The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today, the Speaker would like to welcome students from the Spaniard's Bay campus of the Discovery Centre. The students are accompanied today by their teachers: Paula King and Margaret Taylor.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Today, the Chair welcomes also the following members' statements: the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North; the hon. the Member for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale; the hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands; and the hon. Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Provincial Electoral District Scholarship winners for 2009. The Province awards 201 high school graduates annually.

These students, as well as all high school graduates, are to be recognized and congratulated on their hard work and commitment over the past several years in achieving their high school diploma. They are now prepared to pursue post-secondary studies, if they so choose, armed with the knowledge that a secondary education affords them.

I would like to congratulate in particular: Carrissa Reid, Veronica Hounsell and Adam Budgell of Mount Pearl Senior High, and Peter Seifert of O'Donel High School.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating all of the recipients of the Provincial Electoral District Scholarship, and wish them all the best for success in the years to come.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This past summer, South Korea was a site of the largest international craft show in the world, which saw fifty nations participating!

It gives me great pleasure to rise in this hon. House today to inform you that Linda Yates and David Hayashida of King's Point Pottery were among the eight exhibitors from Newfoundland and Labrador that were chosen by the Canadian Crafts Federation to attend.

Not only were they the only Canadian crafters to have two pieces displayed at the event, but also it was the first time Canadian works have been featured at that show. One of the pieces was a twelve-foot high image of a traditional Newfoundland and Labrador tin kettle, comprised of 230 pottery soda cups which is a symbol of rural life in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Even more remarkable was that this was the introductory piece, the gateway piece, the first to be seen as people entered the show. King's Point Pottery is to be commended for its outstanding contribution it has made in promoting and preserving Newfoundland and Labrador culture.

It is with tremendous pride that I ask all hon. colleagues to join with me in celebrating Linda and David's extraordinary achievement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize an amazing man, Jackie Barrett, of the Town of Gillams in the Bay of Islands.

Mr. Speaker, at the age of two years old Jackie was diagnosed with autism and the future did not look bright for this young child at the time. However, Mr. Speaker, with the love of his parents, Robert and Jeannie Barrett, and their determination, Jackie went to school and successfully received his Bachelor of Commerce Degree and majored in computer science.

Mr. Speaker, Jackie is also a powerlifter and, in fact, represented Canada in the 2003 Special Olympics World Games and won four gold medals for the country. In 2007, Jackie competed for Canada again at the Special Olympics in Shanghai and again brought home four gold medals.

Jackie now, at the age of thirty-five, can lift 650 pounds on the dead lift and 700 pounds on the squat. Mr. Speaker, Jackie is now training and hopes to represent Canada, or as he puts it: Newfoundland and Labrador, at the Special Olympics in Greece in 2011.

Mr. Speaker, Jackie is employed with Academy Canada as their Web Master and recently was a torch bearer for Corner Brook, welcoming the Olympic Torch.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members here today to recognize Jackie Barrett, an outstanding gentleman, athlete and professional in today's society.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the businesses and community organizations in the Coast of Bays region for their outstanding efforts in working toward the social and economic betterment of the area.

At this year's annual general meeting of the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Regional Economic Developers, the Coast of Bays Corporation received an award for Excellence in Partnerships, a testament to their success in bringing together groups from over twenty communities with the common goal of sustainability.

They go deep into the community at the grassroots, involving municipal councils, industry associations, harbour authorities, tourism committees, as well as government departments and agencies to reach consensus on key priorities.

I am honoured to commend the work of the corporation's staff: Conrad Collier, Sharon Murray and Cory Foster, as well as their volunteer board of directors under the leadership of Chairperson Wesley Harris and the many, many volunteers from the various community organizations. By working as a team, they are enabling the Coast of Bays region to not only sustain itself, but indeed, to grow and prosper.

I ask all members of this hon. House to join me today in saying thank you to the Coast of Bays Corporation and its partners for performing an outstanding job.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to update the House on the substantial progress our government has made on the implementation of our Province's first ever Energy Plan, which we released in September 2007.

This visionary policy document of our government charts a course for the management and development of our energy resources to 2041, when the Upper Churchill contract expires and beyond.

Mr. Speaker, our Energy Plan: Focusing our Energy, contained 107 key actions to build the foundation upon which this Province can seize resource opportunities and take a greater role in their development.

I am pleased to report today that two years into our multi-year implementation plan, we have moved forward on 102 of the 107 key actions in this document.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity today to highlight the more substantial actions taken to date.

In 2008, Nalcor Energy became the corporate identity of our energy corporation. Nalcor Energy, on behalf of the people of our Province, now has equity stakes in Hebron, White Rose expansion project, and the Hibernia South Extension. Mr. Speaker, the Province is already seeing the benefit of equity with the recent discovery of additional oil resources in the North Amethyst field. The value of the discovery of this additional oil alone, Mr. Speaker, will cover all, or substantially all, the purchase price of our equity investments in these projects.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, Nalcor Energy is also leading a three-well drilling program at Parsons Pond on the West Coast. This program will provide critical drilling information to increase interest in West Coast onshore exploration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Nalcor is successfully pursuing resource development opportunities on behalf of the people of the Province, just as we envisioned it would.

