell the sealers in
this Province and their families how proud we are of them and of the history
that they are part of in this Province. Anything that we can do as a Province
of this story, that is what is so bothersome with this issue, is that people
around the world - the anti-sealers are out there telling untruths, literally
telling lies about what is going on. We have made so many efforts in this
Province to make sure that this industry is regulated and that regulations are
followed. So everything we can do, government, I urge you to make sure that we
do it to let the sealers know that we want the truth out there, that they have
the support of the government, and not only the government of this Province but
all the people of this Province.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
Oral questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Premier, and they are around the inquiry that
is ongoing in the Province.
Mr. Speaker, even from the briefing today that we received from Robert
Thompson - who, as we all know, is government's point man on the public
inquiry into the ER-PR testing - it is obvious that government still does not
have a full handle on this issue. I guess that was evident this weekend as
government scrambled to put together the numbers to present in today's
briefing to both the media and the public. Yet, we have learned today that there
are nineteen patients whom have not yet been tracked and located and therefore
not contacted.
I ask the Premier: Why has government, or at least through Eastern Health,
why has there been no coordinated effort to contact these nineteen patients to
date?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Government has, in fact, not been scrambling. Government has, in fact, been
working on this since June of last year and something good from an information
perspective has come out of something very bad. Fortunately, and despite the
wishes of the Leader of the Opposition to have Mr. Thompson removed for conflict
of interest, his efforts have uncovered these problems. He has done basically a
process audit, for want of a better term, in order to try and find out exactly
what the numbers are. The numbers keep changing. This really accentuates the
type of problem that my government and my ministers have been trying to deal
with, with information coming from Eastern Health. It lays it out very clearly.
This thing is still not complete. This is an ongoing process. There will be more
reporting.
For the Leader of the Opposition to suggest that this is somewhat opportune
and we were scrambling over the weekend to put this together, nothing is further
from the truth. It has been a very difficult process. It has been ongoing since
June. It was only until November we could even start to release some of the
findings and as we get these findings, when we have complete information we will
release it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we have now learned that 400 of those patients
were to be contacted via their physicians, yet no one can confirm that this is
the case. Government, through Eastern Health, is now directing a review of those
contacts with patients.
I ask the Premier: Why did you wait for so much time to pass before you
ensured that these patients were actually contacted through their physicians as
was supposed to have happened?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, as will come out in the inquiry - and this
is why completion of the whole inquiry is such an important process, and this is
why Mr. Thompson has to be allowed to complete his work. These are things that
are being discovered on an ongoing basis.
With regard to the number of 400, that is basically extrapolating a raw
number from this information. That is a due diligence check. That is going to be
a secondary check to make sure that is done. The real numbers here, of course,
are that basically there are nineteen people who are unable to be found
anywhere, despite all the efforts, the best efforts, as I understand it, of the
people involved at Eastern Health. Nineteen were not able to be contacted. One
still remains out of the group of fifteen, and there are four others that may
have been questioned on the diagnosis of a tumor. So, that is twenty-three. As
well, there are another nineteen people who have since deceased and with a
question of whether their families have been contacted.
The good thing about this is that we are getting to the bottom of it, and at
the end of the day this is about the patients, it is about the families and it
is about future patients and future families who are affected by cancer. So, we
should not look at this as being a bad thing but a good thing because we are
finally getting accurate information, and it just shows the frustration that we
are having in trying to deal with the chaos in the information that is coming
from Eastern Health.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My next question is for the Premier, and it is to do with a response that I
was given in the House of Assembly on March 19 by the Minister of Health in
response to a question. He said to me: "those individuals currently
being followed by a physician are being provided with the necessary support that
they would need through this period."
I ask the Premier today: How could the minister knowingly have made that
statement when, in fact, no follow up had been done, and still has not been done
to date, with those physicians to see if they have, in fact, contacted the
patients at all?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: The questions that are being asked about statements
that other people have made, those questions would have to go properly to the
person who made them. That question would have to go to the minister.
I can say though, in defence of the minister and ministers, they can only
rely on the information that is presented to them. They are dealing with massive
departments with budgets of over $2 billion with thousands and thousands of
employees down the line. That information gets presented to them, gets presented
to me, gets presented to Cabinet, gets presented to government, and we have to
rely on the information that is presented to us by the experts.
Now, over the course of this particular process - and again I can say this is
a good thing - we have now set up Robert Thompson as a secretary to basically do
his own task force to go back and find out what when wrong. During the course of
his investigation, he has indicated that there were problems, and he actually
lays out in this report - which is somewhat of a preliminary report
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: - what his concerns were and what the reasons were.
There are two reasons and I can come back to them, Mr. Speaker, if necessary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the Premier: At some point I think someone should at least question
the validity of the information being provided.
I ask the Premier today: Do you expect your ministers to read their briefing
notes when they are in charge of a department?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.
Ministers, and myself, are expected to read our briefing notes when they are
provided, subject, of course, to the knowledge that they already have about a
particular issue.
For example, if a briefing note comes to me on an issue that I already know
as much about, or 100 per cent about, then it would not be beyond me not to read
the entire briefing note. The same way, you have to allow discretion for
ministers and you have to expect ministers, all ministers, to do their jobs and
to do their jobs properly.
I don't babysit them. I don't go down and ask them a quiz the next
morning - Did you read your briefing note? Here are the questions on it. -
because I cannot do that. These are responsible individuals who are in charge of
departments.
As well, we also have an individual here who was parliamentary assistant in
that Department of Health for over four years, as far as I know, or nearly four
years, as far as I understand it, so he is an individual who was briefed from
time to time and informed about general health issues. Whether he would go
through every single item and every single word and every single page in a
briefing book, only he can answer that, but I have to be reasonable in my
expectations of what ministers can accomplish and are expected to do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, in a backgrounder issued on May 23 by the
Department of Health, it states that all breast cancer patients have been
contacted about their results - a statement that we now know to be false. At
that time, the Canadian Cancer Society and patients were saying that they were
not all contacted.
I ask the Premier: Why did the minister continuously make these statements
and not question the information that was being provided to him and, in essence,
to government at that time by Eastern Health?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, again, that is a question that only the
minister can answer; however, the minister was being provided with information
that was coming directly from his officials, from his department, and from
Eastern Health.
That question, and those questions, really should be put to Eastern Health.
This is where the information was coming from. This is where incorrect
information was being provided from, and only they can answer it.
During the course of this process we have questioned information. As
information changes, we go back and ask why it has changed. We have also
attempted to verify the correct information.
That is exactly the report that Robert Thompson has just prepared and it has
been presented to everybody. In fact, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, a
technical briefing was held this morning.
In response to the last question as well, there are two reasons for no
contact being made that were given in that report. The original policy that all
living patients would be contacted with the results -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: - was not universally applied.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier if he would not recite and read from documents, if he
paraphrased them or give the gist of what is in them. I also ask if he would
conclude his answer.
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Policy was not followed, Mr. Speaker; and, secondly,
there was no protocol between the health authorities to say who was responsible
for doing what. As a result, there was a passing of the responsibility back and
forth between each other.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, on May 23, when the minister was still saying that
all of these individuals had been contacted, despite public information being
out there by patients, it was not only incumbent, Premier, upon the minister to
question Eastern Health. At that time you knew, as the Premier. The Cabinet
knew; they had been briefed.
Again, I have to ask: Why did no one confirm that the information that
Eastern Health was providing was indeed factual?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As these situations arose, and as people arose who had indicated that they
had not been contacted, the questions were asked through the department and back
through sources to get verification. We then had to rely on the information that
came back from Eastern Health.
So, if someone happened to be on a public airwave and made a statement, then
officials in the Department of Health would bring that to the attention of
Eastern Health and follow through on it. We would then wait for the answer and
respond; but, you know, the minister was receiving information from Eastern
Health and was attempting to present that to the public. Now, we can be
criticized - we will be criticized if we do not provide information, because
then we are deemed not to disclose. Then we are criticized on the other hand if
we do provide information and it is later found out to be inaccurate. We cannot
win in that situation, so we are managing a very difficult situation, Mr.
Speaker.
