May 21, 2009              HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS              Vol. XLVI   No. 24


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

MR. T. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General, on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House, in responding to a question from the Government House Leader, I gave some information which I found out this morning was incorrect and I would like to correct that.

I indicated yesterday that there were twenty-two single bed cells at the women's correctional facility in Clarenville for a capacity of twenty-two. The reality is, is that there are ten double bed cells with a capacity of twenty.

I also indicated that I was unaware of any triple bunking at Clarenville, and being under the impression that there were twenty-two single cells with one bed each, in order to have triple bunking you would have to have over forty-four people there. In view of the corrected information, I am advised that there has been triple bunking since April.

So I just wanted to make sure that the correct information was given to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order, a point of information. I thank the hon. Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.

Today the House of Assembly would like to welcome a group of forty students from Grades 9 to 12 who are visiting from Appalachia High School in St. George's, in the District of St. George's-Stephenville East; and Piccadilly Central High of Piccadilly in the District of Port au Port. These students are accompanied by their teacher Ms Lib Green.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also visiting today are thirteen students, from Grades K to 12, from All Saints All Grade School of Burgeo, in the District of Burgeo & LaPoile.

AN HON. MEMBER: Grey River.

MR. SPEAKER: District of Grey River, a misprint. From the community of Grey River, my humble apologies.

The students are accompanied by their teachers Mr. Wilson Warren, Ms Tracey Bragg; and their chaperons, Ms Cavalle Young, Ms Patsy Young, Ms Wanda Warr, Ms Cathy Barter, Ms Geraldine Warr and Ms Sandra Lawrence, as well as their bus driver, Mr. John Power.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Today the House of Assembly would also like to welcome in the Speaker's gallery, the Minister of Environment and Conservation, with her new daughter Jorja.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard: the hon. the Member for the District of Lake Melville, the hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the hon. the Member for the District of Placentia & St. Mary's, the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, the hon. the Member for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale, the hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.

Does the hon. Member for the District of Lake Melville have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Lake Melville, by leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House to pay tribute to Henry Shouse, a great man of Labrador, who passed away this week at the Labrador Health Centre in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Mr. Shouse left a legacy that few can match. Hank, as most people knew, changed the face of Labrador, and in doing so, made history.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Shouse spent most of his life in Labrador, first coming to work at the American Air Base and then living in North West River. It is interesting to point out that for many years the only way to visit the community was by crossing the river in boat. Mr. Shouse was instrumental in having a cable-car placed in North West River, providing a safe, year-round river-crossing mechanism.

Mr. Shouse will be remembered as a lover of community, and as a visionary. He played a pivotal role in the formation of the Trans-Labrador Highway. He fought for it passionately when many said it could never happen. He saw what others could not see at the time: that the highway would bring a true sense of connectivity and a better quality of life for all Labradorians. Some of us referred to Mr. Shouse affectionately as the "Godfather of the Trans-Labrador Highway."

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Shouse had a deep and profound connection to Labrador that was showcased through the tapestry of his exceptional life. He held positions of councillor in both Happy Valley-Goose Bay and North West River. As well, he served both as Deputy Mayor and Mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

His achievements are numerous and vast. Mr. Shouse was the driving force behind the now classic Labrador Canoe Regatta. He was a tireless advocate for equity in postal rates in Northern Labrador. He donated the first computer to a local school in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. He regularly provided school bands with donations of equipment. He owned a school bus service where, on top of his regular bus driver duties, he would bring children from North West River to play hockey in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and treat them at local restaurants.

Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for all of us who knew Hank and his family. Yet, we will remember Hank for all his great deeds and accomplishments. Every time we travel on the Trans-Labrador Highway, whenever we visit the historic community of North West River, or when we participate in the Labrador Canoe Regatta, we will remember his life and his legacy. Mr. Shouse will always be remembered as a true son of Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in the House today and recognize the Quidi Vidi Village Foundation's tenth anniversary.

The Quidi Vidi Village Foundation was founded in 1999 as a citizen's movement to preserve the unique cultural and historical roots of the Quidi Vidi area. During those ten years the Foundation has worked tirelessly to promote the community and has been one of the most active and outgoing community groups in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, since 1675 the Quidi Vidi gut has been an outport within the city, and has remained as an important centre of fishing on the Avalon. In 1999, in response to the perceived over-development of the area, concerned citizens formed the Quidi Vidi Village Foundation to voice their concerns and to have their voice heard within decision-making.

Since then, Mr. Speaker, it has been very active, hosting various events for children and adults alike such as the annual Quidi Vidi Garden Party, Christmas Breakfast with Santa, and dozens of other events and programs that help preserve the closeness of this community. Not included in my notes, if anybody notices the small park for children, the little playground up on top of the hill from the gut, that is there because of the Foundation.

Judy Ryerson , present chair, and Barbara Mallard, the first chair of the organization, are here today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the Quidi Vidi Village Foundation and their founding members on their tenth anniversary, and their continuing devotion to this beautiful, unique and historic community.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to pay tribute to two volunteers in the Town of Placentia. The names of Genevieve Follett and Frances Pearson were recently announced by Governor General Michaëlle Jean as recipients of the Caring Canadian Award. Only two other recipients received this award from our Province. This award, which was created in 1996, honours people and groups who provide extraordinary help or care to people in the community.

Jenny and Frances have dedicated countless hours to seniors in Placentia, especially the residents at Lions Manor and the Placentia Health Care Centre. They both volunteer daily at the centre and have done so for fifteen and twenty years respectively. The assist in all aspects of the seniors' lives: from recreation activities to comforting the ill and the dying. They are responsible for bringing smiles to the faces of seniors, which, Mr. Speaker, is the only reward they seek.

Mr. Speaker, Jenny and Frances represent the thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who give so generously of themselves and their time to others.

I ask all hon. members of this House to join with me in congratulating Jenny and Frances on this prestigious recognition and thank them and their colleagues whose volunteer work make such a difference in the lives of so many.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 in the House today to congratulate several youth from Mountain Field Academy in the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair who were recently awarded prized in the Protected Areas Association's Wild Art Competition.

Mr. Speaker, the Protected Areas Association of Newfoundland and Labrador held its twelfth annual Province-wide competition and announced its winners on April 22, which coincided with Earth Day. The selections were made from 489 entries from seventeen schools throughout the Province and were judged by a distinguished Newfoundland and Labrador artist and Protected Areas Association patron Christopher Pratt. I would like to congratulate Taylor Rae Groves who won first place in Primary division, Matthew Buckle who won first place in Elementary division, and I am also proud to congratulate and recognize Michael Thomas, a Grade 5 student, and Christy Groves, a Grade 12 student, who both received honourable mentions.

Mr. Speaker, these recognitions speak volumes about the talent and the quality of the arts program at Mountain Field Academy and I ask all members of the House to join with me in congratulating these four students on their accomplishments and all participants from across the Province on their efforts and the awareness that they have created around protecting our wilderness.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize and congratulate Kyle Hennebury, son of Edward and Wilma Hennebury of Baie Verte. Kyle captured the gold medal in the Industrial Millwright Mechanic Post-Secondary category at the twelfth Annual Provincial Skilled Trade and Technology competitions held on April 3.

Kyle is a student in the multi-skills industrial trades program at the Baie Verte campus of the College of the North Atlantic. He will now represent Newfoundland and Labrador at the National Skills Canada competition held in P.E.I. on May 20-24. In fact, he is speaking right now – oh, I am sorry; he is competing right now as I speak.

The graduate of Baie Verte High School was judged on four different components: interpret, draw and assemble a hydraulic circuit; perform a rim and face shaft alignment; interpret, assemble and align power transmission components; and interpret and install spherical roller bearings.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all colleagues to join me in congratulating Kyle, his instructors, and the Baie Verte College of the North Atlantic, for this outstanding achievement and wish him success at the national competition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize recent accomplishments by students at Lewisporte Collegiate and Elwood Regional High School. These students have been participating in a provincial trivia game that was developed by the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, in partnership with the Department of Education and Futures in Newfoundland and Labrador's Youth.

This game was designed to educate high school students about the importance of workplace health and safety. Four school districts, involving eight schools, have been competing for over $20,000 in scholarships and prizes throughout this academic year.

The final competition was between Elwood Regional High, of which I am the former principal, and Lewisporte Collegiate, in which the MHA for Lewisporte is the former principal. Lewisporte Collegiate students won the competition on May 8, 2009. For winning, they received a cash prize of $10,000; $5,000 went to the school and each of the five participants earned $1,000. The Elwood team placed second and received $5,000 in prize money, with $2,500 going to the school and $500 going to each of the five participants.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that the two MHAs were present for the final competition and retained their professional demeanour. The security was on heightened alert but thankfully their services were not needed. Congratulations to both schools, including students, teachers and program sponsors that have been involved in bringing attention, in a positive manner, to the importance of workplace, health and safety.

Mr. Speaker, this was indeed an excellent learning experience for all involved and hopefully resources can be found so this exceptional program can continue. Two proud MHAs in this hon. House would certainly enjoy the opportunity of a rematch.

I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating Lewisporte Collegiate and Elwood Regional High on their recent achievements.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would like to welcome the Chair and the past-Chair of the Quidi Vidi Village Foundation, Ms Judy Ryerson and Ms Barbara Mallard.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform the House of a significant investment that we are making in our T'Railway Provincial Park system, Mr. Speaker, which was led by Minister Johnson through the Budget process and we are very pleased with it..

In February of last year, Mr. Speaker, we became aware of structures spanning both navigable and non-navigable waters which required attention to address public safety issues. At the time, officials from the Department of Environment and Conservation, along with bridge engineers from the Department of Transportation and Works, conducted an assessment of the structures along the T'Railway and developed a plan to address the concerns that were raised. I am delighted, Mr. Speaker, that we will spend $2 million this year to remove and replace the bridges that are an important part of this valuable trail system.

We are working in partnership with the T'Railway council, and tenders are now in development for the removal of bridge structures at Bear Cove Brook, Codroy North Branch, Morris Brook, Middle Brook, Robinson's River East, and Robinson's River West. The tender has already closed for the removal of the Crabbes River Bridge. Mr. Speaker, the T'Railway council has purchased five new bridges and they will be installed at Middle Brook, Morris Brook, Codroy North Branch, Robinson's River East and Robinson's River West.

Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes the significance and the integrity of the T'Railway system and of the absolute importance of ensuring public safety. We are committed to a provincial park system that provides a high-quality and a safe outdoor experience for residents and non-residents, and we recognize the integral role that the T'Railway plays in this system. We will continue to monitor the long-term operational requirements and viability of the entire T'Railway Provincial Park, and implement appropriate measures to ensure its sustainability.

Government is committed, Mr. Speaker, to protecting our natural environment. In fact, it is a priority for this government. We understand that a strong provincial park system is key to helping us achieve our environmental protection goals, while also contributing to the development of our Province's ecotourism industry. We recognize the balance we need to strike as we develop means to support the economic and social needs of residents and visitors in terms of our natural areas, while also protecting ecosystems and significant features in our parks.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for the advanced copy of the statement and to say that we believe improving the T'Rails is a good initiative.

We know that public safety should be first and foremost and we know that many tourists, many outsiders travel to our Province to use those rail beds, but, Mr. Speaker, I cannot let this opportunity pass without saying that individuals in our Province are still being charged fees for using the T'Rails with regards to what was familiarly known as stickers but now we have it changed to markers, and this was a promise government made back in 2004.

We know citizens tried to take this to court, I guess, and sue government saying that this was an illegal tax, but the lawyers in the Province for the government soon shut that down when they said that they demanded a down payment of $30,000 just in case they lost in court. Meanwhile, the citizens are still being charged for those markers. Since then, T'Rails has been extended well beyond the old railway bed in traditional roads. As the minister stated, we do have to strike a balance. We have to come up with economic and social reasons for our citizens, but we also have to protect the ecosystem.

Mr. Speaker, I think that is all the more reason why we should soon hear some word on the Outdoor Bill of Rights which was promised by this party back many years ago, and this government now says they will not come forward with it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

Obviously, I am very pleased to see continued investment in this valuable park system, which benefits both our own tourists provincially as well as tourists from outside.

I am curious about the fact that the statement refers to only five of the bridges being replaced. There is no word that Bear Cove Brook bridge will be replaced and there is nothing about replacing Crabbes River bridge. I know that people in that area, in particular, are concerned about Crabbes River Bridge being replaced. I am wondering if this means that it is not going to happen. I hope we are going to hear in the future that such is not the case.

I am glad to see that the government is concerned about the ecological concerns, but one of the things I think we need to also remember is that these trails have a very heavy ATV usage, and ATV safety continues to be an issue in the Province. If we are going to continue to promote the T'Rails, as I think we should, I think we are going to have to have a more aggressive educational program to get people to more safely use their ATVs both on these T'Railways as well as anywhere else.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in March of this year our office distributed a questionnaire to municipal leaders on the Provincial Waste Management Strategy, which involved the elimination of Teepee incinerators and the amalgamation of two hundred plus dumpsites into three engineered landfills, or, as we tend to call them, super dumps. Mr. Speaker, 55 per of those responding municipalities stated that they were not satisfied with the current direction of the plan and the cost associated with it.

I ask the minister today, if she is aware of the level of dissatisfaction with the department's Waste Management Strategy, and if there is a process whereby municipalities can have their concerns dealt with.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the question.

We have waste management boards set up throughout the Province, and they are working quite well. There is a group of volunteers that manages those boards, and various municipalities are represented on that board, so they are moving. It is a strategy that this government has invested over $200 million in. It is a strategy that you cannot afford not to buy into.

We need to protect our environment. We need to protect it for our generations today and for future generations, so there are a lot of things that have to be worked out in these boards with various municipalities; but the cost to the waste management, in some cases, is about $8 a household so the cost is not exorbitant for the municipalities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under the policy direction of government, most of these municipalities are aware that they have to sign on, close down their dumps and incinerators by a certain deadline. Many of these municipal leaders have not been given answers on what the cost detail of the strategy is, and what resources or supports will be there to support them.

I ask the minister today: What cost analysis has the department done in the implementation of the Waste Management Strategy for each of the regions, and if you can table those figures in the House of Assembly?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will certainly endeavour to get any cost analysis that has been done, but one thing that is happening is that in various regions local boards have been set up and they are progressing quite well.

In other regions, incinerators are still operating but within confined time frames because agreements have been reached whereby they are moving ahead with their Waste Management Strategy, closing out their sites and conjointly sharing with other communities to go to one facility, and those have been granted extensions to accommodate that.

Mr. Speaker, our intent here as a government, as the minister just said, we have invested heavily in this. Look around. At one point there were some 250 of these dumps around the Province. Right now there are below 200, so progress is being made and we will continue to do so, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The concern that was outlined to us in the survey we did with these municipalities is on the annual cost, the usage cost, of operating the facilities.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister today: Can he confirm to the House that information received from municipal leaders is indicating that the cost of garbage collection and disposal has risen by nearly 500 per cent for some of these municipalities over a period of three years?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the municipalities have been expressing some concern over the 100 kilometres transportation. We, as a government, have said that we would certainly look at that, so we are aware of the cost. In some cases I have been told that it works out to somewhere in the vicinity of half a cup of coffee in some cases - that is what it boils down to - to protect our environment.

There are figures available to the boards that they have been talking on the boards. We are aware of the cost with regard to over 100 kilometres and we will address that as a government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These municipalities are concerned. It is not that they do not want to participate in an environmentally-friendly program, Minister; it is the fact that they have to pay for it and pay extraordinarily for it in some cases, such as the one I just indicated.