Mr. Speaker, as committed in the Energy Plan, our government has made available a series of high-resolution aeromagnetic maps covering Western Newfoundland, and we have established two working groups to develop new measures to promote targeted onshore and offshore exploration.

Mr. Speaker, our goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing energy efficiency are advancing. Our new Office of Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Emissions Trading is updating the climate change action plan, and we have introduced new programming designed to assist homeowners in becoming more energy efficient. We are also taking significant steps to reduce emissions from the Holyrood generating station.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot cover all 102 key actions here today, however, my department is developing an Energy Plan progress report to be published by March 2010. I thank the staff in my department and at Nalcor Energy for their work as we continue to implement the Province's Energy Plan.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement today.

When the minister talks about moving forward on 102 of the 107 recommendations, Mr. Speaker, but she does not tell us how many of those recommendations have been completed or completely enacted upon by government. There is a very different story, Mr. Speaker, between moving forward and actually completing due diligence in what you are committing to do.

Mr. Speaker, there are five recommendations we know they have done nothing on. I imagine one of those is the Lower Churchill recommendations because we have certainly not seen anything close to being a deal on that particular file. Mr. Speaker, I would assume that one of the other five is on replacing the diesel generated plants on the Labrador Coast, which we have seen no action on by government in doing that.

Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about the fact that they are moving forward with this but we know that there are still a number of issues that have not been enacted upon, that have not been completed, that have been profiled and highlighted by our government two years ago. Mr. Speaker, what she is failing to tell people of the Province today is that before they light up their Christmas tree this year, come January 1, the people in this Province will get a rate increase of 3.6 per cent on their hydro bills.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

I would like to know what, specifically, are the five points that have not been acted upon as yet. The minister did not mention those. I would like to point out that while we do have a climate change action plan, which was originally introduced in 2005, we are sadly behind on that plan. I really would like to see a more detailed spelling out by the minister of the real targets for that plan and the accomplishments, because in the material released in the plan there were not enough specific targets. So I am hoping that when we get a report from the minister in 2010, we may get targets on the climate action plan. Especially now, with the Copenhagen Climate Summit on, we know how important that this issue is.

Another area of concern is the Holyrood Generating Station. While I know there has been some impact on that because of both Central Newfoundland and the windmill farm on the Burin Peninsula, we should be more proactive with regard to getting rid completely of the Holyrood Generating Station.

As well, with regard to the Residential Energy Efficiency Programs, we are not offering enough. We should be doubling, I think, the amount of money going into that. We will only capture a thousand homes each in 2008 and 2009 and I think we need to be moving more quickly ahead with regard to that as well. I understand one of the issues is a lack of trained workers. I would urge the government, now that we have more control over the training programs in our Province, that we look at increasing the number of people who are trained with regard to the Residential Energy Efficiency Programs so that we have more workers in place and we also get better energy efficiency at a much faster rate.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, as members of this hon. House know, our government set out in 2006 with the bold objective to reduce regulatory requirements by 25 per cent over three years. Not only was that target hit, it was exceeded, Mr. Speaker, with an overall reduction of some 27 per cent across the provincial government.

Our commitment to reducing unnecessary red tape and improving regulations is making a difference to those who rely on government for information, services and legislation. Whether it is starting a new business, accessing career planning, filling out salmon or moose licence returns, staking mineral claims, reserving campsites, or registering your car, Mr. Speaker, it is all easier now than it was before, and this is a direct result of our efforts.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador has been recognized as a leader in Canada for our ongoing work toward cutting and creating a better regulatory environment. A report just released by the Fraser Institute ranked Newfoundland and Labrador number one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Fraser Institute ranked Newfoundland and Labrador number one among all provinces for having the lowest cost of government regulation. Due to keeping the regulatory burden and ease of compliance in check, this Province is one of the most positive investment climates in Canada. This is important, I say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: This is extremely important as we diversify our economy, bring more projects to fruition, expand industries, and attract new investment from outside the Province. We must continue to demonstrate that we are open and ready for business.

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to report that Newfoundland and Labrador's progress was highlighted at recent federal-provincial-territorial meetings on regulatory reform. Our government is continuously assessing legislation and new legislation of policy proposals through a regulatory impact analysis is one example of leadership in this area.

Mr. Speaker, we succeeded in meeting and surpassing our three-year target, but do not think for a minute that our government's commitment ends there. In fact, it continues in full force. We are as diligent as ever in ensuring that improvements are implemented, that redundant and outdated legislation is repealed, and that there is zero net growth in regulatory requirements on an ongoing basis.

Mr. Speaker, building a better regulatory environment takes a long-term commitment. Through the work and dedication of public service employees and the co-operation of stakeholders, that is exactly what our government is demonstrating.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

It must be one of two things, either there is a polling period going on, or the minister has gone so far off the public radar since he got booted out of the health department he would do anything to get a better profile.

Mr. Speaker, this is the fortieth ministerial pronouncement we have heard about the red tape reduction to the point where we have had so much paper circulated on red tape reduction that we are causing a problem; it is a lot of wastage. In fact, the red tape reduction announcements constitute 95 per cent of the public releases from the Department of Business while only 5 per cent deals with business.