I remind the hon. member opposite that this laboratory closed for five weeks
while their government was in power. I can't wait to hear the testimony of
Premier Grimes and Minister Smith and other ministers from the previous
government, to hear what they knew.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We do know that the current Minister of Health did not read his briefing
notes. Although the Premier expects his ministers to be briefed and to read
their notes, we know he did not. We know that he did not question the
information that was being provided by the health authority, despite other
claims in the public that it was inaccurate, and we know that he did not live up
to the duties and responsibilities as outlined under the Executive Council Act
for ministers who serve in a government.
I ask the Premier: Does he see this as a clear level of incompetence, and is
he expecting to do anything about it?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Let me state very clearly for the record that this
minister who is presently testifying before the inquiry today, in my opinion,
has done an absolutely outstanding job of dealing with (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: He has given an explanation to the inquiry as to why he
did not read a particular briefing note, and the inquiry will pass judgement on
that.
He has also indicated that he has tried to get the best information possible,
and he has done that to the best of his ability. He stood in this House day
after day after day, when the sands were shifting under his feet, when
information was changing from Eastern Health, trying to present it to the
Members of the House of Assembly, presenting it to the public to the best of his
ability, at a time when he was being provided misinformation by Eastern Health.
Now, he has managed that excellent, from my perspective. As a matter of fact,
I would not put anybody else in that position, other than him, right now in this
government - I can say it - because he has done an outstanding job.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, maybe the Premier can answer this question for the minister that he has
such confidence in: Why is it that the minister and you, Premier, did not have
any dedicated meeting with regard to this ER-PR retesting, even though you knew
the statistics on the number of people who were affected, you knew the
seriousness of the matter, but yet there was no direct meeting between you and
the minister to discuss this issue? Why was this not a number one priority of
concern for the government at that particular time?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have said before, I have to rely on my
ministers to run their departments. From the beginning, on this particular
matter, we had received an indication that there was a problem. Then, within
hours, it was indicated to us that no action was required. It was then in the
hands of the department.
We were also being told over the course of the whole development of this
problem that, in fact, improper testing had stopped, so the problem had been
taken care of; that future testing was going to be done at Mount Sinai; that the
past testing was going to be retested at Mount Sinai; and that patients had been
notified.
We were also concerned about the confidentiality, the privacy, and the health
of the people who were involved, and under those circumstances I am satisfied
that our government did absolutely the right thing.
You have to keep in mind here that we were dealing with a problem that had
been created and put in our lap and presented to us, and our primary concern was
patient care and the health and the welfare of the patients who were afflicted
by this.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we know that when this issue broke open on May 15, the minister
did go back and read his briefing notes. We now know that on May 16 there were
briefings with Eastern Health, and on May 17 there was a Cabinet meeting around
this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that Dr. Howell and Mr. Tilley sat outside the
Cabinet doors while the meeting was going on, and were not asked to come inside
to answer questions or provide for briefings.
I would like to ask the Premier why these individuals were not questioned at
that time, or afterwards, on the information that they were bringing forward.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I was not outside the Cabinet doors; I was
inside the Cabinet doors. Dr. Howell or Mr. Tilley or other officials are always
present, coming and going, during Cabinet meetings, when these matters are
ongoing.
I do know that the minister and officials of the Department of Health and the
Deputy Minister of Health certainly would have had discussions - I assume that
they would have had discussions - with these people.
Again, this was in the hands of the Ministry of Health. That is exactly where
it rested, and it was being handled and managed properly by the Department of
Health.
I said before, if at some point in time the Cameron inquiry, in its wisdom,
decides that there was some error in judgment made in the way that it was
handled with regard to contacting patients, and that is our responsibility - I
mean myself, my Cabinet, my government - we will accept it.
I do again take general responsibility, but I am not prepared to stand here
day after day and take responsibility down the line specifically for problems
that occurred, and mistakes that were made, and omissions that were made, when I
had no way of knowing anything about them; nor did my ministers.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, it is a fairly clear, very legitimate question.
Dr. Oscar Howell and Mr. Tilley were both available to meet with the Cabinet,
as I understand it; yet, they were not invited in, they were not questioned, and
they were not part of that discussion.
I can only ask the Premier again: If this was such a huge priority for the
government and you at the time, why were these individuals not engaged at that
level and questioned?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: I will repeat the answer, Mr. Speaker.
These individuals were engaged by officials of the Department of Health,
which I assume would be the minister, the Deputy Minister of Health, and other
officials.
Reciprocally, I can ask why you, as a Cabinet minister, or the Health
Minister, Minister Smith at the time, or the Premier, Roger Grimes at the time,
would not know that a laboratory was closed down for five weeks because a doctor
had complained that it was not doing its job properly, that testing was not
being done properly, and that might lead to legal action?
Now, I said before, I am prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt on
that, but you cannot sit here and question me, and ask me why I did not know
information that I had no way of knowing and, at the same time, hide behind the
cover of saying: We knew nothing about a laboratory being closed down. We knew
nothing about the problems of 2003, 2002, 2001 when people were being mistested.
You have to be fair, Ms Jones; this is about the patients at the end of the
day.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think I am being more than fair, and very tolerant of the Premier's
answers here.
Mr. Speaker, the question was not to the Premier about, why did you not get
correct information? It was about why, after you knew about the issue, after you
were informed, after there were numbers of briefing notes, after there were
Cabinet meetings, why no one - you included - talked to Mr. Tilley and talked to
Dr. Howell about this problem and what was going on. That was very clear.
Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier this question. When Eastern Health was
going to court to disallow the release of peer reviews, I questioned the Premier
with regard to that, and why the government did not step in. Of course, his
response was that, from government's perspective, we were not a party to that
particular action and we
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the member to pose her question.
MS JONES: I certainly will, Mr. Speaker.
- and we had just basically stood back and let the courts do what they had to
do.
Well, I ask the Premier this question. You may have taken a hands-off
approach in your office when it came to the court challenge of peer reviews, but
why is it -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the member to pose her question.
MS JONES: I am posing the question, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the Premier: Why is it that your office was very much engaged in
editing communication releases and ads that were going out from Eastern Health
by your director of communications?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What the Leader of the Opposition - and I apologize. Before, I referred to
the Leader of the Opposition as Ms Jones, and I just correct the record there.
That was just an oversight.
What I did state in answer to this question last week, or two weeks ago, was
that, in fact, from our perspective, Madam Justice Cameron, the head of the
inquiry, actually had that peer review in her hands. So we knew that this
information was not going to be kept from the Commission of Inquiry, and in an
open, accountable and transparent manner they had the information for their
benefit so they could basically make findings at the end of the day based on
that information.
The legal point was a moot point because, in fact, it was just a question of
whether, from an ethical perspective and a practical perspective, these peer
reviews could be allowed into evidence. That was a matter for the courts to
decide.
I also ask Ms Jones why her Premier and her Cabinet would not know
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: I will, Mr. Speaker.
- why that Cabinet would not have known a statement from a doctor that said:
a diagnosis based on inappropriate immunostain will surely jeopardize patient
care. That happened in -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think the Premier would know the difference is, is that his government was
informed.
Mr. Speaker, we have continuously heard the Minister of Health stand in this
House of Assembly and tout the new Centre of Excellence of the lab conducting
breast cancer testing. However, I have received calls, in fact, over the weekend
from patients who are less than confident with the statements that were made by
the minister. One woman who was diagnosed with breast cancer four years ago
received a phone call telling her that her tissue samples had to be retested.
She received the same phone call six months later from the lab, again, saying
that her tissue samples had to be retested. When she questioned it, apparently
the first call she got, although she was contacted and told it would be sent
out, it never was and it was not done until six months later.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to pose her question.
MS JONES: I certainly will.
She was called back for an MRI in January and she had a double mastectomy
last month. She describes the process as she went through -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to pose her question now.
MS JONES: I will, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.
I ask the Premier: What is the Centre of Excellence that government refers to
and what improvements have been made, because they have not been witnessed by
all women affected?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the details on health care will be
provided by the minister when he is available in the House. I can tell you,
though, that from my personal perspective, and from the perspective of the
members of Cabinet, members of government, caucus members, this is a very
serious matter to us. When we look at this and we consider the problems here, we
look at this as if this was our mother, our wife, our daughter, or a male member
of the family who has had this problem. We try to deal with matters in
this government as if it was happening to us, specifically. We try to react and
respond in the same manner as what the patients are.