Municipal leaders are also not being given a choice with regard to the Provincial Waste Management Strategy. We learned from one town, the Town of King's Point, that they have been denied approved funding for their roadwork for not signing on to this strategy.

I ask the minister: Are there other communities besides King's Point that are being denied approval of capital works money on the basis of not signing on to this agreement?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, there is no municipality being denied their capital works program. There is a process in place where they have to submit their applications for any of their capital works.

I will say to the Opposition Leader that the capital works program we are rolling out with this strategy in waste management, this year alone we have invested $43 million in Robin Hood Bay on the Avalon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Again, I cannot emphasize enough in this House of Assembly how important it is to move forward with this Waste Management Strategy, and from all indications the boards are doing just that in the Province and they are addressing all of the issues pertaining to cost (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very serious issue for municipalities, I say to the members opposite, but municipalities have seen no increase in their Municipal Operating Grants and, in fact, over a period of time their operating costs have actually tripled.

I ask the minister: Without the increases in the MOGs, how are these municipalities which have a declining population base, as we know from the recent statistics, how will they afford the rising costs of garbage collection and disposal as is being forced upon them by government right now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I say to members that the Chair is having great difficulty hearing the questions and hearing the responses. I ask for your co-operation.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MS WHALEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just in answer to your question, there have been no cutbacks in our MOGs. In fact, this year the municipalities are experiencing a 13 per cent increase in their MOGs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Many of the town officials also expressed to us their disappointment that the new gas tax secretariat has no autonomy to dispense the federal Gas Tax Funds for such things as helping them with garbage disposal and collection in transportation, despite the fact that it is an environmentally-focused program.

Minister, I ask you: Why are the municipalities unable to access their portion of the federal Gas Tax Fund for this purpose, and is that a decision of your department or is it a decision of the federal government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the Gas Tax Fund is a federal program and there are also guidelines set down by the federal government of what they are able to do with that gas tax.

I have heard the concerns of the municipalities and we are going to endeavour to work with the federal government to see if we can have some flexibility with regard to those guidelines.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

We had town clerks, as well, express to us that they almost felt panic as to what will happen to their council and senior residents when the Waste Management Strategy is implemented in some regions, all because of cost again.

I ask the minister: Has government considered any regulatory rate process that could be used for waste management in the Province so that people are not penalized based on where they live, or the distance in which their garbage needs to be transported under your particular strategy?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, we are quite conscious about the cost with regard to this strategy. We would not be investing $200 million in this strategy if we did not think it was necessary, but the Province cannot afford not to buy into this. We are fifteen years behind our counterparts in other parts of the country.

I will say to the hon. member, that we work together with the municipalities, with our boards, we will indeed address the cost and it will be relevant and affordable to our citizens.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While the minister says we cannot afford not to buy into it, I do not dispute that, but you have to realize that you have many municipalities in this Province with declining population and declining tax regimes and yet you are expecting them to pay more money for services.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environment had asked that the teepee incinerators in the Province be closed down -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - for business on December 30 of last year. It could not have happened, Mr. Speaker, at that time.

I ask the minister today: What has changed that now you are able to meet a June 30 deadline to have all these teepees closed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, the municipalities are as interested as we are in closing down these incinerators. Everybody recognizes stuff that gets spewed out of these things and we are very much at a different place than we were twenty-five years ago, Mr. Speaker.

What is happening at this particular point is that the municipalities are working through the waste management strategy and working with government to iron out the plan as to how they can close these incinerators. Our intent is to have them closed, it was our intent, will be, and these will be closed out, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have already been made aware of one town in the Province who has been granted an exemption to the June 30 deadline. We are also aware that the Towns of Port aux Basques, Twillingate, Grand Bank, and Fortune have also applied for extensions on their teepee deadlines.

So I ask the minister today: What is the plan? Are you going to grant the exemptions to these towns or not? Of course, one of their concerns again is to do with the financial cost.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I am going to give her a number now, that if we can have it by June 30 it will be quite a success. If it all works out, we are going to have twenty of them closed by the end of June, Mr. Speaker. The plans are in place and we are working with those municipalities. We certainly hope that we will, maybe we will not, but the thing about it, Mr. Speaker, is that we are progressing. Look at the money that was invested in waste management in the former government as compared to what is invested now. Two hundred million dollars, Mr. Speaker, is a sizeable amount and shows our commitment to cleaning up the environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The June 30 deadline is their deadline, not mine.

I ask you again minister, for the Town of Port aux Basques, the Town of Twillingate, Grand Bank and Fortune, who have already asked for exemptions, given the fact that there is no infrastructure in place for reducing and handling their waste at this time and no financial assistance for the increased cost associated with it, I ask you, minister: What is your response to those towns?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members to stop their shouting back and forth the House.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, the thing about it, in the cases that she has identified, is the towns are not operating in isolation. We are working with them. That is the reason for granting the extension, but our intent is to have them closed.

So, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to work with them, the plans are in place, and as they unfold we will see what we have to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, twice I have asked the minister if he is going to grant them an extension, obviously he has not made up his mind or he would be answering the question.

Mr. Speaker, Municipal Affairs identified themselves $12.7 million in the 2007-2008 Budget that was announced and committed for infrastructure for municipalities that never got spent. They also identified $7.2 million in municipal federal-provincial infrastructure money that was allocated and never got spent. They also identified $3 million under the gas tax program for that year that did not get spent. That was $23 million that was announced in this Province in 2007-2008 that did not flow to municipalities.

I ask the minister: What is being done now to ensure that monies that get budgeted and get announced for municipalities actually reach their towns and infrastructure gets done?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, we have invested $103 million worth of municipal infrastructure works in this budget alone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Just recently we announced seventy-one projects affecting forty-six municipalities in this Province. Just two weeks ago, with the federal minister and myself, and Minister Taylor we rolled out that program. We also announced a number of projects with Senator Manning with the federal government and our contribution.

So we have made investments in our municipalities. We are going to continue to make those investments to see that they have a standard of living.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, there was $23 million that you announced in 2007-2008, too, that never reached into municipalities. Also, Mr. Speaker, in 2008-2009 the government opposite budgeted $31 million for municipal infrastructure under the same agreements and only $19 million of it ever got spent in municipalities.

I ask the minister today: Why did $12 million from this program, although it was committed and announced, not get spent in that budget year and will it be spent this year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, we are spending, as I just told the hon. member, $103 million in provincial is budgeted for this 2009-2010 Budget. We are continuing to spend with our municipalities. We are continuing to invest in infrastructure, water and sewer, roads. We have worked very closely with our municipalities. They make an application. In fact, this year we have even streamlined their application to make it much more simpler that they can get their work done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again, my question is about the fact that money is being announced, money is being allocated, money is not getting into the municipalities. Mr. Speaker, in last year's budget there was $52 million for the gas tax program. Only $40 million of it was ever allocated.

I ask the minister: Why did the department hold back the other $12 million in that fund, and will it be committed this year or can municipalities still apply for it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the municipalities for the gas tax has to make an application to Municipal Affairs, and outlined in that application they had to do ISCPs, and there is an audit and accountable to the federal government. So in some cases - and I do not know, hon. member, if this is the case, but in some cases municipalities have not completed that paperwork and they would not be entitled to that gas tax, but once they complete the paperwork their gas tax money will be allotted to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: So the minister is saying that the reason the money was not spent is because the municipalities did not do their work. Well, Mr. Speaker, the program this year, the federal gas tax program this year has $62 million in it and it has a deadline by the federal government that says it has to be spent by 2010.

So I ask you, minister, if for the last two years in this Province we could not get out half that amount of money to municipalities, how do you plan this year to ensure that the $60 million allocated under this program for municipalities will be spent before the deadline of 2010?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to back up and say to the hon. member that I did not say the municipalities were not doing their work. There are some municipalities that have not completed (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I have hired a new official in my department to look after the gas tax program to help the municipalities that require help with getting their paperwork done.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They may have gotten in on time if they did not change the rules twice since the program was implemented, and implement new criteria that they had to meet on two different occasions.

Mr. Speaker, this government has a record of announcing municipal infrastructure money but not always following through on the delivery of it, and that is our concern.

In light of the fact, Minister, that there is stimulus money out there this year, I ask you today: What process will you implement in this Province to ensure that we have a tracking system of municipal infrastructure money so that municipalities know when it is being committed, where it is being committed, and when it will be spent?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, this government has made changes in the way that the programs are rolled out. In fact, in our department alone we have gone through pre-engineering with the projects in the fall and in the winter so that we can get our tenders out early and get our work done.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

Mr. Speaker, the call centre industry is being impacted by –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

There is an old saying, when the cat is away the mice will play – and the kids will play, in this case, today.

Mr. Speaker, the call centre industry is being impacted –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

For the final time this Question Period, the Chair is going to appeal to members who are shouting and continually disrupting not only the person asking the question but the person answering it as well.

There are important questions being asked, there are important answers being given, and I ask members, for the final time this Question Period, to please uphold the rules of the House.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your protection.

Mr. Speaker, the call centre industry is being impacted by global economic conditions. Last week, Teletech in Mount Pearl announced that they were experiencing problems and would shut down unless they could secure new contracts. We are now hearing from other call centre employees who are fearful of their operations also being impacted.

I ask the minister: Have you been contacted or given any indication by these other call centres that they may, in fact, be experiencing some difficulties as well?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, we obviously are living in a global economy. The work that is being done by the contact centres is work that is reaching throughout the world. They are competing for contracts across the world. In some cases they win those contracts and we have good employment, and in some cases they may lose the odd one and their employment numbers may fluctuate a little bit. That is the nature of the business and the industry that they are in.

In terms of whether or not I have been contacted by other operations to discuss what is happening with them, I do not feel that it would be appropriate for me here in the House to discuss the business of those other contact centres and I will not give any indication of that at this time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, if it is public money into any business I would think the minister has a responsibility to advise the public. Never mind not talking about them. If these people are receiving public funds they should be talked about and the answer should be given.

Mr. Speaker, call centres such as Teletech were receiving public funds, money to subsidize the rates that they paid their employees. Teletech is the second call centre to close in the past year. We had an incident in Carbonear; ICT closed and there was a loss of 150 jobs, several months ago. The minister recently stated that the current subsidy program may need to be reviewed to see what improvements can be made.

I ask the minister: Is government still committed to the subsidy program? If so, what aspects of the program are you, in fact, reviewing?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, in terms of commenting on the operations of any business that may be involved with government, I have no difficulty speaking to any public money that government may have involved in any companies in the Province, and certainly it would be my place to do so, but I am not going to speak about the operations, the private and confidential operations of private companies out in the workforce that we have here and the industry that we have here. I think it would be irresponsible and inappropriate to do so.

In terms of are we committed to the contact centre industry, we certainly are. We are committed to the programs that we have in place and we do a review of those programs on a regular basis to determine whether or not we can improve upon them. I myself have visited a number of contact centres in the last little while to talk to the management team to see whether or not the programs that we have in place are addressing their needs, and based upon the feedback that I have received we may be making some changes in the future but I have some more visitations that I will be doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Given the minister's need for secrecy I will pose the question in such a way that hopefully we can get some indication from him. Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Have you been given any indication whether the other existing call centres are, in fact, looking for additional incentives in order to maintain their operations during the current recession? Have you been approached and asked for additional incentives to support these existing call centres?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out, first of all, I have no need for secrecy. I do, however, respect the confidentiality of the businesses that I deal with, and I will continue to respect that confidentiality.

In terms of any of those businesses coming forward and asking government for any further subsidies or any enhancements, at this point, there has been no direct communication with the department. However, I have indicated, in my previous answer, that I have been visiting contact centres and a number of things have been discussed but there has been no official representation in that regard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Potential crisis in the Province's health care system continue to exist. We have been made aware that not-for-profit and private ambulance operators have been without a contract since April, 2008.

Mr. Speaker, at this moment twenty-two rural community-based ambulance operators, representing one-third of all the ambulances in the Province, are waiting for an agreement between government and the ambulance operators. Some of the community-based operators are running out of funding to provide emergency medical services because of government's foot-dragging. Many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are in danger of not receiving critical care at the moment they need it most.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: Will this government move quickly to rescue this service before another disaster hits our health care system?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, that is the shortest answer we have ever gotten from the Minister of Health and Community Services. So let me ask him a question that he will not be able to say yes or no to.

I am aware, from the not-for-profit operators, that there has been no joint meeting of the not-for-profit operators and the private operators since January 19, and the not-for-profit operators do not know what is happening.

Mr. Speaker, some of the not-for-profit community ambulance operators are at a breaking point. In plain terms, some groups cannot afford to keep ambulances on the road. They need funding for fuel, insurance coverage for the staff and equipment repairs, very basic requirements. Some have even borrowed money –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, I have a question, Mr. Speaker, and I will ask it.

They have borrowed money that they do not even know if they are going to be able to return.

So I am asking the Minister of Health and Community Services: Will he please tell us why this government is not aggressively working towards a contract that will allow ambulance operators to provide essential emergency services?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I was attempting to lead by example by having a very short answer but unfortunately the member opposite did not pick up on it and a very long preamble into a question. So I will take the same indulgence and give her a fairly lengthy answer.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of ambulance operations in this Province has been something that our government has taken very seriously. If you look at the investments we have made in ambulance services in this Province, investments we have made in our emergency services, Mr. Speaker, speaks volumes I think for our commitment to that industry.

Next week, I believe, Mr. Speaker, is the next - the member opposite asked questions about negotiations and where that might be. Next Wednesday I believe is the next meeting of the negotiating team, representatives from Treasury Board, representatives from the ambulance industry, representatives from my department are going to be together next week for what might be, I think, might be the second if not third time that they have been together trying to work through an agreement. We acknowledge there is an agreement that has been in place. It has expired but we are attempting to have a new one in place, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, we know from the not-for-profit operators that they have not been invited to a meeting since January 19.

Can the minister please tell us who exactly is going to be at the meeting when it comes to the ambulance operators?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: It is really important, Mr. Speaker, when you ask questions in the House to do some research. There are two different things here, Mr. Speaker. The member opposite is talking about what might be an ongoing liaison committee that takes place on - because within that industry there is a relationship between the department and the industry and there is a liaison committee, a working group of representatives from each of the associations, together with representatives from my department who work on issues on an ongoing basis. That is one entity that currently exists.

The second piece, Mr. Speaker, which was the focus of her question, where are we with respect to negotiations. There is a negotiating team and the negotiating team is made up of representatives from Treasury Board, my department, Department of Health and Community Services, and each of the ambulance service industries in the Province, Mr. Speaker. So they are meeting next week. Now with respect to other groups, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers have expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 26(5)(a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling three Orders in Council relating to funding precommitments for 2010-2011 to 2013-2014 fiscal years.

That is it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motions.

Notices of Motion

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice under Standing Order 11 that I shall move that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, May 25, 2009, and further I give notice under Standing Order 11 that I shall move the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Monday, May 25, 2009.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion.

The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Adoption Act, The Child Care Services Act, The Child, Youth And Family Services Act, And The Regional Health Authorities Regulations, Bill 35.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion.

Answers to questions for which notice has been given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

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

I appreciate an eleventh opportunity to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Southwestern Newfoundland with respect to the lack of dialysis services that exist in that particular area.

At any given time, we have nine to ten residents – and this has been the history now for years – who travel to Corner Brook to get this service. It is an obvious three-hour trip at best, and in winter time it is usually more than that. Quite often they get in and don't get back, and quite often they can't get in due to the weather conditions.