Mr. Speaker, I noticed they quote, with great admiration and support here today, their good friends of the Fraser Institute. Well, they were not so friendly - in fact, they seemed to be fair-weather friends. Only a little while ago the government was chastising the Fraser Institute because they happened to say that the mining industry in this Province was the worse jurisdiction in which to do business; the same Fraser Institute that you cite today with such admiration.

Mr. Speaker, to refer, in the Ministerial Statement, to all of the redundant and outdated legislation that we are getting rid of – now I did not know that cleaning up your books, which we do on an annual basis, all of a sudden is part of red tape reduction. In fact, it is a good job that the government did clean up their books and got rid of some of the outdated legislation because we have not done much else in this session anyway.

Mr. Speaker, we look forward to seeing some business pronouncements rather than a repeat of this red tape stuff that we have heard for the last two years.

Thank you.

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.

It is good to see that many regulations that are excessive, contradictory and burdensome have been streamlined, not only for business, but also for individual residents in the Province; we cannot forget about them.

I do have concern, and I have expressed it before in the House when we have red tape things brought to us by the Minister of Business. I am concerned about the phrase, "…zero net growth in regulatory requirements on an ongoing basis." We have to be open to the fact that with new industries, new technology and growth in any area you may need new regulations, and there may be a point at which you do not have zero growth and that is not negative. We have to make sure though that any regulations that are put in place are there for a reason, not just because we are trying to meet a quota or keep a quota down.

The other thing about regulations is that once all the streamlining is done we have to make sure that we have sufficient people there to monitor regulations. Some regulations take more monitoring and enforcement than others, but there is evidence, for example, that we do not have enough inspectors in areas such as occupational health and safety officers, hygienists and health inspectors relative to the demand for them.

I point out to the minister that it is fine to have regulations and it is good to have regulations that are important and not just there for the sake of being there, but we also have to have the ability to enforce them.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Prior to giving my Ministerial Statement, I certainly apologize to my colleagues across the way, unavoidably delayed in getting it into your hands and I certainly beg your indulgence.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to provide an update on the status of one of the largest and most significant transportation projects in this Province's history.

The Trans-Labrador Highway is being constructed in phases.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MR. HEDDERSON: I am almost left speechless, Mr. Speaker. One sentence into the Ministerial Statement and resounding applause –

AN HON. MEMBER: Standing ovation.

MR. HEDDERSON: Standing ovation. Again, that ovation, I would say, Mr. Speaker, is to all of those that made this project possible.

As I continue, the Trans-Labrador Highway is being constructed in phases. Phase I is complete and runs between the Quebec border in Labrador West and Happy Valley-Goose Bay. We have committed to widening and hard-surfacing this phase of the highway and we continue to work towards this goal. The total cost of widening and hard-surfacing is expected to be nearly $200 million. Phase II is also complete and runs from the Quebec border in Southern Labrador to the Cartwright Junction.

This government has been awarding contracts for the construction of Phase III, running between Cartwright Junction and Happy Valley-Goose Bay, in 2004. I have the great pleasure of announcing that, effective today, Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway is open to the public.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: This connects all three phases into one continuous Trans-Labrador Highway route that spans approximately 1,150 kilometres from Labrador West to Southern Labrador. This is truly a monumental achievement and a pivotal moment in the history of Labrador, and indeed, this entire Province.

The final cost of Phase III is expected to come in at approximately $130 million. To date, since the Williams government's first budget in 2004, we have spent approximately $185 million on the Trans-Labrador Highway. Our commitment has been unwavering.

We had hoped to have an opening ceremony today to mark this historic occasion, but due to adverse weather in The Big Land, we are unable to proceed as planned. With the installation of a few pieces of highway signage completed, this road is now ready to be opened. As a matter of fact, as of 2 o'clock today, I gave the word that it is open to the public, but a caution, and one that we delayed getting to because I did not want to give the impression that it is actually open today because we are under adverse weather conditions in Labrador - here I am officially opening it, and at the same time it is closed (inaudible). Some people might say I do not know whether I am coming or going, but I can understand this.

With Christmas just around the corner, Mr. Speaker, and many people anxiously awaiting the opening of this highway, we felt it was important to open this highway as soon as possible. Weather, particularly on the South Coast of Labrador, has been very poor today. Given the adverse conditions, again, I reiterate, I ask motorists to check the latest road conditions before venturing out on this highway by calling the department's dispatch line.

Next summer, we will spend approximately $15 million to officially complete Phase III. Work will include things like the completion of two permanent bridge structures currently under construction, finishing work on the road surface and the completion of the guide rail and permanent signage.

Mr. Speaker, this highway will greatly enhance the transportation network and bring Newfoundlanders and Labradorians closer together. I look forward to joining with my Labrador colleagues and the people of Labrador, and indeed, the Province to formally open this road at a ceremony sometime in the near future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Any day the minister comes to the House with a statement like that, I say to you, Minister, do not dare apologize for not sending it in advance.

This is no doubt a proud day for people in Labrador. It has been a long time in coming, but certainly one that people there have worked towards for a number of years. I remember when I first was elected in 1996. In the month of February, I travelled from Red Bay, in one end of my district, to Cartwright, in the other end, by snowmobile in order to campaign through the communities because there was no highway. Today, Mr. Speaker, I drive right through my district with the exception of three communities and maybe some day we can connect them.