So I can tell you right now, myself, and speaking on behalf of the
government, we have the greatest sympathy for the patients. As well, I want you
to know Ms Jones, that if this kind of thing is happening, I think it is
absolutely terrible - again, I am sorry, Leader of the Opposition. This is
terrible. It is a terrible thing. It should not be happening, and it is not
acceptable from our perspective.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I certainly agree with the Premier, that this is terrible and it is
traumatizing for many people. The reality of it is that it is happening, and
that is what is unfortunate.
Mr. Speaker, this patient who had contacted me also informed me that she was
asked to sign a consent form last month before she underwent a double
mastectomy, to say that she would agree to be released from the hospital
immediately after her surgery. The reason for that was there was no bed
available to be able to hospitalize her. She had no one at home to care for her
and she resisted signing the form. The option was to have her surgery cancelled.
Mr. Speaker, I have to ask: Is there a policy existing within Eastern Health
right now that says if you undertake surgical procedures like this you must
consent to be discharged immediately -
MR. SPEAKER: Order please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I am not, from my knowledge, aware of that
policy nor would I likely be aware of the specific policies with regard to that,
but I can tell you from my own perspective, and this government's perspective,
if a woman is put on the street after having a double mastectomy and has to sign
a consent form to allow that to happen, that is absolutely unacceptable, and if
that is the policy it will be changed forthwith.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I might add for the Premier, that if it is not a
written policy it should not be a policy at any level. Hopefully, it will not
happen again.
Mr. Speaker, I was also informed by a woman who had an MRI done for breast
screening, that her results in reporting to her were delayed for a period of
time simply because there wasn't a radiologist available to read the report,
specifically as it related to breast screening.
Can I ask if there is more than one radiologist on staff at Eastern Health
who does this work, and if so, why is it that at that period during February
there was a delay in being able to get these reports out?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: I will undertake to provide that information, Mr.
Speaker. The question is valid and if the information that there wasn't a
radiologist available is correct, then we will find out why, and hopefully there
will be a good explanation.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
My questions, too, relate to information that we received this morning during
our briefing with Mr. Robert Thompson.
During the briefing we were told that one of the main reasons for patients
not being contacted was either the lack of a communications protocol or
protocols not being followed. So patients who should have been contacted fell
through the cracks between Eastern Health and the other health authorities.
I ask the Premier, if he knows: What actions are being taken with regard to
creating, throughout our health care system, an established protocol for patient
follow-up and contact in the future?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: I thank the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi for that
question.
As you are aware, this information - a draft report of this only came to my
attention yesterday afternoon, when I was in the office. The final report was
presented to me after our business this morning with the Icelandic officials.
So, I have only seen the final report. I will be speaking with the Minister of
Health when he comes off the stand and when he is finished. I will be
instructing him to follow-up on what has occurred here and to pursue the
recommendations and some of the recommendations that you have indicated.
You talked about the protocols; it appears there that policies were set and
protocols were established but they were not followed and they were broken. So,
we will be getting to the bottom of it and finding out exactly why they were
broken, but this is new information, of course, to me as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad to hear the Premier say that he will be following up with the
minister.
This is another piece that I am concerned about, that the ATIPP Act, the act
that covers the access to information and privacy, puts responsibility directly
on the shoulders of public bodies to be proactive in releasing information that
is related to public interests. It is right there in the ATIPP Act.
I am wondering if Cabinet actually discussed Eastern Health's
responsibility, under the light of that act, when it came to releasing
information to the public?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: I will take that question under advisement and get an
answer for the hon. member.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Follow-up to that then, I know that the staff of ATIPP did do information
sessions with all aspects of government and public bodies with regard to the
act, but what I am wondering now in relationship to my first question, is there
actually a protocol that is given to public bodies and said this is the protocol
to follow with regard to releasing the information, or do we just have this
section in the act without a protocol?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would inform the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that the purpose, as she
is aware, of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act is a law
for individuals to access the information that affects them and to allow for
correction of that information. There has been, and are, ongoing training
seminars with various bodies. In relation to the information to be released by
the public body, ATIPP is triggered when a request is made. Now that is my
understanding of the act. I stand to be corrected, but the information is not
for public bodies to release private information, it is triggered upon a
request.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just have a another question, and it is related to a call that I received
in the last few days, actually two calls, by patients over the weekend who have
had their surgeries cancelled, one who has been put on a wait list and one who
is still in hospital awaiting surgery. I have contacted Eastern Health and given
them the information, and they are telling me that there is an intermittent
problem with accessing beds in ICU.
I ask the government if they are aware of that problem and are there any
plans to extend or expand the ICUs to be able to deal with this problem in city
hospitals?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I didn't receive any such phone call
prior to coming to the House today so I certainly wasn't aware of that
particular issue. I thank the hon. member opposite for informing us of that.
I am aware from being in Opposition that from time to time you do get calls.
Of course, you obviously have to track them to make sure that they are authentic
which we will do if you can provide that information to us. I understand you
have already provided that information to Eastern Health. You provide that to
government and we will make sure we track it down. At this point, we know
nothing about it, because it was a phone call that came directly to you.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Winsor-Buchans.
MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On behalf of the Select Committee appointed to draft a reply to the speech of
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, I am pleased to present the report of the
Select Committee as follows:
To His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, the hon. John C. Crosbie, PC, OC, ONL:
May it please Your Honour, we the Commons of Newfoundland and Labrador in
legislative session assembled beg to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech
which Your Honour has addressed to this House.
MR. SPEAKER: Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of Documents
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
MR. SKINNER: In accordance with the Workplace Health, Safety and
Compensation Act, I hereby table the 2006 and 2007 annual reports of the
Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Review Division with the House of
Assembly.
MR. SPEAKER: Further Tabling of Documents.
As required under
Section 15 (5) of the House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act, I hereby table in the House draft amendments
to the Members' Resources and Allowances rules approved in draft form at the
April 11, 2008 meeting of the House of Assembly Management Commission.
These draft amendments address four different areas of the rules. The four
rules are as follows:
1. Respecting Temporary Accommodations: The effect of these draft amendments
would be to remove the $125 daily maximum currently applied and to instead
permit actual costs of a standard room to be reimbursed.
2. Respecting Private Accommodations: The effect of this draft amendment
would be to increase the daily reimbursable amount for private accommodation
expenses from the current $25 to $53 on the Island and $71 in Labrador.
3. Respecting maximum number of nights allowable when the House is not in
session: The effect of this draft amendment would be to increase to 50 the
annual number of accommodation nights to be reimbursed while the House of
Assembly is not in session.
4. Respecting meal per diems while travelling to and from the Capital Region:
The effect of this draft amendment would be to permit meal per diems to be
claimed when a member is travelling to and from the Capital Region.
Under
section 15 (5) of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and
Administration Act, the process for amending rules which add to the levels of
allowances must follow the four steps which I will outline.
Number l: A draft of the amendment is tabled at a meeting of the Commission.
Number 2: Notice to and reading of the draft shall be given in the House of
Assembly, when in session, and posted on the House Web site.
Number 3: The draft must be voted on at a subsequent meeting of the House of
Assembly Management Commission; and,
Number 4: The Office of Legislative Counsel will prepare the final version
for publishing in The Newfoundland and Labrador Gazette as subordinate
legislation, upon which date the rules become effective.
As Speaker, I table those changes to the House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act, as a piece of subordinate legislation that
accompanies them at this time.
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.
MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the following motion,
seconded by my colleague from the District of Lewisporte, Mr. Wade Verge.
WHEREAS many graduate students in this Province and in the whole country are
currently experiencing severe financial difficulty because of high student loan
debt; and
WHEREAS many of these graduates had no other alternative but to accumulate
debt in order to fund their education; and
WHEREAS many of these graduates have had their lives put on hold while they
pay off this debt; and
WHEREAS this provincial government in its 2007 Budget reduced the interest
rate on the provincial portion of student loans to prime, offered needs-based
grants, and held the line on tuition;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls upon the federal
government to also reduce the interest rate on its portion of student loans to
prime;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House of Assembly ask the other
provinces and territorities to support this action by passing a similar motion
in their respective Legislatures.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to call Motion 2, first reading of Bill 20 standing in the name
of the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. The minister is
seeking leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Members Of The
House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, The Provincial Court Judges'
Pension Plan Act, The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers'
Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill 20)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of
Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The
Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, The Provincial Court
Judges' Pension Plan Act, The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers'
Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991, and that the said
bill be now read a first time. (Bill 20)
Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to
introduce Bill 20, and that the said bill be now read a first time?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.