There is no question that the need to have such a service available in the community exists. It has been proven to the officials at Western and it has been proven to the officials in the department that the need exists, so that is not a question. The question is: How do we go about solving the problem? There have been several solutions offered. The people out in that area, particularly the officials at the Charles L. Legrow Health Centre who deal with this day in and day out, and the people in Corner Brook – I believe the nephrologist in Corner Brook and the Chief of Staff in Port aux Basques are putting together a proposal to deal with the issue.

The question is: We have never had much support before from the department. We have seen an acknowledgement by the department. They have tried to help out in other places. They have done a piece of work up in St. Anthony, they have done a piece of work in Grand Bank, and I believe in Carbonear, but, Mr. Speaker, the people of Southwestern Newfoundland deserve no less. In fact, they have equally onerous circumstances when it comes to travel as any of those people located in those other areas, particularly when it comes to Carbonear, for example. I certainly see no distinction or why they had a worse case scenario in Carbonear.

I say to the minister, and for the benefit of the Member for Gander, who might have confused what I said yesterday, what I did say yesterday in regard to fundraising, is that the people of Southwestern Newfoundland are prepared to pay totally for their equipment themselves.

All they are saying is, if government can see themselves clear to provide some money and funding in that regard it would be much appreciated, but do not let the money be a hang-up to provision of the services.

The second comment I made was about the training that is required, and the staff in that area in Port aux Basques are prepared to undergo the time that it takes – I believe it is somewhere between a six- and ten-week course – to be properly trained to do the service.

So, if you have the equipment - we obviously have the need - and you have the people who are prepared to do the training, I do not know why the Department of Health would not be prepared to commit to it – and we have a place to do it. For example, we have a facility in Port aux Basques which can accommodate that particular service.

So, again, we implore the minister to please deal with this issue, look at it, and at least show that he is making some attempt to familiarize himself with the issue and hopefully see some resolution to this problem.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today with another petition with regard to the Long Island causeway, a petition that has been brought forward by the residents not only of Long Island but from various towns throughout that immediate area. Mr. Speaker, it is on behalf of the residents, as well as the Long Island Causeway Transportation Committee.

As I stated before, those individuals on that particular Island had a service by ferry for twenty-six years, and in March 2009 that service was shared with Little Bay Islands. They have no problems with the residents of Little Bay Islands having their right to a ferry service as well, but what they are saying is that previously when they had the regular ferry service they would get a crossing, I think it was every hour, and this was an agreement they came to in I think it was 1983, in lieu of a causeway.

Now we know that this particular ferry service that they agreed to back twenty-six years ago is not in operation any longer, and they explained to us that one of the key components to it is the medical assistance. Under the previous transportation system they would have a half-hour wait for an ambulance, and now, with the shared service, it could be as high as three to four hours.

Another issue that they have is they are asking that government at least restore the ferry service back to what it was and to instruct officials to determine the cost of a causeway.

We have also been informed by residents that there are over 100 individuals who derive a living from the sea. Millions of dollars from the fishing industry enter the economy each and every year. What they are saying, I think the fish collectors make approximately 140 trips to the Island and many days they cannot connect with the ferry service that is there now because the fishers are late coming in, in the evenings, probably as late as 7:00 p.m., 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., and the last ferry for them is around 9:00 p.m. So, it is a major problem they have with regard to the fishing activity and getting their product to market.

Mr. Speaker, with those few words I just want to say that we hope that government, once they meet with the residents and the committee from Long Island, will take into consideration their concerns and look at the possibility of a fixed-link between Long Island and Pilley's Island.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

Orders of the day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 5, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Thursday, May 21, 2009.

Further, Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 6, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Thursday, May 21, 2009.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock today, Thursday, May 21.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: A further motion is that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Thursday, May 21.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act. (Bill 32)

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

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act, Bill 32, and that this bill be now a first time.

Shall the hon. minister have leave to introduce Bill 32, and shall this bill be 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 Liquor Control Act," carried. (Bill 32)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act. (Bill 32)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 32 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 32 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow

On motion, Bill 32 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Education, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act. (Bill 33)

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

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Education shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act, Bill 33, and that this bill be now read a first time.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act," carried. (Bill 33)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act. (Bill 33)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 33 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 33 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 33 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 3, An Act To Amend The Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that Bill 3, An Act To Amend The Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 3 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit Act. (Bill 3)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 3 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 3)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 8, An Act Respecting Chiropractors, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 8, An Act Respecting Chiropractors, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 8 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Chiropractors. (Bill 8)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 8 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Chiropractors," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 8)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Education, that Bill 9, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 9 be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 9, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act. (Bill 9)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 9 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 9)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Government Services, that Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 10 be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 10 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 10)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 10 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 10)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 12, An Act To Amend The Pharmacy Act be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 12 be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 12, An Act To Amend The Pharmacy Act be now read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Pharmacy Act. (Bill 12)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 12 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pharmacy Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 12)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General, that Bill 13, An Act To Amend The Children's Law Act be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that Bill 13 be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 13 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Children's Law Act. (Bill 13)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 13 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Children's Law Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 13)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs, that Bill 14, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that Bill 14 be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 14, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act be now read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act. (Bill 14)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 14 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 14).

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General, that Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 15 be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 15 be read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act. (Bill 15)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 15 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 15)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services that Bill 17, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Control Act be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 17 be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 17 be read a third time?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Control Act. (Bill 17)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 17 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that Bill 17 do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "Act To Amend The Tobacco Control Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 17)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General that Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Judicature Act be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 18 be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 18 be read a third time?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Judicature Act. (Bill 18)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 18 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Judicature Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 18)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development that Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Research And Development Council Act be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that Bill 20 be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 20 be now read a third time?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Research And Development Council Act. (Bill 20)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 20 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that Bill 20 do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Research And Development Council Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 20)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General that Bill 28, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that Bill 28 be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 28 be read a third time?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991. (Bill 28)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 28 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 28)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we would like to call from the Order Paper, number 15, second reading of a bill, An Act Respecting Credit Unions. (Bill 11)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 11, An Act Respecting Credit Unions, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Credit Unions." (Bill 11)

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, that Bill 11, An Act Respecting Credit Unions be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important act in regards to what it does to the regulations and the legislation pertaining to credit unions. Credit unions have been in Newfoundland and Labrador – the first act was proclaimed on December 21, 1995. This act here, in regards to these amendments, is the department's ongoing commitment to reduce red tape and balance the legislation. We found, in regards to reviewing this particular act, that the act needed upgrading to meet the frequent changes that have been occurring in the financial industry.

Certainly, this piece of legislation, as I just indicated, governs twelve credit unions with forty branches operating in the Province, with assets of over $630 million. I must note as well, that in spite of the global economic slow down, credit unions in our Province continue to do well with 2008 being a record setting year.

Also, credit unions provide banking services, very, very important banking services to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We find most of our credit unions are located in rural Newfoundland. We have also seen, over the years, the conventional banks pull back branches from rural Newfoundland. One in particular, down in the district of Trinity North, if I can remember right, in New-Wes-Valley, one of the conventional banks pulled back a couple of years ago.

So these credit unions provide an essential service of banking to those people. It is this government's intent to make sure that credit unions have the support of government and the legislation and the regulations, to help them work in an efficient manner and provide those services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now this act, for the most part, is mostly administrative in nature and reduces red tape for the system. It removes some administrative requirements from legislation and places them under the responsibility of the board of directors of credit unions, where it should be, because this reflects also the authority of the credit union system in the Province.

We consulted with credit unions on these changes and they fully endorse them. In addition, they specifically asked the department to look at changing legislation to allow them to sell life insurance products in their branches.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will go down through some of the minor changes that are addressed in regards to these amendments. I also would like to say that we would, in this act, we also are asking for the repeal of the Credit Union Deposit Guarantee Corporation regulations, which will be incorporated within the credit union regulations themselves, where they should be to as well. That is a change too as well that we saw that needed to happen. So we certainly recommend that piece of work to be done too as well here this afternoon.

The minor policy changes that are included in the amendments of the act is the one that is under section 7(2) of the act, to allow credit unions to enter into joint service agreements. What that does is it allows continuous service of their customers when they move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, because under the current act there is an issue there in regards to if somebody from one jurisdiction moves to the jurisdiction of another credit union they cannot carry out their normal banking transactions. So this allows that to happen and it is certainly no minor change but a very necessary change too as well.

Also, we have under section 134(2)(b) I believe and 134(4)(2) of the act, we recommend changing the protocol governing amalgamation of credit unions too as well.

At present, under the amalgamation they are allowed to amalgamate but they cannot proceed if an individual creditor with a claim of $1,000 or more objects to that amalgamation. I think this is prohibitive to the credit unions because sometimes the amalgamation of a credit union is required and is in the best interests of the members to have this happen because it strengthens their particular credit union and makes them more financially sound and they work in a very transparent and accountable manner thereof.

Also, we found that the rationale for this change is that the creditor liabilities only represent an insignificant portion of any credit union's overall liabilities. At the end of financial year 2006-2007, creditor payables represented only 0.7 per cent of all liabilities as compared to member deposits which represented 99.3 per cent, which I think multiplies into 592.3 million of all liabilities. So the proposed change is designed to preclude a small creditor or a group of small creditors from blocking amalgamation that would otherwise be in the best interest of the credit union members and the creditors themselves. The big time creditors too could be blocked in regards to that and it would be in the best interest if the credit unions in particular would amalgamate.

Also, we have a change in one of the regulations, 16(2)(b). We have proposed an increase to the term of statutory liability instruments from one year to five years. To cut that short, really what that means is that the credit unions now - any liquidity instruments are now protected under the credit union system national liquidity pool, but also now that you have increased the time frame from the one year to five years it enables the credit union to invest wisely and certainly have a higher rate of return in regards to the investments on that liquidity pool. So this is very important too as well because it also strengthens their financial foundation.

Under the act too as well, we have a proposal which permits any interested parties or the superintendent to revive a defunct credit union, which we - right now. So we propose to remove that because there is no reason to retain such a provision, as a dissolved credit union retains no assets. So why would you have that there in regards to reviving that credit union? They would go through the normal process of making application to the Department of Government Services in regards to reinstating a credit union in that particular jurisdiction.

We also would like to strengthen the authority of the superintendent in areas under the act right now in regards to appeals from a credit union. The particular credit union would make the appeal to the minister, which I am advised by my officials - which I feel is kind of in a conflict of interest because my mind may be set at a certain degree, I guess, on the issue. What we think should happen in this process is that any appeal should go straight to the courts. So we strengthen the authority of a superintendent in that regard.

We also brought in amendments which provides for fines - which brings it really into modernization, what to fine in regards to the financial world. Just to give an example, we propose changing these fines from $1,000 to $10,000 for individuals and $10,000 to $50,000 for corporations. They are no longer effective and deterrents for breaches under the act. So we propose them too as well.

So these are some of the minor changes in regards to that act, but the substantial policy change would be the allowing of wealth management tools to be exercised by a credit union. What that means is that credit unions now will be able to sell other types of wealth management insurances to their members. I might point out right from the beginning, that this only applies to their members. A person like myself, or a person, probably other people and my colleagues in this House of Assembly today, would not be able to walk in off the street and buy wealth insurance from a particular credit union. You have to be a member of that particular credit union in order to avail of that service.

Also, I want to point out that that only constitutes 9 per cent of the population of Newfoundland and Labrador. So what I am saying is that out of the whole population base, the adult population base in Newfoundland and Labrador, there is only 9 per cent of that population base that are now members of a credit union. So there is only 9 per cent of the population that would be able to go in and buy extra product from a credit union.

I also want to point out that credit unions now are doing that, but under the current legislation, they have to do that in a parallel type operation. As a matter of fact, in most credit unions they are right next door. The two buildings or the two operations are closely connected with a door in between. So in other words, you go in and do your banking on one side, and then you go through the door and then you buy wealth products on that side of the wall.

We think that that is unnecessary. We think that is a financial burden, really, to the normal operations of a credit union. So, we certainly see that as prohibitive in regards to a credit union having a firm foundation and able to carry out their transactions without any extra costs. I point that out again, that they are actually doing that at this particular time. So this only just streamlines it really.

Anyways, I should at this particular time also say that yes, we had representation. We had consultation on the process and we sent out letters to the insurance companies, the Sun Lifes of the world, and they have really expressed concern over this, because they say that it could be attached to tied selling. Tied selling is that yes, we would give you your mortgage but we want all your other business too as well, in regards to your life insurance and whatnot.

We do not see that. We looked at the Quebec model. They have been doing it now for a number of years. Also, we looked at the B.C. model, and there are a number of credit unions that are providing this type of service too as well, and we see no data. There is no evidence of that.

Also, in regard to tied selling, there are provisions under other acts that prevent and prohibit credit unions from doing that type of transaction or even contemplating that type of transaction, and they could be prosecuted under that particular provision under that particular act.

Also, credit unions are now selling portions of wealth management, such as mutuals. All we are going to add in this particular bill is life, disability, annuities, segregated funds, and that kind of stuff.

I also want to point out that it doesn't include home and auto. That will not be included. That is a whole different ballgame. There is a high risk game there. They are not interested in regard to home and auto because it is very prohibitive to their operations. I indicated to credit unions that, as the minister responsible, I wouldn't be entertaining any proposal that would include home and auto at this particular time, or any time in the future for that matter.

Also, there were, with regard to the insurance industries, concerns. They see, I guess, that we are giving credit unions the ability to transact some of the normal business that they do on a day-to-day basis. As I just referenced, in BC and Quebec data showed that it had no downward affect in regard to any of the business that was being transactioned by the private brokers nor the insurance companies themselves. We didn't see that as a problem.

We addressed the tied selling. We don't see that as a problem either, and we will monitor that. I also want to reference that anybody who would be deemed as the person responsible for the selling of that type of insurance will have to meet any education or training that is under the regulations now pertaining to anybody in the insurance industry. They will have to meet all those regulations before they will be able to sell, no differently than the private operator as well.

I anticipate that some credit unions will sell and some credit unions will not, but I think it is an important aspect of the actual amendments. The simple reason is that most of the credit unions are located in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and there are not a whole lot of brokers out there selling insurance.

We also found, in regard to national surveys, that the selling of insurance in regard to classes of people has shifted as well. We found that low to medium income people have now been certainly included, or have actually decreased in regard to the amount of insurance being bought by those people. Mostly the insurance companies concentrate on the wealthy people because they buy, and it is not as hard a sell as what you would find in regard to low to medium income. So now these people, the members, and only the members, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, will have that ability to be able to buy such insurance from their credit union location. That is only if they are a member.

There are some things in regard to the clarity in the act as well that streamlines it and certainly makes it clearer. It enables credit unions to know exactly what they have to do under the legislation and under the regulations, and that is very important as well from an operational point of view.

I think I have covered most of it, Mr. Speaker. Again, we have forty branches across the Province, and thirty-one of them are located in rural areas, and their assets reach approximately $407 billion in rural and there are 198 rural employees with salaries and benefits totalling $7.4 million in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. So credit unions are very important to the rural fabric of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): Order, please!

MR. O'BRIEN: Certainly, I believe that this is a very important piece of legislation in regard to the amendments and the proposal thereof.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having some difficulty in hearing the speaker that is recognized and I would ask the co-operation of all members of the House.

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

With that I am going to finish, and I welcome any comments by my colleagues across the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. BUTLER: Port de Grave.

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

MR. BUTLER: Not a problem, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say it is a pleasure to be able to stand today and have a few comments with regard to Bill 11, An Act Respecting Credit Unions.

As the Government House Leader mentioned, there are 197 clauses and I do not think I will take each one individually and go through them all but there are a few comments I do want to make because this is a very detailed piece of legislation, as the minister mentioned, a very important piece of legislation governing a very important group of individuals who are classified here in our Province as the credit unions.