Today, we are continuing that work in joining the Southern Labrador Coast to Central Labrador, and on into Western Labrador. That, Mr. Speaker, is not something that has been understated in any way by the people of Labrador. It is very much appreciated.

I think, Mr. Speaker, good governments always come –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: - when they follow the visions of governments before them - when they follow the visions of governments before them. I think that is very important, Mr. Speaker, very important.

My entry, Mr. Speaker, into provincial politics came because of the road connection in Labrador. In fact, Mr. Speaker, when I ran for elected politics back in those days it was as an independent member, because no government at that time had a highway through Labrador on their radar and that came over successive years.

Mr. Speaker, today it is a proud day for the people in that area and I am glad to hear that there will be some event to mark the occasion. In fact, I got up yesterday morning to get an e-mail from a lady in Happy Valley-Goose Bay who had just baked all these cookies to bring into the middle of the road to give out today if there was an official opening. That is the kind of excitement and momentum that has been building in Labrador. So this year you can be assured that this road will be a great gift to a lot of people who will have the first opportunity to drive between one region of Labrador to the other to visit with their family and to spend time together through Christmas.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: May I just have leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I remind the hon. member her time is up. There is another member to respond and we must begin Question Period at 2:30 because of Private Members' Day, but by leave, certainly the member can be accommodated.

By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The generosity is touching, I must say. I must say, Mr. Speaker, it is the Christmas spirit that has struck all of the members of the Legislature; there is no doubt about that.

Mr. Speaker, just concluding my comments, I want to say that Labradorians have always been unified in one way or another, whether it has been through our culture, whether it has been through the issues and the challenges that we have had as isolated and remote communities of the Province, but there is no unity any stronger than that that comes with being physically linked to each other as well. So this is a great piece of infrastructure for the people of Labrador and I am sure that over time we will continue to see more communities in the north and in other regions connected to this highway connection.

So, Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his announcement today and I certainly thank the government for carrying forward with the vision of Labradorians in making sure this road was completed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did bow to the Leader of the Official Opposition; she is a representative from Labrador and wanted to do that.

Obviously, this is a wonderful moment for the people in Labrador, but I would like to say something, not from Labrador, is that they should not see it as a gift. They should see it as what is owed to them, and they have waited a long time for this to happen from many governments. I think it is great, that finally they are getting something that they should have. With all the resources that have come from Labrador to this Province, they deserve to have this and more.

The other thing that I would like to say is that we now have a lot of work to do with regard to safety on this road and with regard to communication, because we have a lot of danger between, especially Labrador West to Happy Valley-Goose Bay with regard to communication, and I urge the minister to continue working on these issues.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday I asked the Minister of Natural Resources to table the section of the Hebron Benefits Agreement which guarantees that the recently cancelled work originally scheduled to be done in this Province would have to be replaced.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister today, if she is prepared to provide us with a copy of that commitment?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Hebron Benefits Agreement is available to the Leader of the Opposition from the government Web site, as it is to every person in Newfoundland and Labrador and in the country. There are two sections in the benefits agreement that allow: (a) for amendments to the benefits agreements; or, a dispute resolution process. We did not need to use the dispute resolution process because the parties came to the table in a very amicable way to negotiate any lost benefits, to replace any lost benefits. That agreement in principle is now being translated into a legal document. Once I have that completed, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to make that available as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We did review the benefits agreement that was on-line and we certainly did not see any clause in that agreement that would speak to the fact that if these contracts were cancelled then they would have to replace the value of it. So we will wait for the minister to give the full explanation as to how the amendment clause worked to meet that expectation.

Mr. Speaker, also under section 7.7 of the benefits agreement the Province has a right to disclose, at its discretion, commercially sensitive information as long as it does not compromise the partners. Surely, we feel that the value of the work and compensation provisions does not compromise the company's interests.

I ask the minister today: Will you use your discretion and tell us the value of the work, and what the assessment value is of the work and who conducted that assessment?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is a project that is valued somewhere between $5 billion and $7 billion. The amount of money that we are talking about here in terms of replacement value that is required is less than one-half of 1 per cent of the total project.

Mr. Speaker, that assessment was done by the department, by Nalcor, and by the partners. So while I can tell you that the work is less than $50 million, substantially less than $50 million, I am not going to get any closer than that, Mr. Speaker, because tenders are being let. The people who are bidding on these projects know the value of the work and how it has changed. If we get much closer than that, they will be able to determine the value of the projects and that will affect the tendering process and we are not interested in doing that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Surely, in a $5 billion to $7 billion contract the minister states is under $50 million of work is not going to compromise any particular tender or the viability of the project by disclosing the information.

Mr. Speaker, this government likes to talk about no more giveaways. Well, right now what we see in this contract is that government is giving up all of the direct benefits from these contracts and they are giving them up for what; an unknown project and an unknown time without an unknown value.

I ask you minister: Are you letting this company walk away, or do you have no provisions to prevent them from cancelling these contracts and making sure the benefits stay in the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, their ignorance of this project is staggering, and what is frightening about it is they put this out like they are speaking the truth.