The motion is carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to
introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly
Retiring Allowances Act, The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act, The
Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The
Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991," carried. (Bill 20)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly
Retiring Allowances Act, The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act, The
Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The
Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill 20)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time.
When shall the said bill be read a second time? Now? Tomorrow?
MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 20 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to call Motion 3, standing in the name of the Minister of
Government Services, for first reading of Bill 21,
An Act To Amend The Pension
Benefits Act.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of
Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To
Amend The Pension Benefits Act, and that the said bill be now read a first time.
(Bill 21)
Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to
introduce Bill 21, and that the said bill be now read a first time?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill,
"An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act," carried. (Bill 21)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act. (Bill 21)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time.
When shall the said bill be read a second time? Now? Tomorrow?
MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 21 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to move to Order 2, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 10,
An Act To Repeal The Bulk Sales Act.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House resolve itself into a Committee
of the Whole, and that I do now leave the Chair.
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.
Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Osborne): Order, please!
Bill 10,
An Act To Repeal The Bulk Sales Act.
A bill, "An Act To Repeal The Bulk Sales Act." (Bill 10)
CLERK: Clause 1.
CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.
MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Just to have a few words in regards to the Bulk Sales Act and repeal of the
Bulk Sales Act, is that I must, again, refer that the Law Society was consulted
and they furnished a detailed review of the statute. It was done by Mr. Jeffrey
Benson of Benson Myles, which certainly supported heavily the repeal of this
particular act.
Also, in regards to how - the statutes and the mandate, I guess, of the Bulk
Sales Act is covered off now under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the
Judgement Enforcement Act and the Personal Property Securities Act. We also
consulted with the Departments of Justice and Finance in regards and both
concurred with the repeal.
Last week I had some of my officials contact the general counsel, the policy
division of administry and Auditor General in Ontario, and they informed us that
they actually have not given much thought to it. They do not use their Bulk
Sales Act very much. A couple of years ago it was used but it was a very, very
unique situation. They have not used it in a number of years but they will
certainly be considering it in the near future in regards to repeal. In the
meantime, they have not given very much thought to it right now. In other words,
they have not gotten around to it, as my hon. colleague across the House
referenced last week in the House of Assembly.
Also, there was a court proceeding here in Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme
Court in October of 2007 in which Justice Robert Hall stated: I often wondered
what we would do with the Bulk Sales Act where everyone else pretty well - say
if Ontario has (inaudible) the thing and we still have it and they still have it
and there are differences between the two and sorting out what those differences
mean of where it fits in the scheme of the modern legislation to protect
creditors. Certainly, he referenced that this act had really no meaning in
regards to modern law today.
As I just referenced, again the law has changed, the way we conduct business
has changed and establishing credit has changed. Certainly, the more modern
legislation replaces the Bulk Sales Act.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank the minister for his information. It certainly clarified some of the
points that I asked. I am not totally clear yet on the issue though of Mr.
Benson. I asked a question last week of the minister: What was the Law Society
position on this and did he have any written documentation in that regard? He
kindly gave me the name of Mr. Benson and a phone number. I took it upon myself
to call Mr. Benson and ask but he would not release the information to me. He
said he had been appointed by the Law Society to give some opinions on the issue
of the Bulk Sales Act but that he did not feel at liberty to reveal the
information to me.
So, notwithstanding the minister's comments, I am no further ahead today as
to what the Law Society actually presented to government in regards to
justification for repealing the act than I was last week. I think Mr. Benson
found himself in a quandary that he did not give the information to government.
He gave the information to the Law Society and he did not know actually if what
he had said to the Law Society is what government ultimately relied upon and so
on. I am just wondering, again, if it is possible to get a copy of what the Law
Society gave to the minister, just for clarification? That would be helpful.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
MR. O'BRIEN: Certainly, I have no problem with that, in regards to that
detailed review. I will provide a copy to my hon. colleague across the House but
also I would not recommend stopping this piece of legislation from going through
this House at this particular day because, as I said before, the Law Society was
consulted. They actually reported heavily in favouring the repeal of this act,
in regards to it being archaic to our present legislation and the way business
is conducted in today's society.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Shall Clause 1 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK: Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive.
CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 7 inclusive carry?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On motion, clauses 2 through 7 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in
Legislative Session convened, as follows.
CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Repeal The Bulk Sales Act.
CHAIR: Shall the title carry?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried
On motion, title carried.
CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment,
carried.
CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave
to sit again.
CHAIR: It is moved by the Government House Leader that the Committee
rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit
again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi,
on a point of order.
MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I would ask the member if she would be kind enough for us to start to go back
into the House before she raises a point of order. We are in the stage of
changing from Committee to the House. When we start the regular business again,
I will certainly recognize the hon. member when she stands.
MS MICHAEL: Sorry, I thought we were.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South and Acting Deputy
Speaker.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed me to report Bill 10 carried without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the
Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to
report Bill 10 carried without amendment.
When shall this report be received?
AN HON. MEMBER: Now.
MR. SPEAKER: Now.
When shall the said bill be read a third time? Now? Tomorrow?
MR. T. OSBORNE: Presently, by leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Presently, by leave.
On motion, report received and adopted, bill ordered read a third time
presently, by leave.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party, on a point
of order.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
During Question Period I asked a question with regard to the ATIPP Act, and
asked my question in the context of public interest. I would like to point out
that
section 31 of the ATIPP Act is a public interest override. The main part of
it,
section 31.(1) says: "Whether or not a request for access is made, the
head of a public body shall, without delay, disclose to the public, to an
affected group of people or to an applicant, information about a risk of
significant harm to the environment or to the health or safety of the public or
a group of people, the disclosure of which is clearly in the public
interest."
I would like to say that my question with regard to a protocol with regard to
that
section was a proper question. I would like to say that.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Order please!
The Chair accepts the hon. member is standing for a point of clarification.
There is no point of order. It is a point of clarification.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to call Motion 4, which is a motion standing in
the name of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, having to do with the
recommendations of Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court Judge's salaries
and benefits and the tribunal report respecting those matters.
Motion 4, standing in the name of the Minister of Justice.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the resolution to accept the judicial
indemnity recommendations of the 2006 Provincial Court Judges' Salary and
Benefits Tribunal. The tribunal members are retired Justice Jeffrey Steele,
Chair, former Justice of the Trail Division and Court of Appeal, David Day, QC
and David Norris, all of whom have considerable knowledge and experience.
The report, Mr. Speaker, was tabled in the House of Assembly on April 10,
2008 for the review of all members.
The report makes the following recommendations: The establishment of a
judicial indemnity policy for the judges of the Provincial Court is, in
principle, warranted; and the Province and the Association working through their
legal counsel promptly undertake discussion with a view to formulating the terms
and conditions of a judicial indemnity policy acceptable to both parties; and
that the first subject matter for consideration be the defining of an overall
concept of the policy.
Mr. Speaker, in accepting these recommendations the House of Assembly is
accepting that a judicial indemnity policy for the judges is, in principle,
warranted, and the recommendation that the government and Provincial Court
judicial indemnity policy acceptable to both parties which will be submitted to
the tribunal for further consideration. In other words, Mr. Speaker, there is no
conclusion that a judicial indemnity policy will be adopted. There is no
conclusion as to what those terms will be. There is simply that there will be
discussions and that the there will be recommendations put forward.
It is a requirement under the Provincial Court Act, Mr. Speaker, the 1991
Act, that every four years a review be initiated of the salaries and benefits of
Provincial Court judges. While the tribunal has not rendered a definitive answer
on the content of an indemnity, we will certainly abide by their decision and
work with the Provincial Court judges to establish a reasonable policy which
protects the best interests of both the Province and Provincial Court judges.
We recognize, Mr. Speaker, the important role that Provincial Court judges
play in our judicial system as well as the importance of judicial independence.
However, we must also ensure we act appropriately and within policy.
This is perhaps as good a time as any, Mr. Speaker, to have a word on the
concept of judicial independence. In my approximately five and a half months now
as Minister of Justice the term judicial independence has been one that I have
heard perhaps as much as any other term. It is a difficult concept in one way
and it is a simple concept in another. It is simple to the extent, Mr. Speaker,
that we all realize and as Minister of Justice and Attorney General I
realize that we as a government, or I as a minister, cannot do anything to
interfere with the ability of judges to make their decisions. Nor can there ever
be any attempt to influence their decision in any way. However, Mr. Speaker,
once we get to the administrative aspect of this, it becomes much more difficult
and, if I could elaborate somewhat.