Mr. Speaker, as I stated, there are 197 clauses in relation to this Bill 11, and the bill would revise and consolidated the laws respecting credit unions under various headings. We have headings with regard to incorporation of credit unions, capacity and powers that they are governed by, with regard to registration of their offices and their records. There is a section with regard to membership, and the directors and officers that operate those credit unions, returns of financial disclosures, any fundamental changes. It goes into with regard to liquidation. It even covers off on penalties and offences and compliance and supervision.

Mr. Speaker, this act will be cited as the Credit Union Act, 2009. Once you do a bit of study with regard to some of those bills and pieces of legislation it becomes very interesting in some of the documentation you come across, not altogether pertaining to the bill itself but how credit unions were formed and where they began.

We know that a credit union is a co-operative financial institution that is owned and controlled by its members, and the minister already stated that with regard to the membership, and they operate for a purpose: promoting thrift, providing credits at reasonable rates, and providing financial services to its membership.

We know that is happening in quite a few areas throughout our Province, in rural Newfoundland as well as in our major centres, and many credit unions exist to further community development as well, but they vary in sizes, the credit unions. They range from volunteer operations with a handful of members to institutions with several billion dollars in assets and hundreds of thousands of members.

It is very interesting to note that the modern credit union's history dates back, I think, to approximately 1852. The very first one was established in Germany, and the first credit union in North America, anything I could find on it, was in Quebec. The minister has already mentioned how they have watched the progress and the development of credit unions in Quebec, and many of the changes and the governance of this particular bill are brought about through what has happened in other jurisdictions.

The one in Quebec began on January 23, 1901; and, believe it or not, they began with a ten-cent deposit. So they started out very small, but let me assure you that since that time they have developed.

The gentleman who started the first one was a reporter in our Canadian Parliament. He was moved to take up this mission in 1897 when he learned of an individual from Montreal who had been ordered by the courts to pay nearly $5,000 in interest on a loan of $150. So it came from a very minor beginning when someone had a loan of $150 and the interest on it was $5,000, and that is what prompted this individual to get a credit union formed to protect the money borrowed.

Also mentioned in the legislation is not-for-profit status. That is very interesting, because all too often when we hear about not-for-profit we think about organizations that are in our Province and so on. Not-for-profit with credit unions should not be confused with not-for-profit charities of similar organizations, because credit unions are not-for-profit because they operate to serve their members rather than to maximum the profits. Unlike non-profit organizations, credit unions do not rely on donations. They must turn what is, in economic terms, a small profit to be able to continue to serve their members. As the minister mentioned, the credit unions are of various sizes.

Canada has the highest per capita use of credit unions in North America, with more than one-third of the population enrolled. That is very important. Even though I know the minister mentioned, I thought he said here in the Province it was 9 per cent, but then again 9 per cent, I guess, from a beginning back in 1995, I thought the minister said, we can see that is advancing and rightly so.

As the minister also mentioned, I learned that it is very heavily concentrated in Quebec. In Quebec they call them the people's banks. Also, they are very popular in western parts of our country, in British Columbia in particular.

As of December 31, 2007, those people's banks, as they refer to them in Quebec, have in excess of $144 million in assets with 5.8 million retail members, so it is a very large operation. It makes, as a matter of fact, the sixth largest financial institution in Canada. You can see, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about these credit unions, they are becoming a force to reckon with. In the United States, as of 2005, credit unions have 86 million members, which is 43 per cent of the economically active population. They are very large and very popular in the United States as well.

We know, Mr. Speaker, that here in Newfoundland and Labrador we have thirteen credit unions, but some of those unions have various branches throughout the Province as well. You can only imagine, with the thirteen credit unions that we do have here in the Province, the value with regard to assets in those. The membership, we know, is 9 per cent. Not only that, but it is the jobs that they create for people in the various communities where those credit unions are set up.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, this bill would revise and consolidate the laws respecting credit unions. We know that clause 197.(1) of the Credit Union Act will be repealed by this new act, and the Credit Union Deposit Guarantee Regulations are also to be repealed, and the Proclamation bringing the Credit Union Act into force in Newfoundland and Labrador is being repealed. The commencement of this act, once this law passes, will come into force fairly soon, July 1, 2009.

Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting that this new act is really a clean up of the old act because I think there are approximately fifty sections removed from the old act that were no longer needed or in effect. We see government, and in particular the Department of Government Services, taking a lot of the legislation where they govern so many different aspects here in our Province, they are cleaning up the acts and making familiar changes with regards to that; 150 pieces, just imagine.

This act will give more responsibility to the board of directors of the credit unions in general, and really, less to government. You are also giving them a little freer hand, and I guess like we hear from time to time, eliminating some of the red tape.

Legislation also allows credit unions flexibility to be a part of whatever association they so desire, and the minister explained that earlier in his opening comments.

One of the major policy shifts in this legislation is that it is allowing credit unions to now sell life insurance. The minister explained that and also said that other types of insurance would not be included at this particular time; whereas before, the credit unions had to do this through subsidiaries. Because of that, they are saving on cost, I guess, with regards to having separate offices and so on. The minister noted that Quebec is the only other province that has allowed this to go on for years.

Just as a point of note, I am glad to see the minister is taking particular notice to Quebec on this issue, and hopefully he will keep following up on another issue, that is services in the wintertime and what they are doing in Quebec with regards to the tires. I just say that with tongue in cheek, Mr. Minister.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the department, we know this because – and another thing I want to say, that the officials within this department, any time we have legislation coming through and we want to be briefed on it, we are always given that honour of having someone explain various issues once we do the research on it and if we need any particular follow up. We know, from that process, that the department had consulted about the changes. Really, the only concerns that were expressed, and he already touched on that, is with regards to other life insurance brokers who are concerned that they may lose some business. Like the minister said, it is only the 9 per cent who are members here in our Province are able to avail of buying life insurance through the credit unions. I guess the upside to that is more competition and better prices for our consumers, and that is also a thing we always have to keep in mind and is very important.

We know that through the credit unions here in the Province that we have some forty branches. I think it is approximately 52,000 members, of which 35,000-plus are from rural Newfoundland and Labrador. So it is an issue that we see those credit unions spread right throughout our Province. I saw a list of them. I do not have it here in front of me but really they are from one end of our Province to the other, as well as Labrador. The payroll of $15 million and deposits of approximately $600 million, that is what is dealt with through the credit unions here in our Province; a staggering figure, I have to say.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to touch on briefly the application process for credit unions, and some of this is covered off in the legislation. You have to apply through a committee which is made up of various members, including government. You present your business plan with a - I think it is a minimum of 500 members with a deposit of $100 each. This would be a starting point if someone wanted to start that process. In most cases, it ended up being branches of credit unions instead of an actual credit union, and we know that there are different branches. Credit unions and branches were small in nature but now they have become highly recognized institutions that are becoming competition for some larger banks. Like I said, some of the major numbers that are used in British Columbia and Quebec are – that is a known fact.

There are a lot of mergers in credit unions. For example, there is a Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union who is a member of the British Columbia and Ontario, central cases. So we see not only are they in their own provinces but they are tied and working in relation to individual credit unions in other jurisdictions. However, others are with the Atlantic Central, which is made up of Atlantic provinces.

So you see, Mr. Speaker, there is quite a bit of documentation with regards to the 197 clauses and all the various subsections, and as noted before, this is a good piece of legislation. It is a cleaning up of the old act, which I guess is an issue that has to be dealt with from time to time. The only issue, and maybe the minister did touch on this because I remember him making some comment there but I was distracted for a little while, and that is not very hard for me sometimes. I thought it was mentioned that some people had a question with regards to membership. I thought they put it forward to the minister, and maybe you did mention that there a little bit earlier with regards to local credit unions, with regards to if you were a member of one credit union and being transferred to the other. I think that was an issue that was brought forward, and I think you did address it but I did not get your response. So probably in your closing remarks you could touch on that again.

With that, Mr. Speaker, that will conclude my comments with regards to Bill 11, An Act Respecting Credit Unions.

Thank you very much.

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

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

I am quite pleased to stand and speak to Bill 11, An Act Respecting Credit Unions, and I thank the minister for the full explanation that he gave of the act.

Before speaking directly to the act, I would like to raise an issue that I remember raising before in the House with regard to bills. This bill, unfortunately, only had as an explanatory note: "This Bill would revise and consolidate the law respecting credit unions." That was the explanatory note which really did not explain anything about clauses in the bill. We have had other bills which have three and four pages of explanatory notes. Actually, one the other that was similar to this one in terms of the intent of the bill of consolidating it, we still had several pages of notes.

When the explanatory notes are not there it means our researchers have to spend time in contacting people inside of the ministry involved to ask questions. While we did that, and I have to say that the ADM responsible who spoke with my researcher was very, very helpful and gave very detailed information and some of the information that the minister raised today, but it would be helpful if those explanatory notes were included. Then we can read them and if there is a specific question than we can just call and ask the answer to a specific question, but it takes a lot of time when there is absolutely nothing there and the researchers have nothing to go on and they have to call and go from scratch. So I would like to raise that issue and hope that the House Leader and ministers may think about giving further direction to ministries with regard to the explanatory notes of bills. I am aware of the fact that it is not necessarily the ministry that drafts the bills. I think it may be the Department of Justice, and I think I am right on that one.

The ADM, for example, who we spoke to, was surprised that there were no explanatory notes with regard to this particular bill. I just want to point that out because we do have limited resources in reading bills and I think we have an obligation to read every bill. I do not think that we are there just to rubber stamp. We want to read every bill. We want to know what the legislation is. We want to know what it is we are standing for, so being assisted by having good explanatory notes helps at least this party anyway, the third party, helps us to be better prepared and make sure that we know what it is that we are passing. I wanted to make that note first, Mr. Speaker.

I am not going to go through all the details, obviously. The minister did a good job of explaining some of the issues with regard to the red tape reduction, which I think is good. We do not want unnecessary bills, and the fact that the amendments that would have had to have been made would have required so much work it was actually easier to come up with a new bill than to do all those amendments. I think that is the way to go; and taking regulations out of the bill as well is also the way to go.

I am going to speak particularly to two points, I think, Mr. Speaker; I think it is two in particular. One has to do with the insurance. We were told by the department - and we can say yes, that happens - we have been told that there has been lobbying by the insurance industry objecting to Bill 11 and the whole thing around insurance. I can say yes, we have had some of those letters also written to us, but I have to say that I absolutely agree with the ministry with regard to the insurance issue because, number one, it is not new, as has been pointed out by the minister and pointed out by my colleague from the Official Opposition. The credit unions have always been able, through a subsidiary, to sell insurance to their members, so there isn't anything new here, and they will not have the ability to sell to anybody else.

The other thing is that the majority of the credit unions, thirty-three out of forty-five, are rural, so the majority of the credit unions in this Province are serving rural populations where you do not have, in many cases, insurance offices present in a community. In some cases you may have an individual insurance broker, but in a lot of communities you do not even have that, so they may have to drive an hour or more to go to an insurance company.

Even with technology today, and even being able to communicate through electronic technology, people still need to have a face-to-face connection, especially when it comes to insurance. There are a lot of questions to ask, et cetera, so I think allowing the credit unions to sell insurance without going through the extra red tape, really, a nuisance, of setting up a subsidiary, having a separate entrance – they are probably in the same building but a separate entrance - separate staff, it makes absolutely no sense. I have to say that I certainly am not sold by the arguments that have been presented to me by the insurance companies who have written us. So, try though they might, I do not think they have a leg to stand on when it comes to this issue.

As well, it is my understanding, and I think I am correct on this – I am, actually – that the provinces who are not doing this, who have not made this change – it is only Quebec who does this – that the provinces who have not made this change continue to be guided by the federal Bank Act. The federal Bank Act only forbids banks from selling insurance. Credit unions are not included under the same regulations. So, in actual fact, the provinces that say they will not do it because of the federal Bank Act, that is not even valid to use that as an excuse for not allowing insurance to be sold through the credit unions.

That is something that I would point out to the insurance companies, and I will probably take the time to write the insurance companies who did write me, to explain to them why I support this bill, because I think this bill is for the good of the people in the Province, the good of people in rural Newfoundland. It is a service to them, and that is very important.

The other thing that I would like to talk about is the whole thing of the credit union centrals and the barriers to starting new credit unions. The reason I want to speak to this issue is because we have had some communication from people in the co-operative movement – not in the credit union movement, though the credit union is a co-operative, but that is a particular co-operative – and there are people in the co-operative movement who have concerns about credit unions becoming too large, and losing the focus that credit unions originally have, which is service to the community; service to the members and service to the community.

There are some concerns that the larger that credit unions get, and the more branches that a credit union has, the more a credit union will start acting like a big bank and will lose the values of service to the community.

So, when we were told by the Department of Government Services that the move toward branches of the existing credit unions seemed to be the way that things were going to go in the future, I have to say, I personally had some concerns and people from the co-operative movement expressed concerns to me as well. Because, yes, it is easier to set up a branch and set up a new credit union, but if there are 500 people in a community willing to set up a credit union it seems to me that the spirit of the credit union movement would be better served by having separate credit unions.

I am wondering: Is any tracking going on, either provincially or through ACOA, in terms of Atlantic Canada with regard to how much of a move this is, this move towards branches rather than new credit unions? I bring it up because it has been raised to me by people in the co-op movement and I agree with their concern.

For example, one of the places spoken about with us was Bell Island. Credit unions have said that a branch on Bell Island is not viable; that if a branch is not viable a credit union will not be viable either. The problem is that so many people commute daily to St. John's and use banks in the city.

The thing is they use banks in the city because their bank was closed down on Bell Island. My point is, if Bell Islanders came up with 500 people, and met all of the criteria, then why wouldn't they be allowed to form a credit union? Why should they be - and I am using the word force, not knowing if force is actually happening - but why should they be coerced into becoming a branch of another credit union, especially when a larger credit union, like the NLCU, the Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union, might say to them a branch is not going to work, and the NLCU is saying it based on the fact well, all of you people bank in St. John's. Of course they do, because that is the only place they have to bank.

I am wondering, especially with the move towards having an Atlantic central, which a lot of our credit unions are going to join, in my understanding - Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union will not. They are going to stay connected with the B.C. central, but I think the other credit unions in Newfoundland and Labrador are going to join the Atlantic central.


I am wondering, does ACOA, for example, have – I do not think it does, so I should not even put it that way. I do not think they do have a paper on credit union development, some principles, some guidelines, something that would guide credit union development in Atlantic Canada; because one of the strengths of the credit union here in Newfoundland and Labrador - and I know it is true over in the three Maritime Provinces - is that the credit unions are serving rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and we should be doing everything to ensure that we continue having credit unions support the rural development in our Province as well as in the other Atlantic Provinces.

I would be concerned if we started to see no new credit unions but more and more branches, simply because of that concern with regard to what happens if a credit union becomes so large that it loses contact with the community. Because, you know - and I say this from personal experience - when you are a member of a very large credit union, unless something really awful is happening, you do not feel compelled even to go to AGMs, to annual general meetings.

Unfortunately I know because I am a member of the NLCU and very often the message comes and I find out that I am not free on that night so I cannot go anyway, but I do think that if AGMs happen in a smaller community you do have more of a sense of people wanting to go to them. So, if you just have a branch of a large credit union in a smaller community - the AGM is for the whole of the credit union, so the meeting is probably taking place in St. John's, for example, or Corner Brook - people from the branches are not going to be encouraged then to go to annual general meetings. That is one of the ways in which the credit union can lose the basis of what the whole principle of what credit unions are about.