Mr. Speaker, we have commitments on a concrete gravity-based structure, a mechanical outfitting, 4.1 million person hours of work; topsides drilling support module; topsides drilling derrick; flare boom; helideck; lifeboat stations; structural steel riser components and assembly of offshore loading system components; riser bases; rigid risers; tie-in spools and buoys. We have 50,000 hours of GBS feed-phase engineering. We have detailed engineering. We have 1.2 million person hours of detailed engineering that have to be done here in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the first time ever in a negotiation of an offshore project that these kinds of benefits have been negotiated and copper fastened to the benefit of the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So the minister claims. If she figures the facts are not on the table, maybe it is time for her to start putting them on the table, starting with telling us where the clauses are in the agreement. Secondly, if they have to bring that kind of money back to the Province - sound familiar? If they have to bring that value of the work back to the Province, maybe you are about to tell us what project it is going in, when the project is going to happen, and what exactly are we talking about in terms of the value of that project? Because right now, minister, you have provided no facts and no answers.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, it does not matter what I provide to the Leader of the Opposition, she just does not get it; she does not understand it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the parties came together, we did not even need to use mechanisms provided in the Hebron Benefits Agreement. We have an agreement in principle for the amount of work that is going to be displaced because of changes in the subsea template, Mr. Speaker. They will tell us how they are going to replace the value of that work by June 30, 2010. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, they will provide us with a cheque for the equivalent amount, and certainly circumstances may have changed enough by the end of June 2010 when we can tell them exactly how much that is, then that will be used for a construction project in the oil and gas industry providing jobs to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister also knows when you allow them to cancel, walk away from a contract that a cheque does not cut it for all the spinoff effects that are lost in the economy in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, despite the provincial director of Child, Youth and Family Services having responsibility for establishing province-wide policies and standards under the act, no such policies or standards exist for the establishing and monitoring of alternate living arrangements in the Province. Back in May we raised this issue of implementing a province-wide regulation for children taken into government care. At that time the minister acknowledged that there was a need for a broad legislative review and that any new legislation that was needed would be forthcoming.

I ask her today: Where is your department in this legislative review and have you made any decisions with regard to implementing province-wide standards for alternate living arrangements for children?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would certainly like to inform the hon. member that the legislative review is well underway. We do have a lawyer working in the department who is meeting with stakeholder groups and we will certainly be meeting with as many groups or individuals who would like to provide input into that process.

We anticipate that in the spring we would be able to bring forth new legislation for Child, Youth and Family Services. I also say, Mr. Speaker, I will not be bringing forward legislation until I am satisfied that we are ready to do that and we have the thorough research done so that we have the best possible legislation we can have in this Province.

With regard to a provincial policy on the ALAs, the assisted living arrangements, Mr. Speaker, that is not a form of care that we feel is appropriate for the children in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have ALAs right now in the absence of appropriate foster homes in the Province. Mr. Speaker, we also want to make sure that we develop a continuum of services that provides the necessary care for the children of this Province. Certainly, foster homes, or living with other family members who are identified as suitable to care for the child or –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While the minister feels that it might not be the most appropriate standard of care, it is the standard that is being provided in the Province right now, and it is not regulated.

I ask the minister this question: A Certificate of Conduct is one of the things that is supposed to be required by ALA workers in order to work with these children that are in care. We have learned that many of these workers start on the job without ever having a Certificate of Conduct. I ask you, Minister, is this acceptable, and why is it being tolerated?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, that was a similar question that was brought forward in the last spring sitting of the House of Assembly. At that time, I went back to the department to ask the question if certificates of conduct were received on people before they worked in the ALAs because of the accusations that were being made. When we checked with the regional health authorities, that is indeed their policy, and they have also indicated that they have these certificates of conduct before people work in the ALAs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would let the minister know that there is only health board that we have determined in the Province that requires it for day one, and the other health boards do require it, but not before the person starts at the employment stage.

Mr. Speaker, many of the children who are placed in ALAs do so with histories of neglect, emotional abuse and family violence. These are very serious issues that need to be addressed in a proper manner by qualified caregivers.

I ask the minister: Is consideration being given today by government to provide for minimum employment qualifications for ALA workers in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the stark reality as to why we need ALAs is because we not have a sufficient number of foster homes in Newfoundland and Labrador. We feel, as a department, that it is our duty to make sure that we do the appropriate marketing and recruitment and provide the necessary support so that we can have the appropriate foster homes in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, many of the children – and I think there are probably about thirty-five at any given time that may be in ALAs. Many times they are short-term, because these children need to be placed in foster homes, and an ALA is not seen as a long-term, viable plan, especially for young children, as a means that we feel would be the most appropriate way to care for their needs.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly need to have more foster homes in this Province, and that is certainly going to be one of the priorities of the new department.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Children being entrusted into government care in this Province face a system with many deficiencies, one of which has a shortage of social workers and caregivers in the in-care system. The shortage is resulting in high incidence of turnover in caregivers and social workers that are being assigned to these children. In fact, the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate did a review of the in-care system files in 2006 and in some cases found that as many sixteen different social workers were assigned to a file.

I ask the minister today, this came to your attention in the last year and I ask you: Have your government or your department done anything to try and provide for more stability in the in-care system in the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services came into being because this government recognized that there were problems in the area of Child, Youth and Family Services. We were not comfortable, despite our investment of $25 million in recent years into this program area, that we were getting the results that were necessary.