Judges have to be able to do their work unimpeded and unaffected by
government; however, Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Justice, I am accountable to
this Legislature and to the people of this Province. I will use the example of
criminal law to highlight the difficulty that I experience as Minister of
Justice and Attorney General.
Under
section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1982, the federal government
makes laws in relation to criminal law. Under
section 92(14), I think it is, of
the Constitution Act, the Province is responsible for the administration of
justice within the Province.
So what happens, Mr. Speaker, is that we have a Constitution that gives
powers to the federal government on one hand and to the provincial government on
another.
Court Judges are appointed by the Province. Salaries of the Superior Court
Court Judges are paid by the Province of Newfoundland. Along with salaries there
are costs of the courthouse, of administration, of running the administration of
justice.
On the one hand, the concept of judicial independence says that judges have
to be independent of government. On the other hand, government has to control
somewhat the expenditure of public funds.
This is something, Mr. Speaker, that, as Minister of Justice, I am having
difficulty with; however, I am pleased to state that we are working our way
through it, and that there is a Courts Administration Advisory Board made up of
the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal, the Chief Justice of the Trial
Division, and the Chief Judge of Provincial Court. So far, we are working our
way through some of the issues, although there are still difficulties.
Mr. Speaker, members of this hon. House may remember recently Chief Justice
Wells of the Court of Appeal giving a speech, I think it was at Rotary, talking
about the crumbling infrastructure surrounding the courts, and the need for new
facilities.
Now, the Chief Justice is certainly entitled to express his opinions, and we
welcome those opinions; however, as a government, we have obligations that
relate over and beyond to the, for example, construction of courthouses or
appointment of judges. We have obligations to the public, especially in relation
to health care and education. So, what happens, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a
tension between the terms. We need to be able to work with the judges and we
need to be able to work with them, provide them with funds, but not influence
them in their decision making.
So these discussions have been helpful, although I will say that in recent
months the concept has again arisen and I expect it to arise in the near future
with the release of the task force report on creating efficiencies in the
provincial court system. For example, Mr. Speaker, this task force report upon
which Chief Judge Reid sat will examine why it is taking so long to get to
court. Why is it taking twelve months to get a trial in Provincial Court in St.
John's?
This task force has made certain recommendations, as I have indicated, which
will be made public once we have had an opportunity to look at them from a
practical perspective and a financial and legislative perspective, but they can
make the recommendations they wish. As Minister of Justice I cannot force, nor
can this government force, the judges to adopt those recommendations.
To the average person, they are going to look at this and say: Well, these
judges are paid a lot of money to do a job. Why can't the Minister of Justice,
for example, instruct them to implement recommendations?
Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, we can do it without getting into an argument or
discussion. In other words, hopefully the Provincial Court will accept the
recommendations outlined in this report, which are meant to improve the
administration of justice in this Province. We do not want victims of crime, Mr.
Speaker, we do not want innocent accused, and we do not want witnesses waiting
forever for trials to take place. A common theme we hear is, especially in
Provincial Court, is that we need more judges. Well, one of the issues looked at
in this report is whether or not we need more judges or do we need to increase
efficiency within the resources that we have.
What I am hoping, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that the hon. Opposition House
Leader will also remember this from his days as Minister of Justice, is to
reduce the tension that exists; to work in a manner that is conducive to the
most efficient and effective administration of justice, but also to ensure that
judicial independence does not become trivialized, that judicial independence
does not become a reason for whenever the judges wish to disagree with us.
It is a difficult proposition in terms of the government as the executive
working with the judiciary has in regard of this principle. For those of us who
read the Green report - and I would assume it is everyone in this House - Chief
Justice Green in the early chapters reviews the issues of the interaction
between the judiciary, the executive, and the Legislature. For our system to
work effectively, Mr. Speaker, they all have to work together. So, I am pleased
to state that so far our discussions have been very fruitful with Chief Justice
Wells, Chief Justice Green and Chief Judge Reid of the provincial court.
So, this judicial indemnity policy is one that we will discuss. As I have
indicated to the judges, we will discuss things. However, I have an obligation
as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to report to this House and to
report to the people of this Province. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it becomes very
important that the relationships between the judges and the executive be one of
respect and mutual understanding of each others role.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is one point I would like to raise, since we are
talking about judges today, we will note that last week in the Supreme Court of
Canada, Mr. Justice Bastarache from New Brunswick resigned. In sixty years that
we have been part of Confederation there has never been a Supreme Court of
Canada Judge from Newfoundland. So what has to happen - and I will be writing
it to the attention of the federal MPs. It is time that we had a Supreme Court
of Canada Judge appointed from this Province. We have many good candidates. I
would suggest that in order for us to be properly represented and in order for
us to truly feel part of this federation that the opportunity now be given to
one of our judges to sit on the highest court in the land.
In the breakdown now, Mr. Speaker, of the Judges in the Supreme Court of
Canada, we have three from Ontario, three from Quebec, one from the western
provinces, one from BC, and one from the Atlantic provinces. So, what I am
suggesting is that not only must there be a working relationship between myself,
as Minister of Justice and Attorney General, and the judges, but also that it is
judge from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador should be elevated to the
highest court in the land.
Mr. Speaker, there are many more issues that will arise in the future in
relation to judges and as we work our way through this process. As I have
indicated, this is one that we will have to discuss, and the undertaking I will
give to the provincial court judges is that we will discuss this matter in good
faith. We will discuss the matter, having regard to its importance. The
commitment we are making is to discuss the matter and that judges must be
cognizant that as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General and as members of
this House, we have a larger role to play and that the court, as an institution,
is one that must be given proper respect but also there must be recognition of
the role that we play as a government.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for support of all hon. members in this House in passing
this resolution.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Right off the top let me say that we will certainly be voting in favour of
and supporting the resolution on the Provincial Judges Tribunal.
Just a little bit of further history on the thing. This House did not have a
very good record and the Department of Justice did not have a very good record
for quite a few years in terms of how we dealt with the issues of the provincial
court judges in terms of compensation and tribunals. I know all of the
Administrations from 1990, I do believe, up until around 2001, were outright
rejecting the concept in this Province of having a tribunal do it. I am pleased
to say, I think it was on this minister's watch when we were Minister of
Justice that we got over that. We said: Look, everywhere else in the country is
using a tribunal system and process to decide what the indemnities and to set up
what compensation should be for provincial court judges and we should be doing
the same thing.
So now we are a few years out. We got rid of that. We always seem to be at
loggerheads with our provincial court judges. We did not give a true
appreciation of the concept of judicial independence, and a lot of times you are
negotiating with the people who you are asking to be your judge. That is where
the problem comes in. The minister did not allude so much to the financial piece
but, basically, you have all heard the old saying that he who pays the fiddler
calls the tune. That was one of the basic problems. The government was paying
the provincial court judges and if you use that analogy, he who pays the fiddler
calls the tune, that was not appropriate. Just because the government might be
paying the provincial court judges - because of the concept of judicial
independence, that did not give you the right to call the tune. That was the big
issue. It seemed to be somehow, and it is contrary to: How can you expect a
judge to be totally, absolutely independent if at the same time you control his
or her pay check? So, we got past that, thank God, after ten years of saying no,
no, no. Some people said, well, the reason for it was, not that we did not want
them and that we did not pay due respect to the concept of judicial
independence, but we were simply in a case where we did not have the money to
pay. Again, that was determined not to be sufficient reason. There are some
things, regardless if you can or cannot afford it, you have to do. You might
have to compromise somewhere else, but there are certain things you have to do.
So we got past it, the tribunal concept was adopted, and away we go. Here we are
now; we are getting these tribunal reports with some regularity.
I notice from this particular one here, the issue of an actual policy as to
judicial indemnity was never dealt with before. It is an evolving process. They
are still trying to figure out, what are the components we are in need of, that
process, and this is where these two recommendations are coming from.
At least now the tribunal, all three persons on it, have said yes, the
concept, in principle, is warranted, of having a policy concerning judicial
give it further consideration so that they can flesh it out and ultimately
arrive at a decision.