That one is more a sense of saying, is the ministry involved in looking at the whole thing around what is happening. I am sure they are with regard to in Atlantic central, but also with regard to where we are headed, what could be happening with regard to the lack of growth of new credit unions.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that, along with my comments on the insurance - which basically was not a question; it was to say that I totally support the insurance becoming a service inside of the credit union - these are the main comments that I have to make. I would be interested in the minister giving some sense of whether or not the ministry is looking at the growth of branches as opposed to new credit unions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

If he speaks now he shall close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Certainly, as reflected by comments by my colleagues across the House, this is a very important piece of work that we are doing here in regard to strengthening credit unions, particularly giving them the chance of growth and the chance of a firmer foundation, a stronger foundation in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and certainly providing banking service to our rural areas now that we find conventional banks over a number of years - we seen a pull-back of those types of services and branches in those particular areas.

They fully understood the issues surrounding the wealth insurance, and the selling of wealth insurance through credit unions as well, and I believe the hon. Member for Port de Grave wanted me to make a few comments in regard to what I believe he was referring to as joint service agreements which allow members to move across jurisdictions and still retain the services of a credit union from one area to another.

That is reflected in this amendment to the act, and that will be allowed as soon as this piece is proclaimed. I think it is very, very important that you allow that because, once a member, they would like to remain a member and they would like to avail of any services from a credit union regardless of the jurisdiction that they may be in.

I should also say, and I do not think I actually said it outright in my opening remarks, that the concerns of the insurance industry were not lost on me in regard to their concerns, not at all, especially from a broker position. You must remember that the insurance industry as it is in Newfoundland and Labrador is reflected around a broker system. They sell insurance for the big insurance companies such as Sun Life, as I keep referring to because I have done a lot of business with Sun Life myself over the years. I have mortgages, I have all kinds of banking services through that particular company, and they provide a fair number of banking services that you would find in a conventional bank or in a credit union. The only thing that you cannot have, or one of the only things that you cannot have, through an insurance company is a personal account that you put money in or you take money out on a particular day or on a particular week; but, in regard to availing of most of the banking services as provided by banks today, and credit unions, you can avail of that.

Again, from a broker's position, their concerns were not lost on me at all. I listened carefully and I received a lot of correspondence, but I was not convinced that it would have that kind of a detrimental effect on their business. They are professionals in their own right. I have a financial advisor myself, that I have had for a lot of years, and I will continue to use that financial advisor regardless if I was a member of a credit union or not; because they are, as I said, very astute, very in tune to the markets. Why would you move from one to the other when you have that kind of a service? So I do not see that kind of a shift happening just because a credit union is allowed to do it. I do not have concerns about the tied selling. We have provisions in other legislation, in other acts, that govern that. I cannot see credit unions move into that for the simple reason that they operate under a professional service as well.

I think the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi had some concerns or she wanted to raise a concern that she has, to myself as the minister responsible, in regard to the expansion of credit unions as compared to branches of credit unions. Yes, we do follow that. Each and every credit union application is evaluated on its own application, on its own merits, and we do take that into consideration when we evaluate. If a credit union has enough members, they have the liquidity, they have the assets and they have everything else that they need, we have no objection to a credit union being established in its own right in any jurisdiction.

In saying that, the reason why you are seeing branches of credit unions is to enable the various credit unions across Newfoundland and Labrador, and even in B.C. or even in Quebec, in regard to the branches, it gives them a firmer financial foundation. Once they start to grow in regard to their asset levels, which are governed by the number of branches and the number of members that they may have, you will see a much stronger financial foundation. It will enable them to provide more services. It will give them more assets to deal with, so they become very important to the people they are servicing, especially in a branch area, because the branch area may not be able to grow in that regard and have the assets that they would have in a joint partnership type of deal. That is the reason why you see the branch level expanding as compared to the actual credit unions, and that is all dictated by population as well. You might see more actual credit unions in a more densely populated area or jurisdiction than you would in regard to Newfoundland and Labrador. That is just the nature of the beast.

I hope I answered the questions that were raised by my hon. colleagues across the House. I certainly welcome their support and I certainly welcome their comments.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit and we will move to the next piece of work to be done.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 11 entitled, An Act Respecting Credit Unions, be now read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be 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 Respecting Credit Unions, Bill 11.

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall the said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House? Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Credit Unions," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 11)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 16, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Savings Plans Act, Bill 19. We will now go into second reading.

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, that Bill 19, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Savings Plans Act, we now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 19 entitled, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Savings Plans Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Savings Plans Act." (Bill 19)

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, this is really just an amendment to reflect the tax free savings account that was announced by the federal government in their budget shortly after Christmas. As most of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, especially my colleagues here in the House, know, it enables Canadians age 19 or older to save up to $5,000 a year in that account. This is not taxable. It is a tax free savings account, and proceeds taken from the account are not taxable as well. Also, contributions are not deductible for income tax purposes.

We currently allow beneficiaries to be named. Prior to a will being probated or read, a person who has RRSPs or RIFs can designate a beneficiary and they can avail of the assets that are in those accounts prior to any will, just as long as they are named as the beneficiary.

Certainly, what this amendment reflects is the same. It allows anybody who would have those tax free accounts under the federal act, to also be able to name the beneficiary, and that beneficiary will be able to avail of any of the assets that are held under those TFSAs outside the process of a will upon death of the account holder.

That is essentially what this does. Certainly, I cannot make any more comments to that because I think it is just a straightforward amendment that is needed to reflect what the federal government announced in their Budget of 2009-2010.

Anyways, Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments of my colleagues who are across the House.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few comments with regards to Bill 19, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Savings Plans Act.

Under the old section of the act, just for information purposes, under section (d) it states that a savings plan means a retirement savings plan as defined by the Income Tax Act, a retirement income fund as defined by the Income Tax Act, and (e) section states a trustee means a corporation that is a trustee under a savings plan.

Under the changes, this bill would amend the Income Tax Savings Plans Act to recognize the designation of beneficiaries made by holders of tax-free savings. In the new legislation, the first two that I read are very similar. The third one is a tax-free savings account, as defined by the Income Tax Act in Canada.

As the minister stated, in January, 2009 the federal government made an announcement on a tax-free savings account. I just want to make a few comments with regards to this, because this change, as the minister stated, is just an administrative change that is required to reflect the initiative of the federal government. I have to say, the initiative that the federal government brought forward is a very honourable one, and it is good to see that the Province is doing what has to be done to bring it into force and be enacted into this particular act.

All provinces are doing the same, and some have already done so, Mr. Speaker. Really, there is nothing earth shattering with the changes here. It is more of an administrative issue. However, one notable change is with the, as the minister stated, beneficiary of savings retirement fund. That change now, is that beneficiaries, who are named to a fund, will receive benefits without and before the estate is settled.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a few comments with regards to this tax-free savings account. It is very unique. We are all very familiar with the RRSP, but the TFSA is a similar initiative when it comes to, it is one of the single most important personal saving vehicles I guess that - it was the RRSP, however, now we have the TFSA; savings that can be used for any purpose. Anyone can take part in this. There are no limits to what your income can be or how little or how large it is, that you would qualify to take part in this program.

What it is, as already been stated, in 2009 if you are a Canadian resident aged 18 years or older, you can save up to $5,000 per year. You do not get any tax credit for it like you do with your RRSP when you start with the program but it is at the other end where it is very appropriate for individuals where you can save the $5,000 and what you make on it and when you draw it out or if you redeposit again, you do not have to pay any taxes at that particular time.

You can provide funds to your spouse or common-law partner to invest. It also can be transferred to a spouse or a common-law partner upon death, and nothing changes. You still do not have to pay any taxes when you withdraw those funds. With the RRSP the primary intent is for retirement, whereas a TFSA is to deal with everything else I guess, up until that particular time when you retire at any given time.

There was one scenario when I did the research on this. They compared the TFSA to the RRSP - and it is getting complicated with all those abbreviations, let me assure you, but they used a scenario where an individual who paid into the TFSA and he wanted, this individual, to use an example, where he would withdraw $20,000. He was going to do repairs to his house or purchase something and he could take that $20,000 out and would not have to pay any interest on it. He could also redeposit it back in again. There was no penalty for doing that but in comparison, if the same individual had an RRSP and he wanted to take out $20,000 to do the same work or whatever it was that he wanted to do, he would have to withdraw $37,000 because he would have to pay taxes to cover the costs for the renovations or whatever. So that is quite a difference, when you can put funds into this particular program and draw it out, dollar for dollar, with no penalty. The RRSPs are good as well but the benefits I guess are more up front than what it is with this particular program. So it is very interesting to note that one program, you could take out the $20,000 without a penalty and the other way you would have to take out $37,000 of your dollars to get the same benefits, even though you probably did better when you deposited it into the account.

Mr. Speaker, that is the only comments I have to make on this particular bill, Bill 19. As I said, it is done for the sole purpose to bring in line with the announcement that the federal government made and something had to be done to enforce it in our laws here in the Province. So, Mr. Speaker, I just want to make note of that, that we will be supporting Bill 19.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am glad to have a moment to speak to Bill 19, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Savings Plans Act. Obviously, I will be supporting it because it is a bill that has to be put in place in order to bring our provincial legislation in line with the legislation that has happened on the federal level, but it gives me an opportunity to speak to the act and speak to some of the issues that arise for people.

I think everybody was quite pleased when the federal government put in its budget this year the whole notion of these tax-free savings accounts, for all the reasons that have been outlined by the minister and also by my colleague from the Official Opposition. The fact that the money can accumulate, the fact that if you do not put $5,000 in one year, say you put it in three, the $2,000 can carry over to the following year. The unused contribution room will always be able to be carried over. It is great. The contributions are not tax deductible, so that is really good as well.

The RRSPs that have been referred to already, do help you up front. If I put money in this year, into RRSPs, next year I will get a benefit in my income tax because it is tax deductible. However, when I take the money out of my RRSPs I then have to pay the income tax. With this new tax-free savings account, I think it has been said already but I am going to say it again, I can put the money in this year, it is not tax deductible next year, but if next year for some reason I needed that $5,000, I will not have to pay any tax on it. That is what makes this different, is that this new system means that is money that you never pay income tax on, but that is not the case with putting money into RRSPs; neither is it the case with people who put money into GICs, the Guaranteed Income Certificates. If you put money into GICs you may make interest on it but then you also have to pay tax on that. So that is something else that is different.

This new system, and I would like to speak to my concern, is that this system is going to benefit middle and upper-income earners rather than low-income earners. I would love to say that it will benefit low-income earners, but when you look, particularly if you look at low-income seniors, their incomes are such, and especially because of the expenses they have - as seniors they have a lot of health care expenses, some of which, if they get GIS, if they get guaranteed income support, get covered, but there are a lot who just are on the edge and do not get GIS, and because of that a lot of their money goes into their health and supporting their health care needs - seniors do not have any money left over. This is the problem. For example, the median incomes of seniors in Newfoundland, based on Statistics Canada 2006-2007, a couple earns only $25,000. That is the median income, whereas in Canada it is $36,500. The median income for senior women in Newfoundland and Labrador is $15,600. No person getting an income of $15,600 is going to be able to benefit from this new system, or any savings system as far as that goes, and $15,600 means that every cent is definitely going out and that person is probably one of the ones we find going to food banks. I would point out that the median income for senior women, single senior women in Canada, is $18,200, over $2,000 more than it is for a single senior woman in Newfoundland and Labrador.

A single senior man in Newfoundland and Labrador has a median income slightly higher than single senior women. It is $15,700, so only $100 higher. In Canada the median income of seniors is $20,200. So in Canada in general, across the whole country, the median income of single senior men, they actually do much better in other parts of the country. They are way beyond, actually, $2,000 more than single senior women; however, here in Newfoundland and Labrador, single senior men and single senior women are almost identical, which I find very interesting.

This is a good program. I am not saying no to it. Nobody is going to say no to it. The federal government put it in place and we are just putting our legislation in line with the federal government's legislation, but I think it is a moment for us to think about the seniors, and low-income seniors in particular. Yes, we want to take care of middle-income earners, there is no doubt about that, and that is a focus of mine, a concern, but I think we need to then look at what are other ways in which we can help seniors and pensioners. Because, while pensioners are seniors, for the most part, not all seniors are pensioners when it comes to public pension plans or even private pension plans other than CPP.

If we cannot benefit them, low-income seniors and low-income pensioners, through something like this new Tax-Free Savings Account, how can we benefit them? They tell us in many ways, in presentations that they have made to government during the Budget, for example, ways in which we can help them if we cannot help them through a savings plan. One is through public pension indexing. We all know that this is an ongoing request, an ongoing concern, an ongoing issue for the pensioners, the public pensioners in this Province.

Another way in which we could help low-income seniors is to remove income tax or fees for government services, not have any fees on government services. Another way would be no provincial sales tax on home heating fuel. We could have higher heating fuel rebates. I think that is something that we need to continue to look at. The rebates are good, but for low-income people they are still not enough. We could eliminate provincial sales tax on funerals. This is something that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi of the relevance of speaking to the particular bill that is on the floor of the House.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, are you saying that I cannot continue saying what I am saying? Because I am referring directly to the tax savings account and pointing out how it benefits some but does not benefit others. I am naming the things that could be done to add to benefits for low-income people. It is a tax bill.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask again that the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi keep her remarks relevant to the bill that is being debated.

MS MICHAEL: I am asking very respectfully, Mr. Speaker, isn't a tax bill a money bill? It is my understanding it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: Well, I have said what I can say, then, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

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

If he speaks now he shall close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments of hon. colleagues across the House and certainly, in regard to the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, in regard to her remarks on the federal plan that was announced in the Budget, and her concerns thereof, that is not lost on us as well and we will follow that, making sure that all of the people who can avail of it, can avail of it, and whatever we can do there.

As was referenced by my hon. colleague from Port de Grave, this is certainly a housekeeping piece of legislation that enables people to assign beneficiaries no differently under their RRSPs today. So it is just a reflection in regard to the federal initiative.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit and we will move on to the next piece of business for the day.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that Bill 19, entitled, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Savings Plans Act, be read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Savings Plans Act. (Bill 19)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time.

When shall the said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

Now? Tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: Today.

MR. SPEAKER: Today.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Savings Plans Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 19)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: I have to say, Mr. Speaker, first of all, I know there is a woman in Corner Brook who is going to be very happy that bill just passed, and I want to congratulate everybody for ensuring that happened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, Order 17, second reading of a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Registration Of Deeds And Other Documents. (Bill 21)

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, that Bill 21, An Act Respecting The Registration Of Deeds And Other Documents, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 21, entitled, An Act Respecting The Registration Of Deeds And Other Documents, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Registration Of Deeds And Other Documents." (Bill 21)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the current Registration of Deeds Act first appeared in 1892, when certainly the system was solely a paper system. It has undergone a number of revisions and amendments over the years, but it is time that the new Registration of Deeds Act be introduced to reflect more modern practices.

Essentially, the registry is used by lawyers, financial institutions, homeowners, and real estate agents. The changes included in this act are a combination of major policy initiatives, minor policy changes, and some housekeeping as well.

Among the significant changes in the new act is registering of deeds electronically and moving also towards a notice-based registration system in requiring mortgages to be released from the Registry of Deeds. Government had a commitment in the Blue Book of 2003 that it would put common transactions online so people could conduct their business convenient to their own schedule.