Mr. Speaker, in the last couple of years, and with our $25 million investment, there have been 200 additional positions in Child, Youth and Family Services.

During the summer, Mr. Speaker, as the new minister of this new department, I took it upon myself to visit fifty offices across Newfoundland and Labrador and to meet with the social workers, so that just was not a paper exercise to determine what the issues were.

Mr. Speaker, I met with the social workers everywhere from the North Coast up to Nain, down to Burgeo and to St. John's. It is certainly, I guess at one point, very reassuring to know that we have professionals who have a true passion for the work they do and are providing some very good quality work. Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her response.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The social workers highlighted concerns in many areas, not just in-care. They talked about the IT system that they used, they talked about having to do duties that are not necessarily social work related and is, in fact, not even having access to –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Health to enhance the air ambulance services in the Province. At that time, Mr. Speaker, he suggested he would be willing to cut services or relocate services out of St. Anthony which was a shameful response, I say, for the Minister of Health who should be investing in services and not cutting it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister today, because I thought he might have learned a lesson when it came to gutting rural health care in the Province. I ask him today, Mr. Speaker: Will you clearly state today that the air ambulance services in St. Anthony will not be removed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure what it is that the Opposition Leader is looking for. Yesterday, she presented a petition asking to support and strengthen the provincial air ambulance program based in St. John's and St. Anthony. That was based, Mr. Speaker, supposedly on a petition from the people of Labrador, which when you read the prayer of the petition from the people of Labrador asking to establish a medevac response team and aircraft in Labrador, that there is an overwhelming need for a medevac in Labrador.

Yesterday, she was asking to have it in Labrador. Today she is asking to have it kept in St. Anthony. Mr. Speaker, we have two aircraft. The numbers indicate that there are 240 airlifts a year out of Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Lab West. That is twice as many as there are in St. Anthony. What I say to the Opposition Leader is what I said yesterday: Do you want it in Labrador? Do you want it in St. Anthony? Perhaps you could help me with this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows what we want. We want an adequate air ambulance service for all the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, this government has the money and the resources to invest in a third air ambulance in this Province to be based in Labrador. Mr. Speaker, they are the same government who have invested more than $30 million into the oil exploration industry but is refusing to spend $8 million to buy an aircraft for air medevac in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: I ask you minister: Are you prepared to commit to the purchase of a third air ambulance for this Province and base it in Goose Bay?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to invest in another airplane it has to be to replace the one that is currently stationed in St. John's, as the hon. member pointed out yesterday.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if I could just point out to the member opposite. She is asking for a third aircraft: one in St. Anthony, one in Labrador, and one in St. John's. Well, there are more flights out of Deer Lake each year than there are out of St. Anthony. So, what I say to you, I say to the Leader of the Opposition: Where do you want this plane? The Mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay was on Open Line today. The question was put to him, Mr. Speaker, should it be in St. Anthony or should it be in Goose Bay? He said it should be in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, as well, we asked the minister if he would commit to instating a trauma team in St. Anthony to support the air ambulance services that are there, we did not get a response from him. Maybe today he would like to tell us if he is prepared to do that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition presented a 3,000 name petition asking to have a medevac team in Labrador. Now, Mr. Speaker, if we are looking at a medical flight services team, it would go with the aircraft. So what is happening here now, is obviously, the Opposition Leader does not know what she is talking about. She has not done her homework. Mr. Speaker, I spoke yesterday –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Order, please!

The Chair is having great difficulty in hearing the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I met with the town councils of Lab City and Wabush, they asked to have an air ambulance situated in Lab West. I met with the family affected in Lab West. I met in Happy Valley-Goose Bay with the family there, and with the council, they asked to have it put in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. The numbers, Mr. Speaker, indicate that there are twice as many medevacs out of Labrador as there are out of St. Anthony, and there are more out of Deer Lake than there are out of St. Anthony. So, again, I am asking the Leader of the Opposition to help me out here -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: - yesterday she asked for Labrador, today she is asking for St. Anthony. Which is it?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, one of the truest indicators of the economic struggles experienced by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is their use of food banks. Food Banks Canada recently released a study entitled HungerCount 2009, and the results for this Province were alarming. Over the past year Newfoundland and Labrador has seen an increase of 10.1 per cent in food bank usage. Those are people who rely on food banks on a regular basis. This is clear evidence that poverty is increasing in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Since the recent poverty reduction progress report does not address this issue specifically, what immediate action does government intend to take to alleviate this problem?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that I just heard that there are no indicators that poverty in this Province has been reduced. We produced a report and laid it on desks yesterday that would have shown you that the most common measure of poverty in this country is LICOs, Low Income Cut-offs. We have shown a decrease, Mr. Speaker, from 12.2 per cent down to 6.5 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, in terms of income levels in this Province we have shown a huge increase, in particular for income support clients, where we have seen an increase of 11.6 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS SULLIVAN: Where we have seen an increase of 11.6 per cent for our income support clients, Mr. Speaker. In terms of the minimum wage, 50 per cent better than it was just two to three years ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her response.