We would be supportive, certainly we were, as a government, supportive of
the tribunal concept and we are supportive of what is coming out of the
tribunals here in terms of recommendations.
I note the minister's comments - he made several comments - the one he made
in particular about Chief Justice Wells giving a speech to the Rotary. I
appreciate that. I think that is a good move, as well, because too often judges
were expected to live a cloistered life. You get appointed to the bench. You are
supposed to have an appreciation of how society works, because you obviously
bring the mores of society, and everything else, into your decision-making
process when you are sentencing someone in society. Yet, by the same token, they
were sort of muzzled and expected not to say anything.
I think it is good, within reason, that judges not be out every day spouting
their theories, or certainly not their personal opinions; but, in terms of
giving some insight into how the courts are working, why certain things are
happening on their benches and so on, and how they approach certain issues, I
think that is good, and we have seen more of that in the recent past. We had the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Justice McLaughlin, out giving
several speeches in public. I think that is good stuff. It adds to the quality
of our system and it adds to the educational component of the public because we
need to know from them, the judges - not just based on a particular fact
situation, but these public pronouncements and speeches that they give, give us
some insight into the system and that is helpful.
So, I agree, I like to see what the Chief Justice did there and I look
forward to more of it. Another example would be Chief Justice Green. Albeit he
did not appear before the board of management here last Friday as a judge, it is
nice to see. He filled the role with the Green commission and he filed his
report here, of course, concerning the MHA instances, and he took the time to
come back here last Friday and explain, before the cameras again, why he thought
he needed to come back, and it was helpful. That is an example again of someone
who, albeit he was not here as a judge, he was here in his capacity as a
commissioner and explained why he put
section 45 into the new Accountability
Act, so that was helpful, and I think it is helpful for the whole public when
judges do that. It is very constructive and very healthy.
The minister also mentioned, as an aside, about the report that he
commissioned last fall into the workings of the justice system, and that raised
some controversy. In fact, I will probably ask the minister, in particular, in
Question Period some day, if I get a chance, why the report is not released. I
know he said today that it will be released some time, but they have to study it
to decide where they are going to go with the report. It was basically a report
into: Why is the justice system not working as quickly and efficiently as it
ought to?
That report came out more than a month ago, and I use those particular words,
more than a month, because that is very crucial in terms of the government's
overall policy of the release of reports. The government tells us in their Blue
Book 2003, in their Blue Book 2007: We shall release reports within thirty days.
Well, there is one there that, albeit not too far out, is over the thirty day
limit. The media have asked for the report. The minister said: No, we are not
giving it to you until we get it studied and we decide what we are going to do.
Well, I suggest that there is a difference between what you do with the
report and the fact that you release it; because, if we use that logic we will
never get a report within thirty days. Government can say, yes, we made a
commitment to release it, but we do not have it thoroughly analysed and decided
what we are going to do. We have not implemented an action plan on that report,
so therefore we are not going to put it out.
That flies in the face of the thirty day commitment. That flies in the face
of openness and accountability, based on that commitment. I think you cannot
have it both ways. What is wrong with keeping to the commitment and releasing
the report within a thirty day period? In fact, I would think it might be
helpful; because, albeit somebody prepared the report, why would you have a
report actioned, a plan decided, ready for implementation, then you release the
report and somebody says: Whoa, just a minute; there is another way of doing
that. There is a better way of doing that.
I would have thought that was part of the feedback process and, albeit the
minister commissioned the report, that he would put it out in thirty days so
that, in the course of deciding what your action plan was going to be, somebody
out there, God forbid - maybe the Law Society, maybe a member of the Law
Society, maybe some of the judges, maybe somebody who works in a court system,
maybe somebody who has been a party to a process in the court and found it to be
not timely - maybe somebody could have said: Well, Minister, they didn't
mention this is the report.
I find it awkward and it seems to be self-defeating when you say: Thank you
very much for your report. I am not going to show anybody until I get ready for
the action plan.
I thought that was the whole point. You got your report from somebody, but
why wouldn't you then let everybody read it to see if they can add to it? That
would seem to be the proper process. Again, the minister is only following the
same course as many other ministers. Notwithstanding that the commitment is
made, they just do not release the reports. Anyway, I think you cannot speak out
of both sides of your mouth and say you are going to and then, on the other
hand, you do not.
We will be in favour of that. Just as one final note in response to his
comment about the Supreme Court of Canada appointment, I would agree
wholeheartedly. There is a whole number of things that go into the mix, of
course, when the Prime Minister and the federal Minister of Justice make their
decision as to who it is. The last two appointments have come from the Province
of New Brunswick. It is done on a regional basis. Quebec is guaranteed so many
appointees under the Constitution. There is typically one appointee from
Atlantic Canada and so on, some from the West and so on, and Ontario. We have
had the last two come from New Brunswick. I would agree that the overbearing and
overarching consideration when you appoint them should be their integrity and
their ability, as understanders and learned in the law, their fairness and all
of those things. That obviously has to be who would make the best judge - there
are certain things that go into the mix - but there is no doubt that we have
those qualifications right here in this Province. There are people in our Court
of Appeal, and people in our Trial Division here who would be imminent judges
and would be qualified for that.
I think the minister should indeed spark the federal minister to consider. I
am not saying that New Brunswick needs to be disqualified because they had the
last two, but they have had the last two and surely if there is somebody in
another province who is capable and qualified, which there are here in our own,
there is no reason why that Justice should not come from Newfoundland and
Labrador.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we would agree with this resolution and we will
be voting in favour of it.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I just have a few comments that I want to make. Yes, obviously, we will be
supporting the resolution as well and voting for it. As the Opposition House
Leader has indicated, it is right and proper and it is about time. So, we will
be.
I want to pick up on a point that was made by both the Minister of Justice
and the Opposition House Leader with regard to the Supreme Court of Canada and
the fact that our time has come for somebody in the present to be nominated. The
Opposition House Leader referenced the fact that we have many people, many
lawyers, many judges, I should say, who have the required qualifications at this
moment to be nominated to the Supreme Court of Canada. I would just like to
point out - and I am sure the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women would
agree with me - that when we come to look at nominations, we would want to look
at both men and women because we have both men and women who are qualified for
the Supreme Court of Canada. I would like to think that this government will go
by what it says its commitment is with regard to equality, and that if it is
going to move forward on having a voice with regard to nominations to the
Supreme Court of Canada, that they will look very seriously at women in this
Province who have the qualifications and put forward the name of a woman or
women. This, I think, is something we should always be speaking to.
I also want to make a point that is not directly related to the judiciary but
is related to the legal system itself, and I want to take this moment to make
the point. There are areas in the Province where there are great concerns about
unequal access to the legal system, and one of those areas is Labrador West. I
was just in Labrador West on the weekend and for the umpteenth time, met with
the coordinator of the women's centre there. Yes, things are happening in
Labrador West and we now have a permanent judge in Labrador West, and they have
a place to have their court sessions, et cetera, but women, in particular,
especially when they are women who are no longer in a marital situation or a
situation with a partner because of abuse or other reasons and needs to have
access to court because of the situation with that partner, they do not have
access to legal aid. This is a major issue for women in Labrador West.
The coordinator of the women's centre in Labrador West spends an inordinate
amount of her time representing legal cases in Labrador West, having to help
women deal with the legal system. She is actually doing the work of a legal aid
worker, yet she is the coordinator of the women's centre. Every time I go
there I hear the same story from the coordinator of the women's center, the
amount of time that she has to spend helping women with the legal system because
there is no legal aid. I really encourage the Minister of Justice, I know that
representation has been made to him about this and I know that representation
has been made to the Minister of Finance with regard to this issue, and I really
encourage these ministers to look seriously at the needs of women in Labrador
West, and also the needs of the women who run the women's centre. If they are
going to be spending their time doing the work of legal aid workers, they are
not getting time to do the work that they should be doing as the staff and the
coordinator should be doing as the coordinator of the women's centre.
I am looking forward to seeing, in this year's Budget, monies allotted for
legal aid to be established in Labrador West so that women, number one, can have
their cases heard, that they do not have to go to court and have their cases not
heard because they do not have representation of a lawyer. Number two, so that
the coordinator of the women's centre can focus on what her work is supposed
to be.