To address some of the major policy changes, as I just commented on, now this submission proposes that the new act provide for the electronic registration of deeds through the Companies And Deeds Online (CADO) system. The CADO system was built pursuant to an MC to facilitate the registration of deeds and companies and currently perform functions, including the ability to search for companies, deeds, mechanics' liens, filing articles of incorporation, et cetera. It is an absolutely fabulous piece of work that was welcomed certainly by the legal community, by the real estate community, and also by homeowners themselves.

What is being proposed in regard to this amendment or in regard to the new Registry of Deeds Act is that we provide an online registration that will be available to the entire Province. Only practicing and insured members of the Law Society will be permitted to register deeds online. The reason behind that, Mr. Speaker, is to protect the integrity of the land transaction itself. Certainly, the onus of the accuracy will rest with the lawyer, where is should rest. I do not think that we should provide that ability to register online to just lay people or even myself, because there are certainly complex transactions and complex mortgages. We should rely on the accuracy, and we need to rely on the accuracy, of those particular documents that are being registered and certainly the persons who would be able to do that. The onus that should be there in regard to them is on the lawyer themselves.

We consulted heavily with the Law Society especially in regard to the real estate sector and we relied on them. We struck a committee type deal and certainly they are in full support of that particular piece. As a matter of fact, my hon. colleague, the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General, has reflected that it is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that we have brought forward to date, since 2004 in the first sitting of the House once we took government. He is very, very supportive of this piece of legislation and he thinks that it will be facilitated and welcomed right across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador by all aspects of the legal world.

I should reflect, as well, that we are not the first to do this. It has been done in other provinces, and certainly they found it very, very beneficial. It is very supported by the legal profession, the real estate profession, and homeowners themselves.

This submission also proposes a notice-based system. What that means, Mr. Speaker, is that right now in regards to the registration of mortgages we actually register and store the whole document. As we know, because I think most of us here in this House have had mortgages from time to time, they are a lengthy piece of document, probably in excess of seventy-five to eighty pages in length, but mostly the middle part of that document is also reflected in just about every mortgage and is the same from lawyer to lawyer to lawyer. It contains some personal information, too, that has nothing to do in regard to the tracking of a deed and anything thereof. I do not think that should be able to be researched by the general public at large. I think that is personal and it should be held with the person or the mortgagee, be it a banker or wherever it may be.

The facility, the bank or whatever it may be, has a copy of that particular mortgage, which is available to any lawyer at any given time. Also, the actual mortgager has a copy themselves that they can provide to any lawyer when they are completing a transaction. This notice-based system will only contain - and I want to be clear on this - information that is required to search a property to ascertain if there are any encumbrances that exist on that particular piece of property. The personal details that are contained in the mortgage documents will no longer be public, and that information to be registered of a property or encumbrance will not be lost. No pertinent information will be lost in regard to that.

We are proposing under this submission, as well, that the mortgagee register release of mortgages within a certain time limit, I think it is sixty days under the actual legislation. Right now that is not reflected in the current act. We have found that mortgages are still registered and still listed and active in the Registry even though they were registered back in 1910. They are still there, there are still active. We do not know if they were ever paid off or if there are any liens or encumbrances. The property has not transferred so there have not been any searches done on them. They exist, so we think the mortgage is still in existence. We are proposing under this legislation that there has to be a release of that mortgage within a sixty-day period to the Registry of Deeds where we can complete the transaction.

I would like to point out, which we experienced under the past act, that failing to release a mortgage is problematic for land transfers as the encumbrances will still be registered and cannot be transferred until the release is registered. That takes out that aspect and certainly makes it more beneficial for lawyers and for people who are transacting these types of transactions and mortgages and the transfer of lands, to complete the piece of work that they have to complete.

Those are the major pieces, Mr. Speaker. There are some minor policy initiatives as well that I will not get into because they are mainly housekeeping pieces of work; certainly important to the act itself but I will not comment because I think we are only taking up valuable time in this House in regards to that.

The other piece I want to mention in regard to the online is that it is very, very beneficial to the people living in many rural areas. Now they can access the registry through the Internet. They do not have to make a special trip to St. John's to conduct their research and ask someone living in the metro area to do it. Everybody, each and every Newfoundlander and Labradorian, can do their research. They can go on. There is a small fee for that and it is there for a reason: Because we do not necessarily want our system clogged up with people just researching people's deeds and that kind of stuff. It has to be beneficial to the person who is doing it and there has to be a need for the person to do it. That is the reason why that small fee is applied, to deter anybody from just going in there and surfing through everybody's deeds.

Anybody in Newfoundland can do the research, but only lawyers who are registered under the Law Society can actually register a deed because we have to verify the accuracy of what is being registered.

I will not go into any more detail than that, Mr. Speaker. I think I have covered off most of it in regards to the major. I have not gotten into the policy piece. Again, I want to mention to my hon. colleagues in this House that we did consult with the Law Society. They are in full support of this piece of legislation. They think it is very, very important. It is a modernization and meets modern needs. It meets the Internet needs. It will certainly reflect good business practices and enable the real estate world, the real estate industry and the legal profession to make the transactions and complete their work in a timely manner, and that is beneficial to the person that is actually having the transaction done for them.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I welcome any comments from my colleagues across the House.

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

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

I will just take a few moments with regards to Bill 21, An Act Respecting The Registration Of Deeds And Other Documents. As it states under the Explanatory Note: "This Bill would repeal and replace the Registration of Deeds Act to revise and consolidate the law with respect to the registration of deeds and other documents."

Mr. Speaker, we know through the old system, this act is replaced with a brand new act with a lot of non-relevant information being taken out and making the act more reader friendly. As the minister stated, we know this to be a fact because when we did some research in dealing with people who would be affected by this, we knew that there was significant consultation which took place with the Law Society, with banks, and from what I can understand, they were all in favour of the act and what this is doing.

I guess, this being one of the major improvements in the act, as the minister stated, developing an enhanced computer system. It is my understanding that this is being designed by xwave, if I am not mistaken, to allow a deed to be registered on-line. It will be in effect in the spring of 2010. The old system allowed you to search on-line only but now you can register on-line, saving time for licensed users, such as lawyers who can now do that from their own offices.

Mr. Speaker, I guess being in the position that we all hold from time to time, in the past we would be asked by constituents to go to the Registry of Deeds and do little searches for them with their authority and permission being granted. I have to say, that the first time I ever went there, there was nothing on-line. Everything was in the big old file folders, volume such and such, and you would have to look it up. You would probably spend four or five hours trying to find one little deed if you did not know what you were looking for, not being trained in that particular area, I guess.

Maybe it is all on-line now what is listed, but I know they did update it to - I think it was 1980-1981 or something that was on-line and then you would still have to go through the volumes and portfolios and folio numbers and so on to try to find the rest of it. So, hopefully the day will come - and maybe it is done now, I do not know. Maybe it is all on-line now and you do not have to research the way it used to be done. What we are seeing here, once this system is designed it will be taken over then by the department and consulted with the stakeholders, with the Law Society to make sure that everything is done properly.

The minister noted, really there is only one way to really do this and have it done accurately on behalf of the constituents, because all too often many people go and they just get a piece of paper signed by somebody and said this was left to me and so on but when they come to find out at the end of the day, when someone is deceased and they go and try to get a clear title to it, there is a quite a bit of work they have to do. By having it registered properly in the beginning, it eliminates a lot of the problems that they will encounter. I am sure each and every one of us encountered people like that when it comes to doing deeds and so on, Mr. Speaker. It is very important that it be done properly because it saves them time and money and they do not have to go through the process that they would ordinarily have to do because with this system now and the way it is going to be done all on-line.

The other issue, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to note is the based registration system. Before documents like mortgages included all the details concerning payments, interest rates, time frame and plus many pages that really did not have to take –it took a lot of time and a lot of print to deal with. The new act now will allow just the relevant information to be registered and used instead of all the paper which used to be used, saving valuable time and more cost efficient, and not only on behalf of the clients but for all those involved.

Another issue, Mr. Speaker, is the new requirement for a mortgagee with the banks to release documents within sixty days of a mortgage being paid off. Before, there was no such requirement and sometimes causing great difficulty with liens on properties and so on. If they do not comply now, they will be fined. Before, a lot of individuals used to find themselves in difficult positions with this. There will be no more pre-registered documents. Just a final document at the end of the day is the only one that will be registered. Individuals would have to make an agreement to purchase land within a follow-up and a final document. That is eliminated under this piece of legislation. Now it is just the final document. In cases where a mortgagee fails to comply and is guilty of an offence under this new act, they are liable under summary conviction of a fine not exceeding $10,000. So I guess the mortgagees, the banks, or whoever now, I guess they will abide by the sixty day time frame for sure.

The other issue is under section 15. The new act is expanding peace officers to include police officers and mayors in the Province. Before, apparently, they were not included. From my understanding, it was just mayors outside of the Province, but under section 15 now, we know that: an instrument executed in the province may be proven in the presence of the registrar; a judge of the Trial Division; the deputy registrar appointed under the act; commissioner of the Supreme Court; a justice of the peace; the mayor of any town or city here in the Province. It goes on with regards to a member of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary or the RCMP, notary public, or commissioner for oaths. So that is quite a change from what it was before.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation was dealt with over the past fourteen months, is my understanding, with extensive focus in dealing with sessions with regards to the Law Society, with regards to real estate, as mentioned by the minister, and all was in agreement. My understanding is the minister has received quite a bit of support with regards to this piece of legislation.

So, Mr. Speaker, with regards to the Act Respecting The Registration Of Deeds And Other Documents, there is very little else I have to say on that, but I have to say, it is the right way to go. Individuals in our Province, when they have something to register, it is better for them to do it the proper way, done legally, and at the end of the day they will be much better off for that because all too often people find themselves in difficult positions, not having the right documentation. Hopefully, with this new act now and being able to go the modern route with the technology that we have today, to be able to register on-line. Not everybody can register on-line, as the minister stated, but at least now the Law Society, the lawyers, through their association, they can register on-line.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that this is an updated and a good piece of legislation, and to say that I will be supporting Bill 21, An Act Respecting The Registration Of Deeds And Other Documents.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Collins): The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

Just a few points to make with regard to Bill 21, An Act Respecting The Registration Of Deeds And Other Documents.

I am not going to repeat things that the minister and my colleague from the Official Opposition have said. This is obviously a much-needed act. It brings the registration of deeds all the way from the nineteenth century, I understand, into the twenty-first century.

I think it is timely, to say the least, because the actual first act goes right back to the nineteenth century, with all kinds of amendments made, so if we are going to make the jump it is good to make it the whole way by putting all of this, everything with regard to registration of deeds and other documents, on-line so that we can maintain electronic documentation and make it easier for people to register deeds and other documents, which is extremely important.

There really is nothing to add without repeating, I don't think. I am looking at my notes and I think everything has been covered. I know that, as the minister said, these changes have been made in consultation with the Law Society real estate bar, and that is extremely important, and it is important that happened. I do note that the registrar is now appointed by the minister, whereas in the old act the registrar was appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. I think it does make all the sense in the world that this should be under the minister. It does seem to be excessive to have the Lieutenant-Governor in Council appoint the registrar.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would like to have the co-operation of members. There seems to be an awful lot of discussion going on. I am having trouble hearing the speaker, so I will ask for members' co-operation please.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I note that the regulations accompanying the act, we do not have those but they will be ready to be published before the program is launched on-line. I guess we will have to ask to see those regulations. Regulations do not come to the floor of the House, so if we want them we will probably have to go to the ministry to get them. Maybe we could ask the minister if the regulations could be distributed outside of the House, or even distributed to us in the House, knowing that they would not be coming to the House for discussion but just to see what the regulations are.

Obviously this is something else that is going to benefit people in rural Newfoundland in general, and particularly anybody who is outside of St. John's actually. They would be able to do on-line what once required a trip to St. John's, which is also excessive.

Yes, I obviously will be supporting this bill. I am pretty sure, and I am sure the minister would be concerned about this, that we are going to want to make sure that the system, when it is put in place, is up and running without any flaws, that we make sure that it does not get started until any potential flaws have been corrected. I would think that we have some experience now with registration on-line, for example, car registration, those kinds of things that are now happening on-line, that Government Services does have experience with registration. I would be sure, and the minister can confirm this, that they have looked at how well other registrations on-line have been going and that will help them make sure that this one will work as flawlessly as it can.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

It is a pleasure for me to be able to stand in my place here today and say a few words. I want to preface my remarks by congratulating the Minister of Government Services for bringing forward this legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, before I came to this place, I practised law in the City of Corner Brook for a long time. I am not going to say how long, but a major part of my life was dealing with this particular act, the Registration of Deeds Act, and dealing with people's mortgages.

The Minister of Finance, in the practice of law, was a criminal lawyer who was involved in many famous murder trials and wrongful dismissal trials, and has spent a great part of his life trying to right certain wrongs in our justice system, and he is to be commended for that and admired for that.

My role, in practising law in the City of Corner Brook for many years, was dealing with ordinary citizens. I was, in a sense, like a country lawyer who would deal with families and individuals, who would do their wills and act for them when they bought their homes, and act for them when they bought businesses, and acting for the local banks in preparing mortgages and debenture security, a different type of practice.

What this act does, this act is another example of government doing something to help the people in the rural parts of our Province; because now, instead of having to take your documents and send them by courier or by mail from Happy Valley-Goose Bay to St. John's, and run a risk during the time the documents are in the mail, we can now register the documents electronically, which gives everybody in rural Newfoundland an even and level playing field with everybody else.

Under the Registration of Deeds Act, he who registers first wins. It is not the date the documents are signed. It is not the date the deeds are signed and the mortgages are signed. He who gets priority is the person who registers their documents first in the Registry of Deeds. So a deal could be done in Nain, someone could buy a home in Nain, someone could get a mortgage in Nain, and then the documents have to be sent to St. John's. During the time it would take for those documents to come all of the way from Nain to St. John's, someone else, like someone from Gander for example, could register in the Registry of Deeds a claim for lien which could give that person priority and diminish the rights of the person up in Nain who, in good faith, purchased the property and took out the mortgage.

This changes everything, Mr. Speaker. This is a tremendous fairness now being offered to the people of rural Newfoundland, and I congratulate the minister on doing this. Documents can now be registered electronically and on-line.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing I want to say is that another major change is the persons who can witness a document, persons who can prove the signature. Now, at one time you were limited to certain people. You were limited to lawyers, you were limited to notary publics, or you were limited to a Commissioner for Oaths. Now, Mr. Speaker, it has been broadened. You can now have the mayor of a city or town in the Province sign the document. Mr. Speaker, an officer of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary can prove a document. A member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police can prove a document, in addition to notary publics, Commissioner for Oaths, and this will make it easier and quicker and cheaper for people in rural Newfoundland, and it is another good example of why this is important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, one other thing that has happened in this Province is that if a mortgage company takes a mortgage on your property and you pay that mortgage off, you want a release of mortgage because a mortgage consists of two things. First of all, it is the transfer of an interest in property. Secondly, it is the promise to pay back a sum of money. The property is transferred as security for the payment of the money, and when the mortgage is paid off you then require from the mortgage company a release of that mortgage. That is not simply a receipt. It is an acknowledgement that the debt has been repaid but, more importantly, in the release of mortgage, which is a simple one-page document, there is a reconveyance of the legal title from the mortgage company back to the mortgagor, back to the owner of the property. If that document is not returned within a reasonable time it could cause unfairness to the borrower who may wish to sell the property again.

We have had examples in this Province where releases of mortgages, even though the mortgage has been paid off, the releases do not come back for up to six months to a year later. So I am delighted to see a clause in this which would now provide that, where a mortgagee has been asked to provide a release of mortgage, if the mortgagee does not provide the release of mortgage within sixty days, the mortgagee has to pay a fine up to and not exceeding $10,000. So that will change that, and that will make mortgage companies pay attention to their customers.