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my response by saying there are huge indications that we are on the right road, and I hope I get another question because there are a number of things I could answer here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation. In order for members to be recognized here in this Chamber they must stand and be recognized by the Speaker. Members on both sides of the House cannot sit in their chairs and shout obstructions back and forth across the House and drown out questions that are being asked and answers that are being given.

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

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

I say, Mr. Speaker, as good as her report was that she released this week, the numbers do not add up. The report shows nothing about the long lineups that are going to our food banks. Mr. Speaker, not only has the number of individuals seeking aid from food banks increased, but Newfoundland and Labrador is a Province with the highest percentage of food bank use per capita in Canada. Happy Valley-Goose Bay alone, and this is in rural Newfoundland by the way, has seen a 20 per cent increase in food bank usage this year which is higher than the national average. Six percent of our population regularly attend at least one of the Province's twenty-eight food banks and there are food banks in our Province that do not have enough food in storage to meet the increasing demands.

I ask the minister: Will government commit to granting funds to food banks this Christmas to support those families who are in need?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we would be the first to acknowledge that we appreciate the work that is being done by food banks in this Province. Let's not make any mistake about that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we have worked long and we have work hard at putting money back into the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and improving their lot, and the statistics show that. In terms of what we are doing though in order to supplement some of the issues around food banks, just let me give you some of those indicators. The Kids Eat Smart Program, increased to $1.25 million through the Poverty Reduction program. The Mother Baby Nutritional Supplement increased as well to $60 a month. There are a myriad of other initiatives as well: Healthy Baby Clubs, the Air Foodlift Subsidy to Labrador, Newfoundland and Labrador's School Milk Program, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: There are a number of ways that we are assisting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I totally agree with the Kids Eat Smart Program. I am invited to my district on December 22, to officially help open the two hundredth club in this Province. That to me says there are many hungry kids in this Province. If the money is going into the people's pockets, it is sure not going to buy groceries, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, about 50 per cent of the food bank uses in Canada are families of one or more children who are in the low income bracket. Food Banks Canada has approached the federal government with recommendations on addressing this very important issue. Specifically with regard to increasing the Canada Child Tax Benefit from $3,300 to $5,000.

Mr. Speaker –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose his question.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since the federal government, the territorial and the provincial ministers are meeting in Whitehorse, I ask the minister: Can he confirm that this issue is on the agenda and will he consider bringing this important issue to the attention of those in attendance at the finance meeting?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of residents living in rural Newfoundland and Labrador have no 911 emergency services and tourists that visit our rural areas cannot expect to dial 911 in case of an emergency and get a response.

Mr. Speaker, during an Estimates committee in April of this year –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, during an Estimates committee in April of this year, I was told to expect that the government would be moving on the Expressions of Interest received regarding an enhanced 911 system within sixty days. Mr. Speaker, it has been around 250 days since that statement was made.

Mr. Speaker, I ask: If the minister, nearly a year after the last press release from Municipal Affairs, is able to provide us with an update on this matter?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the 911 system throughout Newfoundland and Labrador is indeed a tremendous challenge given the geography of the Province, given the technology that is available throughout the Province. This government is committed to looking forward to somehow or another tying it all together.

As for an update with regard to the specific question, I would have to refer that back to the department and provide you with that at some later date.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In light of the fact that tomorrow could be our last time in the House for this sitting, it would be great if the minister could be able to table something tomorrow. As I said, it has been 250 days since I was told that they would have something in place within sixty days with regard to the Expression of Interests. So I hope that the minister can get something quickly.

Maybe I have a few more questions that he will have to get information on as well, but I will proceed with them. I am very concerned that we have not heard anything since last April, and rightly so, it is a very serious issue, but I am concerned that virtually the only time government talks about this issue is when they are asked questions in the House.

How this government expects the people of rural Newfoundland to take their commitment seriously while keeping them in the dark –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS MICHAEL: I will, Mr. Speaker.

I would like the minister to find out, when he speaks to the people inside of Municipal Affairs: What is the delay in getting the plan in place for the 911 enhancement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, in response to the question, I indicated that I would provide an update, and I did not see anything in the second question that would go beyond that. Right now, I am just saying that there is challenge out there. We are aware of that challenge and we are working towards coming up with some strategies to deal with it.

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add, so that the minister knows the detail I am looking for, I would like to know if anything right now is being talked about with regard to having street names and numeration done in rural Newfoundland since that is such an important step. I would like him to have that information as well when he comes to the House with the information.

I understand that large projects take time. We have been waiting on this, and the people in the Province have been waiting on this for a long time as well. People in emergency services continue to call me and make comments to me about the fact that they do not know what is going on. This deals with life and death in our Province, so I ask the minister to also be able to find out for us –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question now.

MS MICHAEL: I am asking my question. I am, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to know: When will the residents of rural Newfoundland and Labrador be able to know exactly when emergency services -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, public safety is foremost on the minds of any official, any government, as this government is committed to public safety on the roads or for emergency services. Again, we work closely with the municipalities to ensure that we are doing everything to clearly outline where roads are.