As I said earlier, I will be voting for this resolution, Mr. Speaker, and I
am happy for the opportunity to have brought forward an issue that I know women
in Labrador West wanted brought forth.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
If the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General speaks now he will
close the debate on the motion.
The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the Opposition House Leader and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi
for their comments. These comments are certainly all taken into account. I hear
the Opposition House Leader's comments on the release of a report, but when we
are in a position in the near future the report will be released.
In relation to the comments from the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, we
are certainly very cognizant of the need for female judges and the need for
assistance for legal aid in Labrador West. I met with the committee in Labrador
West on a previous trip. I could say that in relation to the appointment of a
judge to the Supreme Court of Canada, I would have no problem with putting
forward the name of Madam Justice Margaret Cameron to the Supreme Court of
Canada or to the Minister of Justice in Ottawa, in supporting her nomination.
Finally, Mr. Speaker -
AN HON. MEMBER: There are a number of others.
MR. KENNEDY: Well, there are certainly others, but in terms of the female
component - also, interestingly enough, if there were a female appointment to
the Supreme Court of Canada it would be the first time ever that there would be
a majority of female judges on the Supreme Court of Canada, if I remember
correctly. I think this would bring it to five.
I have no problem with those comments, and I thank the hon. members for their
comments. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Order please!
Is the House ready for the question?
The Chair will not read the complete motion. I will read the last
whereas:
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House accept the recommendations of
the report of the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court Judges Salaries and
Benefits Tribunal respecting an indemnity for Provincial Court Judges.
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.
The motion is carried.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 16, standing in the name
of the Minister of Natural Resources,
An Act To Amend The Forestry Act.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that bill 16,
An Act To Amend The
Forestry Act, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Forestry
Act." (Bill 16)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased today to rise to speak to this amendment to establish timber
royalty repayment retroactive to January 1, 2008.
This is a very small amendment to this bill and it is meant to align the
scheduling of timber royalty payments with timber cutting permits, forest
management plans and the annual allowable harvest levels for better consistency.
This was identified in a joint review between my department and the Department
of Environment and Conservation of the forest management planning process back
in 2003. The review was intended to improve the effectiveness of the forest
management process. As a result of that exercise, forest Crown management plans
are now based on a calendar year synchronizing them with plans prepared by
industry. As well, forest management planning is aligned with annual allowable
harvest levels which are issued at five-year intervals effective from the first
of the year of issuance. Calendar year scheduling was also implemented in the
area of licensing and permitting in January of last year.
This amendment provides for a consistency in all of these areas, and it is
just the last loose end that we need to tie together. Moving to a calendar year
is also considered a suitable time of year for operators to obtain their cutting
permits, as there is traditionally a lull in forest activities at that time.
Historically, the scheduling of all forest management activities implemented by
the department was based on the fiscal year.
Also, for the information of the Members of the House of Assembly, a new
royalty regime was put in place on January 1 of this year, and I am pleased to
say that there are no increases in timber royalty rates for 2008, and some
forest operators will pay lower rates under certain conditions.
Sometimes the question is asked, Mr. Speaker, why we have royalty rates at
all. It is a requirement under the softwood lumber agreement. It requires us to
have a royalty rate. Otherwise we are seen to be subsidizing the industry.
The Forestry Act provides government with the authority to establish royalty
rates for the commercial use of trees. The decision not to increase royalty
rates, and provide rate reductions in certain circumstances, demonstrates that
the government is sensitive to the challenges facing the forest industry,
particularly forest sector workers supporting the economies of many rural
communities throughout our Province.
It is a very, very, difficult time in this industry, Mr. Speaker, as everyone
in this House is well aware. We are working with the industry to overcome the
challenges that face us and we hope, in the months ahead, to be able to make
some good announcements.
The new royalty regime includes a broad range of forest conditions under
which to reduce the royalty rate. Conditions eligible for rate reduction
include: harvest in difficult terrain conditions, areas of damaged forest
stands, or snow clearing to access trees to cut.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for a
summary
of her bill.
Of course, we have had an opportunity as well to look at the changes that are
being implemented here. We also realize, Mr. Speaker, that the bill would amend
a subsection of the act relating to the ability to make retroactive regulations
around setting timber royalty rates and stumpage fees, and that the proposed
changes would also allow the rates to be made retroactively on a calendar year
basis, as I understand it now.
Mr. Speaker, these changes are, I guess, based purely on operational
considerations that are related to the financial planning needs for commercial
operators throughout the Province. We understand from some discussions that we
had with loggers in the last number of weeks that this has been recommended by
small-scale logging operators in our Province for quite some time. It was also
noted to us that the changes could result in a rollback of the royalty rate that
was set for April 2007, retroactive to January 2008.
Maybe the minister might want to clarify that for me when she has some
closing comments on the bill, because I think loggers were questioning a couple
of things: one, as to whether they would get a reimbursement this year with
regard to that rollback, if there would be any reimbursement of funds that would
accrue to small-scale logging operations in the Province as a result of any
stumpage fees, or fees that they may have already paid out. The other thing they
were questioning was whether a rollback in the royalty rates could be applied to
fuel wood or whether royalties would be removed from fuel wood all together,
because I think there was some question, Minister, around that, as to whether it
applied to fuel wood or just to the logs themselves, and whether that would be
eligible for the rollback and the rebate as well to those small logging
companies or loggers who were participating in that program.
I think the idea was that now they are paying something like five point five
cents taxes, is what they communicated to me, per cubic metre of wood. That
would result in a truckload of wood being about $260 plus the tax that would go
on top of that. They were not entirely sure if that was a rebateable tax, I
suppose, or if it was not a rebateable tax. Certainly, I don't know the answer
to that.
Mr. Speaker, in terms of the changes being implemented in Bill 16, we
certainly welcome it, as an Opposition. We think this change is required in the
legislation, and certainly got a good understanding of that from the loggers
that we have talked to; but, Mr. Speaker, I do have some concerns as well that
were expressed by these loggers, not necessarily directly related to the fees
but certainly very directly related to the industry itself, and that was views
that were expressed by loggers on the Northern Peninsula. Mr. Speaker, they are
very concerned that their contract they had with Corner Brook Pulp and Paper
expired as of March 31, 2008, and that there was no renewed agreement put in
place.
Mr. Speaker, for those in the public who have followed this issue, if you go
back a couple of years you will realize that there was almost a complete
shutdown of the logging industry on the Northern Peninsula of the Province. At
the time Kruger was not prepared to make investments into upgrades that had to
be done on roads, bridges that had to be built and new sections of road that had
to be done, and therefore government worked a deal between, I guess, the company
and the loggers and the Province in which they invested an amount of money to be
able to bring that infrastructure up to standard and allow people to be able to
continue to log in that area. As a result, Corner Brook Pulp and Paper agreed to
continue to buy from that area up until this spring.
Mr. Speaker, that particular deal has now expired and it has not been
replaced by any new agreements, and that is of concern to the people in that
area. I think the minister will agree that there are somewhere around 250 people
who are directly employed in the logging industry on the Northern Peninsula and
many of them have bought equipment in the last number of years, especially in
the last two years, that was very high priced equipment that they had to go out
and obtain financing for in order to participate in the logging industry in that
particular area. Therefore, they would like to ensure that they are going to
have a return on their financial investments. Right now, I think they feel that
there is a tremendous uncertainty around whether that will occur or not.
We did, Mr. Speaker, make some inquiries to Corner Brook Pulp and Paper on
this particular issue. Obviously, there wasn't a tremendous, I guess, amount
of information coming forward on the issue, but what we were able to clarify
with them is that at the time they really didn't have any particular interest
in buying wood in this area and that they will honour the agreements that they
have in place for the barging of wood from Southern Labrador and also from
Prince Edward Island, but they were not prepared to enter into, at this stage
and this is just my understanding any new agreements on the Northern
Peninsula. I guess it becomes a question for government as to what they will do
to facilitate continuous activity in the industry in that area.
They have also, Mr. Speaker, in information we did obtain as well from Corner
Brook Pulp and Paper, in asking them a direct question about Number 4 paper mill
- as you know, that particular mill was closed down last year and number 4 has
not operated since then. It has not operated since last November and we wanted
to know when Number 4 paper mill would be in operation again in Corner Brook. We
have been unable to get any commitment from the company, and I do not know if
government has pushed to get any commitment from them on what they will do. You
know, with this extra paper mill closed down, this is obviously impacting on the
number of people who would be employed at Corner Brook Pulp and Paper as well as
the supply of pulp wood that they would require for their operation, and
therefore it is having an impact upon the logging industry in this particular
area.