This is great legislation and this will help the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and particularly rural Newfoundland.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will urge passage of this legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Minister speaks now he will close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing left to say.

MR. O'BRIEN: With that, Mr. Speaker, I must agree with my hon. colleague, that I have nothing left to say. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I welcome his remarks and I welcome his support, right through the system in regards to this piece of legislation. Certainly he reflected kindly on the piece of legislation. He reflected on its importance to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Law Society, and I welcome his remarks.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit and we will move the next piece of work that we have to do this afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 21 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 Respecting The Registration Of Deeds And Other Documents, Bill 21,

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House? Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Registration Of Deeds And Other Documents," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 21)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 18, second reading of Bill 22, An Act Respecting Consumer Protection And Business Practices.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 22, An Act Respecting Consumer Protection And Business Practices. It has been moved and seconded that this bill be now read a second time.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker I move, seconded by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, that Bill 22, An Act Respecting Consumer Protection And Business Practices, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Consumer Protection And Business Practices." (Bill 22)

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, this is the creation of an act called the Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act and it actually falls out of the repeal of several other acts that are contained within the Department of Government Services. It is a red tape reduction piece of work, as well, and it gives clarity to the consumer and to the business owner in regard to some of the aspects that they should be aware of in regard to their business practices.

The six or seven acts that I am referring to are all consumer protection and business practice acts. They are all about modernization of a piece of legislation. It certainly recognizes many transactions that are conducted through the Internet and/or telemarketing. That is the only difference between all the acts.

I should probably name off some of the acts that we are going to repeal with this piece of legislation as well: the Trade Practices Act, the Direct Sellers Act, the Unsolicited Goods and Credit Cards Act, the Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act, the Consumer Protection Act, and a bill entitled the Cost of Consumer Credit Disclosure Act.

We are going to roll them all into one act and remove any duplication that you might find from one act to another that you will find in regard to the legislation. It is a part of the ongoing work of my officials and my department in regard to over 150 pieces of legislation contained in Government Services. We are certainly making great strides in reducing red tape when it comes to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and availing of any of the services that are provided under the legislation under my department at this particular time.

We are not alone in moving to this type of consolidation. Other provinces have already introduced similar acts, such as British Columbia and Alberta.

We have a commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that we made back in 2003-2004, in the Blue Book of 2003, that we would eliminate red tape and we would streamline any of the services or the legislation pertaining to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.


I think, in regard to An Act Respecting Consumer Protection And Business Practices, that is well reflected here in this particular act.

There are no policy shifts in regard to the several acts that are going to be repealed. Everything is still contained therein. Any duplication that you might find from one act to the other is eliminated, as I referred to before. We have made provision for distance sales, such as the Internet, over the TV or whatever it may be. These things were not in vogue when the particular acts that are being repealed today were enacted. Certainly, people were not purchasing things over the Internet at that particular time, nor the TV, and the kind of thing they do today.

That is the only piece that we brought in regard to a new provision under the new act. Again, everything in this old act is contained within the new act.

I think this is a very important piece of work, as well, because it brings clarity to the people who would avail of this legislation and want to understand the legislation in regard to whatever they are doing. It provides the same consumer protection level that it always has in the past and this is a very important act.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat and I welcome any comments from my particular colleagues across the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just take a few minutes to make a few comments with regard to Bill 22, An Act Respecting Consumer Protection And Business Practices.

The minister just stated, Mr. Speaker, for the record, that this is a very important piece of legislation, and I have to concur with that, because protecting the consumer is a very important factor. When I go through a few of the clauses that I have here, I just want to relate why I believe that.

Under clause 4, it outlines how the minister can appoint a director of consumer protection and business practices, as well as an assistant director, and under clause 6, the minister may approve forms and set fees for the purposes of this act. Maybe when he brings closure to this debate, he can explain if any fees have been put in place, or what fees may be accounted for.

With regard to section 6, where it says the minister may approve forms and set fees for the purpose of this act, I was just wondering if, in closing, maybe you can explain if there are any fees that have been put in place, or what you reference there.

Under section 7 of the act, where it says, unfair consumer practices: There are twenty-eight subsections under section 7. Where it outlines, "an unfair business practice is a representation, conduct or failure to disclose material facts that has the effect, or might reasonably have the effect, of deceiving or misleading a consumer…", I just want to touch on two or three of those, Mr. Speaker, because I think each and every one of them are very important. From time to time, when people become involved with regards to purchasing, many times people are mislead, maybe intentionally or unintentionally.

Under one of them, it says, "a representation that the goods have a particular prior history or use where they have not", where people have been told something about an item that they are about to purchase or did purchase, and it has been very misleading to them.

"a representation that a specific price advantage exists where it does not;": Many times, people are lead to believe that they will get something for a certain price, and when they receive their invoices, they know that this is not what was quoted to them. Therefore, under this act, there will be protection, that they can come back with regards to the particular businesses or individuals who they were dealing with.

It also says, "a representation that a part, replacement, repair or adjustment is needed where it is not."

The last one I will reference is, "a representation that goods or services are free when that is not the case." Many times people who, from time to time, when dealing with issues, whether it is through the internet, whether it is sales over the TVs - now, where we have so many variables, people can order various items - but many times they are misled. They may say, there is a certain item, you buy this and you get something else free. Little do they realize that down the road they signed into something that is probably not as free as they thought it was.

Under Clause 10, remedies of consumers: This is where it states - and I think this is very important - "Where a consumer has entered into a transaction with a supplier and has suffered damages as a result of an unfair business practice or unconscionable act or practice, he or she may start an action in a court against the supplier." I think this is very important, because many people, as I said, get caught for various reasons. Now, in this legislation there is a clause where it outlines what could happen. Once, I guess, it is ruled upon by a judge or what have you, it goes on to say what can happen there. They can make an order declaring the act or practice to be unfair, they can award damages for losses suffered through this issue, or make an order rescinding the transaction. So, there is protection for the consumer in this light.

The other clause I would like to look at just for a second is clause 18, Definitions. In 18 it says, "In this Part, "unsolicited goods" means personal property provided to a person who did not request it, but does not include…" Many times people get involved – and I am not going name any names of any companies, but we all know there are various record companies, book companies, and so on. People have a keen interest and probably they want a particular book, but little do they know that when they sign up they are probably going to receive a book, one a month for two or three years, and the same way with record companies. We know, under this piece of legislation, that there are clauses here that will help to protect the consumer when it comes to this issue.

Under clause 21 – and I guess it is all tied together – it says Consumer's remedy, "A consumer who pays for unsolicited goods or services may give to the supplier a demand, in writing, for a refund from the supplier within 60 days after the consumer first received the goods…" Mr. Speaker, there is protection for those individuals and rightly so.

The minister already referenced, under Clause 112 the following acts which have been repealed. We see here, Mr. Speaker, I think it is seven or eight acts which have been repealed and all combined with regard to Bill 22.

Mr. Speaker, under this act there are not a lot of changes, only consolidation of existing bills, and this is following the lead, if I understand it correctly, of British Columbia, Alberta and other provinces that are doing the same thing. We are bringing a lot of laws under the one heading and it is outlined in the ending of this bill. It states the number of bills that are incorporated into the one. So what we are doing here, I believe, is more or less housekeeping again, bringing several bills into the one, which is now known as Bill 22.

People asked for it because the other users of the bills are not going all over the place to find different pieces of legislation. It is almost like one-stop-shopping. You will find it all under Bill 22. I should not say all I suppose, but you will find most of it, when it comes to consumer protection, and so on.

The only notable change is the distance sales, meaning sales on the Internet. As I stated earlier, this is becoming all too common for many people. People get involved in it when they see something on the television screen, and many times it is a good deal. We have done shopping through the Internet as well, but it is something that you have to be very careful of. The sales through the Internet have increased dramatically and there must be protection when you are doing so, and it is good to know that even this is included in this particular bill.

It is difficult to protect what people are doing on the Internet but at least now they have requirements through this piece of legislation. We will never cover off on everything I guess but many people, Mr. Speaker, get involved in various transactions and some of them may be only minor, some of them are of a major consequence, major value. We know that as of May 12, 2009, bankruptcies have leapt to 51 per cent this particular year, up to this point in time. Much of this comes about issues where people get in trouble financially dealing with various companies, and the greater majority of those companies are legitimate and above board but there is always someone out there to try to do the system and do individuals.

Another issue, people find themselves in great difficulty when they sign up for different products and so on. Many of them are unable to pay for what they did order, not knowing what they are getting into. Then they are turned over to the collection agencies. It is my understanding, under this act there is protection there as well, what people can do. I have had many constituents who call me saying that a collection agency is after me, they are doing this, they are doing that, but there are things that they cannot do.

I have a little booklet here that is put out by the department, as far as I know – yes, by the Department of Government Services, where it states very clearly, and just for the record I want to touch on them. A consumer does have rights. A collection agency may not telephone you, visit you, or send you mail at your place of employment, and many people do get calls. The collection agencies do go through their employers. They cannot contact your employer without your consent, and I can assure you that is being done. Many employers are being called by collection agencies of different groups without any consent. They cannot collect more than you owe the creditor. They cannot call you between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. That is happening as well. I know that, I have had constituents calling and saying: Look, can someone call me late in the hours of the night? Because they are more or less trying to intimidate them so that they will pay back, not only what they owe but probably beyond that. Many people call and pretend to be somebody else. That is not allowed. Under the rules that are put out by the department they cannot make collect telephone calls. They cannot charge you for telephone calls or mail costs.

So, that is what is happening, and it is good to see under this act that there is protection for the consumer because it is very important. When people get involved with regards to purchases, whether large or small, they want to know that they are protected. The same thing when it comes to, like door- to-door selling. Many people who go door to door are selling good products, they are good individuals but there is always someone who comes by who is there to try and take in the consumer. We have known cases where the consumer was unable to track down the sales person after they left. They are after buying this product and probably put a lot of dollars into it but they are unable to track them down because the item that they purchased was probably faulty or was not up to the expectations that they thought.

So, Mr. Speaker, under this particular act - and it is also worth noting I believe because the act is called the Consumer Protection and Business Practices Act, but also it is worthy of note that the business individuals should be protecting themselves as well. Even though we are not talking about all of them that are doing wrong to the consumer, but I believe each and every individual company should be incorporated so at least there is protection for them as well. By being incorporated, they have flexibility in financing, limited liability, and there are various tax incentives that they receive, but the key to it as well, is that if something should go wrong to the consumer at least they are protected under this issue.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to Bill 22, I think it is a very important piece of legislation dealing with the consumer. The consumer needs protection from time to time. Like I said before, they just find themselves in a very difficult position. This piece of legislation is a fairly lengthy piece, with 112 clauses, but like I said, why it is so large I guess, it takes in seven or eight other particular pieces of legislation that are all combined into one.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I just want to say, for the record, that I will be supporting An Act Respecting Consumer Protection And Business Practices, Bill 22.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Just a few comments on Bill 22, An Act Respecting Consumer Protection And Business Practices.

Again, this is an act that consolidates a number of other acts, as has been pointed out by the minister. One of the things, of course, is that it consolidates the act, the Cost of Consumer Credit Disclosure Act, which actually was an act that we debated in the House a year ago. That was a new act and it was a good act. That act is now repealed but it is repealed because the act, verbatim, is now found in the new act that is before us today. So we have not lost the act that we passed last year, and that is good.

As has been pointed out, I think government has a responsibility to protect consumers because consumers can really be at the mercy of people to whom they go for services. This act is quite comprehensive in getting at all the different services that consumers can use and the loopholes that could be there, whereby consumers could be hoodwinked or not treated fairly or all kinds of other language I could use, but will not use, by those to whom they go for services. I think it is really important that we make sure that we have everything here in this act to protect people.

One of my concerns is, and I think we discussed this last year when we discussed the act Cost of Consumer Credit Disclosure, and that is making sure that the average consumer understands how they are being protected. What is here in the act that protects them and how are they going to know how they are protected? I think last year, in our discussions, the minister committed to a plain language brochure for business and consumers to understand their rights as outlined in the old Cost of Consumer Credit Disclosure Act. A plain language brochure for me would mean one that people who are involved in literacy would be involved in and would give help in putting together, noting what actually is language that is required to gear towards your average level of literacy in society.

I am wondering if the plans are still in place to do a plain language brochure that then would get wide distribution in the Province. I am not sure where that could be distributed. I do not know if the ministry is having those discussions yet. Maybe it could be general mail, whatever, but if we are going to go through passing such an important act then I think it is really incumbent upon the ministry to make sure that people receive information that tells them very clearly, so that they do not have any doubts, what their rights are and where they can go if they feel that their rights have been infringed upon by a company that they go to for service. I look forward to hearing what the minister may have to say with regard to that.

I have another concern that has to do with a very particular clause, and it is clause 42.(1)(b), but I will read 42.(1), the opening paragraph, "A credit reporting agency, during normal business hours, upon the request of a consumer, and without charge,… (b) shall produce for examination in written form, clearly understandable to the consumer, the contents of all the credit information, except medical information obtained with the written consent of the consumer that the consumer's physician has requested in writing be withheld from the consumer…." I have a real concern about that, because, what would the physician be telling the credit reporting agency that the consumer should not see?

We now have legislation that says that patients, for example, can have access to their medical records, and would a physician not only be saying what is already in a medical record? I really am concerned about that clause, Mr. Speaker, and I would like an explanation from the minister. I may want to speak more to it when we go into Committee, because I want to get some more information myself, unless the minister has a really clear answer to me.

This seems to go against something that we have already passed in the House, like I said, with regard to the rights of patients to have access to the medical records. I mean, a doctor should not be saying anything that is not in the medical record. If a patient can have access to a medical record, why should a patient have hidden from them what a doctor may have said to the credit reporting agency?

I find this very disturbing, actually, and I would like to have further discussion on this point. Except for that, Mr. Speaker, everything in this is quite logical and is quite needed. I will not take any more of our time discussing it except to say that, depending on what the minister says, I may want to come back to this in Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the minister speaks now he will close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, certainly this is a very important act, and the consolidation of several acts. As I said before, there are no policy shifts in regard to any portion of the act as well.


I think there was a question from my hon. colleague across the House, from Port de Grave, in regard to any fees that might be attached to the agencies that would need licences. That is already covered off, and it will be covered off in this act as well. It was covered off in the other acts.

If I could read from my BlackBerry, actually, Mr. Speaker, at this particular time to get the information that the hon. member asked for, direct sellers, those particular fees would range from $100 - for an individual or a person in a company with just one individual it would be $100; $300 from one to ten; $400 from eleven to twenty staff; and $500 for over twenty sales persons. The other is collection agencies and they have to pay a $300 straight fee. That is also reflected under the new act. It was contained under the several acts that are being repealed. I think that actually answers the concerns of the Member for Port de Grave.

With some of the comments that were made by the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I think one of the things she mentioned was clause 42.(1)(b). I will endeavour to get an answer on that for Committee, as fast as I possibly can, and get back to her on that. I do not know the reason why we would keep that information back, but certainly I would want this piece of legislation to go to Committee and pass today. If I cannot get it then I will consider an amendment, if needed, in the fall session of the House of Assembly. You have my commitment on that.

The brochure piece, I will endeavour as well to do that. As a matter of fact, I actually see it as a piece of work that Government Services could provide to consumers as the handbook that the hon. Member for Port de Grave, too, referenced in his speaking remarks. So we might very well do that as well. I am not sure if that particular handbook would cover it all off, but maybe we should review that as well to reflect the new way.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I will sit now and we will move to the next piece of legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 22 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 Respecting Consumer Protection And Business Practices. (Bill 22)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time.

When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Consumer Protection And Business Practices," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 22)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 19, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act. (Bill 23)

MR. SPEAKER: An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act. (Bill 23)

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, that Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 23 be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act." (Bill 23)

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

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

Again, this is a very important act, and an amendment to the Occupational Health And Safety Act, but right up front I do not want to confuse the amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act in regard to the regulations pertaining to it.

I might reflect just quickly on the regulations that we went through an extensive consultation process in regard to those regulations that have been endorsed by all the stakeholders, including the Federation of Labour.

We addressed one issue that was a concern of the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi in regard to removing of the registry, and in regard to Question Period I made a commitment to consult with the Federation. We did consult over the January and February period and, as a matter of fact, I think it was on Budget day, she complimented my staff and myself in regard to that consultation process, and fully endorsed it, now that they understand. So if I could actually mention that up front.

So the regulations, in regard to that consultation process, we started out with the old regulations in 1978 having 182 sections, and now we have 522 sections thereof under the regulations, probably some of the most modern regulations in occupational health and safety that you would see in Canada today.

This bill has three areas that I would like to just reflect on. This bill will be adding the definition of a supervisor and the duties and responsibility of the supervisor. Current legislation does not provide for this provision, which is why we are adding it now, so we can ensure a safe and healthy working environment. As the employers' representative, the supervisor must provide written or oral instructions regarding precautions to ensure workers wear the necessary equipment that they would need to keep them safe on the job. This clarifies for the supervisor and for the employer their responsibilities to provide a safe and healthy workplace and a working environment for their particular workers.

I reflect, too, that any injury to a worker comes off the employer's bottom line, and that is the bottom line of it. The utmost concern of myself, as an employer in the past, was the safety of my workers because they were the most essential part of my business and I certainly reflected my business practices around that.

There are also two minor amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. We are proposing to repeal section 61 respecting the registration of workers, and to amend section 65(1) (w) pertaining to the establishment of the Electrical and Fisheries Advisory Committees. These committees have never been consulted or they have not been active for many years. Essentially this is because we are well covered off in other departments or within Government Services as well.

I also want to say that the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture are working to establish a fishing sector safety council in which Occupational Health and Safety will participate. This council will be an effective mechanism to ensure health and safety in the fishing sector.

In addition, the Government Services branch of my department has a chief electrical inspector and the electrical inspector will ensure compliance with the electrical code under its public safety mandate.

As well, under the Occupational Health and Safety Act we have an Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council which provides advice on health and safety in all sectors of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, that is essentially what is contained in regard to the amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Again, it is a very important piece of work today because the safety and health of our workers are of the utmost to this government or any government, past or present, in this Province. Certainly, this reflects a modernization of the regulations and a modernization of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I welcome any comments from my colleagues across the House.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure again to stand with regard to Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Occupational Health and Safety Act.

No doubt about it, each and every piece of legislation is important, but I do not know if there is any more important than this is, because with this piece of legislation and what has been done through other avenues we know - and we heard it only recently, I think it was through a ministerial statement, how the number of accidents in the workforce is reducing over a period of time, and what this is all about I think adds to that.

As the minister stated in clause 1 and clause 2, it is the defining of a definition for a supervisor. Before, in the legislation, it just mentioned the employer. No doubt about it, I know some employers in my area who have large numbers of individuals working in their companies and they probably do not have time to get out and do what has to be done with regard to what is mentioned in this piece of legislation. To know that there will be an individual classified as a supervisor who has duties to do - there will be consultation with stakeholders around the importance of supervisory roles in the prevention of accidents in the workplace.

I understand from the minister and from our research that there has been overwhelming feedback on the critical role of a supervisor. During an incident in the workplace the supervisory position is paramount in getting the prevention measures that are needed. That is all very important, Mr. Speaker, to see that there is an individual dealing with it. As the minister stated, when he was in business the first and foremost thing was his employees.

Clause 3 of the act "…would repeal section 61 respecting the registration of workers." Registration of workers was never constituted and was never practical. I guess the initial idea of the registry would be to monitor workers and the accidents related to them in the industry no matter where they would go. This was very impossible to monitor and also ineffective. You take thirty years ago when the registration idea was brought about. It was less about prevention and the hazards that were in the workplace they lived in. Today, Mr. Speaker, that is unacceptable, and now everything is about prevention. There is a different environment about that. Prevention is the key

Some of the most important ads I see on television - I do not know what the particular program is called, but we see a bucket just standing in the corridor, and in another one we see a ladder by the wall, more or less outlining that they are accidents just waiting to happen. They show the results of what would happen there.

Mr. Speaker, under Clauses 4 and 5: Clause 4 of the act "…would remove the reference in section 65 of the Act to the making of regulations respecting the appointment of advisory committees on matters relating to the safe use of electricity." Under Clause 5, "the Bill would repeal the regulations which provided for the establishment of the Electrical Advisory Committee and the Fisheries Advisory Committee." Worthy of note with regard to sections 4 and 5, the Electrical Advisory and the Fisheries Advisory Committees were really never in effect as such and are now being replaced under the Occupational Health and Safety Council. I think that it is very important, to have it all embodied in the one act, I would say, under the one umbrella. The council has a real broad but meaningful mandate that allows them to do what is necessary to help bring forth stakeholders' concerns and to bring about action with regard to whatever issues, and this will be all done in consultation with the minister.

The council has been reconstituted in the past two years, and it has members from all sectors representing interests that are important to all stakeholders. That is very important, to know that people are coming together regardless of whether they are employers, others with interest within the occupational health and safety, government officials and all. Members are there to protect and prevent. That is the key issue that we have facing ourselves today, prevention. The council's mandate, Mr. Speaker, also allows them to bring in the experts when needed, and all of this is done through this piece of legislation. We know that clause 6 of the bill is just a commencement clause.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act, we know in the workplace, regardless of whether it is in industry, whether it is in just a local business, not a major industry that hires many people, but it may be just a small business, prevention is very key and paramount when it comes to occupational health and safety.

Having made those few comments, I just want to say to the minister that I will be supporting this bill, Bill 23. I think it is very important that government and all stakeholders do whatever can be done to improve conditions in the workplace and to educate the individuals who are taking part so that all accidents will be prevented. We have heard it through the Workers' Compensation Commission and through the minister, that there has been a major change, and hopefully that will continue into the future.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act.

It is an important bill. I think every bill we do is important, but this is particularly important because of what we are dealing with in the bill, occupational health and safety.

I thank the minister for pointing out the consultation that his ministry carried on with the Federation of Labour, the steelworkers and other unions, in putting this piece of legislation together. I appreciate his responding to a concern that I raised, and that had to do with the registry. I am assuming from what the minister said, that the Federation of Labour and the unions agreed with the registry of workers being no longer required. We do know that the registry that was there in the section that is being repealed was never really used.

I do have a further question to the minister, and that has to do with: What is going to be done with regard to tracking workers who are working with hazardous materials, hazardous ore, or other hazardous materials? How will government be tracking those workers? Because if there are workplaces where there are known hazardous materials, whether it is materials that are being mined in an ore, or whether it is materials outside of ores, all kinds of hazardous materials, will there be a tracking mechanism so that OHS safety officers will know that there are particular places where they should be looking, places where they should have concern? I am sure the minister can fill me in on that, because it is something that comes to my mind.

I am also wondering, to whom will the new supervisors be accountable? I am assuming again, that they would be accountable to the OH&S inspectors. That would make sense. I would assume that when inspectors go to a workplace they will want to know: Is there a supervisor? Who is the supervisor, and how the supervisor is performing this work? If I am wrong about that, I would like to know also. So I would like the minister to speak to who will be monitoring, when and whether or not the supervisors are put in place in the workplaces.

We do know that the Statutory Review Committee recommended an increase in the number of OH&S inspectors to adequately provide coverage to the 14,000 companies and organizations in this Province. Many of which have multiple work sites, and suggested an appropriate inspection regime for the OH&S branch that would assist the joint OH&S committee in creating a safety culture. So, I wonder what is happening with regard to increasing the number of OH&S inspectors, and if we are going to have new regulations like the one that is here today in this bill, then we have to have capacity to monitor the new regulations to make sure that they are put in place, or else having the regulation will be meaningless. I think it would be important, too, that the mandate of OH&S officers should include more unannounced and uninvited inspections of work sites with a view to helping develop a better safety culture. So I think that is something that the minister should be thinking about as well.

The Statutory Review Committee also made another recommendation, or made an acknowledgement, I think which is important, and made a recommendation. I was just reminding members of the House that the Statutory Review Committee was made up of labour, business and government. Government was part of the review committee and that review committee acknowledged the seriousness of occupational disease and occupational illness in our Province. We have new ones that are arising. For example, crab asthma which now has been - being discussed for some number of years but it is a new one in terms of actually dealing with it.

We have diseases coming up that are the result of being in workplaces twenty or more years ago, such as workers from the Baie Verte mine but the diseases are only coming up now. So we have a serious situation, as does any place that has industry, with regard to occupational disease and occupational illness. The Statutory Review Committee, again which involved labour, business and government, said that we need to take necessary steps to prevent and minimize the impact on workers by putting in place occupational health clinics in the Province, and this recommendation for occupational health clinics is coming from a number of places, both in this Province and nationally.

I know that SafetyNet, the research body at the university, is certainly concerned about occupational health clinics. So what we have here, this bill which would actually have somebody on the work site responsible for exercising direction and control over workers when it comes to occupational health and safety. It is very important to have this bill but there is a lot more that has to be done in our Province to create a real safety culture in our Province in the workplace. This bill is a step, but the recommendations of the Statutory Review Committee are recommendations that need to be taken very seriously. They were well thought out and were based on solid research.

So, I would recommend to the minister, that his ministry look more closely at the recommendations of the Statutory Review Committee and I look forward to a day when we have an act here in our hands that would have to do with those two recommendations in particular. Well one, the occupational health clinics. I think that would be something that would go a long ways to really help our workers in this Province. Obviously, we do not need legislation to increase the number of inspectors but I would like to see, down the road, that the ministry is coming through with a larger number of inspectors so that we really can make sure that workplaces are inspected frequently, that they are inspected without notification ahead of time, and that the inspectors have the resources they need and a workable number of workplaces to deal with so that they can make sure that when they go in, they really do a full inspection, including looking at what the new supervisors will be doing in those workplaces.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. minister speaks now he will close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome the comments from my hon. colleagues across the House and I just want to reflect on a couple of them.

In regards to the OHS division within my department, it is an enforcement wing. It is an enforcement apparatus but also we attach an educational piece to that too, as well. So we very well monitor the employers. We enforce the employers, and we also will interact with the supervisors making sure that they are actually giving their employees the right information and also providing the right equipment in regards to making it a safe and healthy workplace.

Our OHS officers are very, very professional. We are always monitoring in regards to the industries and the growth of employment and the growth of business within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. At any given time that I see we need an increase in our resources, that will be reflected in my budget request of that particular year.

I think it was mentioned by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi in regards to: What do we do in regards to hazardous material and how do we monitor that? Well, our goal is to, number one, remove hazardous material. That is our mandate now, to remove it from the place of work; or, if we cannot remove it, we make sure that each and every worker is adequately protected under the law. In that way we certainly do monitor. We go back on an ongoing basis, making sure that the hazardous material has been dealt with, or they have provided the proper equipment that would make it safe for the worker to handle that particular piece of material.

Also, as reflected last year in Question Period, as the Minister Responsible for Government Services and the OHS Division, I have the ability to establish Codes of Practice. If that is required under any type of hazard material that will be encountered in the future then I have that right to establish that Code of Practice which has been hailed around the world, really, and across Canada certainly as probably one of the most modernized practices, and very proactive in regard to the safety and protection of our particular workers.


I hope I have answered the questions here today. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit and we will move to the next piece of business.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety 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 Occupational Health And Safety Act. (Bill 23)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 23 has now been read a second time.

When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 23)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bills 11, 19, 21, 22 and 23.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain bills.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

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 (T. Osborne): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Bill 11, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 11, An Act Respecting Credit Unions.

A bill, "An Act Respecting Credit Unions." (Bill 11)

CLERK: Clause 1.

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 198 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 198 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 198 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 Respecting Credit Unions.

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 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.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, Bill 19.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 19, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Savings Plans Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Savings Plans Act." (Bill 19)

CLERK: Clause 1.

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: 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 Amend The Income Tax Savings Plans 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 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.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, Bill 21.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 21, An Act Respecting The Registration Of Deeds And Other Documents.

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Registration Of Deeds And Other Documents." (Bill 21)

CLERK: Clause 1.

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 44 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 44 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 44 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 Respecting The Registration Of Deeds And Other Documents.

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 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.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, Bill 22.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 22, An Act Respecting Consumer Protection And Business Practices.

A bill, "An Act Respecting Consumer Protection And Business Practices." (Bill 22)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

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

I just wanted to address an issue and a concern of the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and I believe it was pertaining to section 42.(1)(b) of the act. It was contained in the current act as being repealed and it was moved verbatim from one act to this one new act, but I do agree with the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that I have some concerns with it as well, so what I am proposing here today is to remove that clause from the act.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am delighted to hear what the minister has said, because I really do not think it fits with the Personal Health Information Act. I think it goes against the spirit of the Personal Health Information Act, so I am glad to know it is being repealed.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Is it my understanding from the hon. Minister of Government Services that we are going to amend the act by deleting that clause?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, it is my understanding that the minister will be putting through an amendment, so at this time we will adjourn the debate on this particular bill and we will call Bill 23.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act." (Bill 23)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am sorry; it is hard for me to be seen by you, I know.

I just want to ask the minister for further explanation with regard to an issue that I raised and that he spoke to. It had to with what I said with regard to the Statutory Review Committee, and the Statutory Review Committee recommending that we need more Occupational Health and Safety inspectors, that we need an increase in the number of Occupational Health and Safety inspectors.

The minister said - I am paraphrasing now, and he can say if I have not said it correctly - that when he recognizes that there is a need for more inspectors that he would put that as a request in the budget.

Is the minister saying that he does not agree with the recommendation of the Statutory Review Committee, which had government on the committee? It is that committee that has recommended that there is a need for a greater number of inspectors. I am really curious as to why the minister does not agree with the recommendation of the Statutory Review Committee.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Chair, it is not that I disagree with the recommendation, it is that as the minister responsible for the Occupational Health and Safety Division which is contained within my department, I have the responsibility to address budgetary issues as well. That has to all go through the budgetary process. In regard to that recommendation, I have to analyze the economy and analyze where we are going in regard to the expansion of our economy. If we see our occupational health and safety people, talk with them and consult with them - if they are, well then I will bring a budgetary piece in with regard to the budget process this coming year which will reflect an increase in our OHS officers if need be.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act." (Bill 23)

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 6 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 6 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 to 6 inclusive 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 Amend The Occupational Health And Safety 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 without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee reporting having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I moved that the Committee rise, report Bills 11, 19, 21 and 23, and on Bill 22 report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is that I rise the Committee, 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 St. John's South and Deputy Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, there was a motion put to the chair. The motion is that the committee rise, report progress on Bill 22 and report Bills 11, 19, 21, and 23 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 Bills 11, 19, 21, and 23 carried without amendment, and progress made on Bill 22, and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the report be received?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the committee have leave to sit again?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bills be read a third time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, bills ordered read a third time tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance, that the House do now adjourn.

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

This House now stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow, being Monday.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 p.m.