Mr. Speaker, this is a huge problem. I understand from people on the Northern
Peninsula that the Minister of Natural Resources had agreed to meet with them
back in February but substantially that meeting got cancelled and there has been
no other meeting scheduled to my understanding.
MS DUNDERDALE: (Inaudible).
MS JONES: The minister is telling me across the House that she did meet
with them on February 28, however the information they gave us was that the
meeting did not occur. I will give you the name of the individual who gave me
the information. It was an individual from the Northern peninsula and I will
give that name to the minister after I finish speaking, so that the next time
they can be invited to the meeting so they will know that it occurred. It was an
individual who was involved in the logging industry, I say to the minister.
They are concerned that there has not been any new contract entered into
between government and Corner Brook Pulp and Paper or any other company in that
particular area. Of course, they are concerned they are going to be with nowhere
to sell their pulpwood, and if they have no market for their pulpwood it is
going to be very challenging for them to continue in the logging industry
itself. As you know, pulpwood is a byproduct of the industry and if you do not
have a market to offload it, well then you are restricted in the amount of logs
you can harvest on a regular basis.
Mr. Speaker, we would like to see some action on that item. I know that there
has been a study done. I think it was Halifax Global that did a study to look at
the long-term wood supply on the Northern Peninsula and in other areas of
Newfoundland and where they could look at establishing some kind of operation
for the continued processing of wood. I am not sure how successful that practice
was, but we certainly have not seen any tremendous innovative ideas or
industries or businesses being created as a result of it. The same company also
did a study in Labrador and that study goes back three to four years ago, which
was a very detailed piece of work. In fact, it summarized some fairly good ideas
about activity that could take place in Labrador around the wood industry, but
to date we have not seen any of it materialize. We have not seen any real
coordination of effort to see these ideas come to fruition, so I guess as a
result of that it was an exercise that yielded little results at the end of the
day.
Mr. Speaker, I want to encourage the minister and her government to look at
what can be done to assist the people on the Northern Peninsula who are now
finding themselves in a situation where they have no opportunity to be able to
continue in the logging industry as a result of lost market and an expired
agreement that was originally negotiated by government. It seems like there is
some reluctance on the part of Corner Brook Pulp and Paper right now to buy wood
from that particular area simply because there is no great need within the mill
operation for extra wood that they would get from that area. Also with Number 4
paper machine closed down, I guess the demands they would have normally had for
wood supply has also lessened and therefore the same need is not there. As a
result of that, the people on the Northern Peninsula are the individuals who are
losing out in terms of that opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I just want to say that we do support the
amendments that are being introduced with regard to Bill 16, the Forestry Act.
The changes would allow for the regulation of timber royalties and rates on a
calendar year basis. My questions directly around that bill were with regard to
the retroactive reimbursement of fees to loggers in the industry and small scale
operators, and if that reimbursement of fees would indeed be applicable to fuel
wood as well. Those were the two questions that I have with regard to the bill
and how that will impact the people in the industry. Outside of that, we
certainly would support the legislation and we have no problem giving
endorsement to it today.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
If the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources speaks now, she will close the
debate on Bill 16.
The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the Opposition Leader for her questions.
I do not have immediate answers for them, Mr. Speaker. They are not simple
answers because the royalty reductions are not right across the board. They are
for operators who are in difficult terrain, hard to access roads and so on. The
operators who have difficulty accessing wood can expect some kind of a rebate
but that will not apply right across the board to all operators. I will get more
detailed information on the questions posed by the Leader of the Opposition and
I will provide that information to her.
In regard to the rest of her comments, Mr. Speaker; as I said in my opening
remarks, we are more than aware of the difficulties that are being faced in the
forestry industry worldwide, particularly here in Newfoundland and Labrador and
particularly on the West Coast too, where harvesters have not only had to face
the collapse of the timber market in the US but they have also had a definite
impact from the closure of one of the machines in Corner Brook Pulp and Paper.
So, it has been a very definite and severe impact on the West Coast of the
Island particularly.
We are in regular touch with them through the Forestry and Agrifoods Agency
which is centered out in Corner Brook. I had a meeting with the saw millers in
February at their request. Certainly nobody was excluded on my part because I
did not do the inviting. They requested to have the meeting. We did have a very
good meeting. I shared with them the work of the Interdepartmental Committee
that has been put together in government to deal with these issues and to try
and find answers. Some of the answers lie within government and some lie within
the private sector. They know all of those pieces are at work and we don't
have control of all of them, but we are engaged, full engaged, trying to find
solutions that will put this industry back on its feet again; and that is what
we need to do. We are going to continue with that piece, and hopefully we will
able to come back with something definitive in the very near term.
You know I have an open door policy. I am always happy to meet with people
and talk to people, but we are going to do things properly and we are going to
do things right. There was a great appreciation for that from the people
involved in the industry who I met with in February and others involved with the
industry who I have met with since.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move second reading of this
amendment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 16,
An Act To
Amend The Forestry Act, 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 Forestry Act. (Bill 16)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time.
When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House? Now?
Tomorrow?
MR. RIDEOUT: Presently, by leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Presently, by leave.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To amend The Forestry Act," read a
second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by
leave. (Bill 16)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At this time I would like to call Order 10, second reading of Bill 15,
standing in the name of the Minister of Municipal Affairs,
An Act To Amend The
City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act And The Municipalities
Act, 1999.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 15, entitled
An Act To
Amend The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act And The
Municipalities Act, 1999, be now read second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Mount
Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act And The Municipalities Act, 1999."
(Bill 15)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This piece of legislation came about, I guess it is probably in the minds of
people out there now, with relationship to the St. John's Harbour Cleanup.
What this bill will do, Mr. Speaker, it will give the authority to the
municipalities - St. John's, Mount Pearl and the Town of Paradise - the
regulations to control what goes into the systems, and to prevent any toxics
going into the systems emanating from residential or commercial or any other
structure along the whole feeder system into the sewer system. This is important
for us because, number one, I think one of the things that need to be given to
municipalities is authority to be able to go in and periodically check
residential homes, commercial buildings, to make sure that there is no toxic
waste coming from any of those facilities going into the sewer system. If we can
prevent that, then that will help make sure that the cleaning system that is
going to be put in with St. John's Harbour Cleanup, that there are no
contaminants going into that, and to help prevent that from happening.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to that, is that, again, when you go back to what
happened prior to this, is that the municipalities would be able to find a
source, but they never had the regulations to go in and investigate the origin
of any contaminants but this bill, Mr. Speaker, will allow for the
municipalities to go in and find out if there are any contaminations coming from
an existing facility, and that way it will prevent the waterways of our
tributaries to make sure there is nothing flowing into the fresh water stream,
both in the municipalities and in the areas which they represent.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is not a big piece of legislation, but it is a very, very
important one because any time we are talking about our environment, and
environment is a big issue today, then we need to make sure that we put in the
safety net to help protect it. Mr. Speaker, that is what this bill will do.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Member for Port de Grave would normally respond to this piece of
legislation but he got called away, so I will pinch hit for him.
We will certainly be supportive of this piece of legislation. As the minister
says, it may not be a monumental piece but it is certainly important. As time
goes on, of course, environmental concerns, circumstances change, not only the
City of St. John's or the City of Mount Pearl but it is all municipalities, as
I understand it, will have the option now to set up proper protocols and
processes for persons who want to discharge certain prohibited materials.
I like the fact, too, that it covers not only the private residence but
commercial, because a lot of times - I know in some communities in my district
in particular, you particularly get certain kinds of commercial operators of
certain businesses, and the question has been raised quite often: Where does the
discharge go? Some of these materials, of course, are hazardous materials from
time to time, but at least now I understand that municipalities will have the
right to make the proper codes and put the proper rules in place so that they
can do inspections on-site if they wish at the source and determine how these
materials are being disposed of.
It is nice to see that the legislation is, again, moving forward and
reflecting the new practices and the best practices that ought to exist when it
comes to disposal of certain prohibited materials. We will be voting in favour
of Bill 15.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Any further comments?
The hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
We, too, will be supporting the bill. I am actually quite pleased to