It was just the other day that I passed amendments in this House that give the municipalities the go ahead to insist that numbers be placed on the buildings and houses throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. So we are working toward that. Again, I will try, as best I can, to the hon. Member to fill in some of those details for you when I report back to the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

It being 3 o'clock on Wednesday, Private Members' Day, unless there is other business arising out of regular proceedings, the Chair will need leave in order to go into that before calling the private member's resolution.

So I ask the hon. the Government House Leader if there is need for leave to continue with routine proceedings?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, with the co-operation of the Opposition, we have leave to proceed with the routine before we call the motion.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

I call on the hon. the Opposition House Leader to continue with his private member's resolution.

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

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

I appreciate an opportunity to present this particular motion for discussion and debate and vote here in the House today. Some might wonder, of course, what prompted the particular resolution. What it calls for, basically, is the establishment of an all-party committee of the House of Assembly which would look, in particular, at two pieces of legislation that we have in this Province; namely, the Fatal Accidents Act and the Survival of Actions Act that impact the lives of people in this Province. In particular, in how they recover for damages that they might incur as a result of things that happen to them.

Although this has been kicking around for many, many years, the issue of just how anachronistic our laws are, we have had a couple of examples recently where it became very evident to all those involved, the families, the lawyers, the government, everybody involved, that this was a pretty old, archaic system that we are currently living under. I refer, of course, to the Cameron Inquiry, which brought this to the forefront, as well as the Cougar Inquiry, which brought it to the forefront.

Without trying to get too legalistic here, under the current law, we are extremely limited in this Province as to what you can recover for damages. Because of the interaction between the Fatal Accidents Act and the Survival of Actions Act, you can basically only recover for what they call pecuniary expenses, out-of-pocket expenses. You are limited as to what other things – for example, grief. There is no recovery for grief. There is no recovery - I think in Newfoundland there is a limit as to what you can get for funeral expenses, for example even. The loss of a partner, none of those things are recoverable under the current law in Newfoundland.

We are the only Province in Canada that lives in this situation. I will get in later to what the other jurisdictions permit, but for whatever reason, successive governments in this Province have not dealt with it. We live with the same law here. For example, it is so old, this law, that even slavery was permitted in Britain. That is how old this law is and we have done nothing in this Province to address it for that period of time. That is not placing blame on anybody, but the bottom line is the time has come where we need to look at it and hopefully make some changes.

You will notice the resolution is framed in such a way that it is not even saying what the ultimate shape of the law should be. It is not suggesting that we should do what Alberta has done or we should do what Manitoba has done or Ontario has done. What it is suggesting is that we should have an all-party committee to decide what should be done. I think it is pretty obvious to everybody in the Province, if you have any understanding of the issue, that what we live with is currently not modern, not acceptable and needs to be reviewed. There is no question about that at all.

To get back to the Cameron Inquiry again and how this came to light for example. We had, as everybody knows, over 1,000 individuals in this Province who were impacted because of what happened in the ER-PR debacle, and that is the only way to describe it. There was no question that once it came to light, that it had happened, improper testing results and so on; once that came to light the government came to the forefront. The Premier, for example, made no bones about it. They set up a judicial inquiry into it; that was in May of 2007. There was a class action started. There was a lawyer in town, Mr. Crosbie, who took the class action on behalf of all the persons involved. It went to the Supreme Court, and as everyone knows it was recently resolved. It was resolved. My understanding is factually that the only thing the insurance company had to pay as a result of that - and that is because of the way that our Fatal Accidents Act and our Survival of Actions Act are currently structured. The recovery from the insurance company themselves was limited to $3 million.

Now fortunately, somebody, ultimately the taxpayers of this Province, stepped up and increased that from $3 million up to $17.5 million. That happened, of course - the government did not come right out and say that we paid the money, but ultimately we know that it went from $3 million paid by the insurance company to $17.5 million. I think the press release said that the money would come from Eastern Health. Well, that obviously - Eastern Health is funded by government, and government of course is funded by the taxpayers. So whichever way you want to put it in a press release and cover it, the bottom line was government came and put their money into the pot which allowed these people who were impacted some recovery. It still did not give them what they should have gotten if our laws had been modernized like any other place in this country. They were still limited, and it is only because the money was put in that they managed to recover what they did.

This is not being put forward simply by the Opposition because we have a personal interest in this. In fact, anyone who followed the Cameron Inquiry and followed that particular settlement - even the Premier, the Premier made no bones about it, in a CBC interview out in front of the House of Assembly on one occasion said: look, liability is not an issue here. Once we got in and got past the liability issue, it became a compensation issue. It became readily noticeable and obvious to the lawyers involved and everybody else, that regardless of how compassionate you felt, regardless of the damage that was done, regardless of the grief that was caused, regardless of how much you might want to help every family, child, spouse that was impacted because of that, you are limited by our laws as to what you could recover. No matter what you wanted to do.

So that is where this came from. Of course, they received the settlement and they worked it out and everybody involved. They had different categorizations, as I understand it, and they agreed amongst themselves that different people within the class received certain amounts depending upon the severity. Of course, there was a time element involved. They tried to do it quickly because they knew people were dying. We were not dealing here with a case where we could wait for these people to recover. There had been 100, and I believe the figure was 127 people as of July this year who had died, and more as time goes on. So that is why there was urgency and a need to get this resolved.

In the future, that is the whole purpose of the resolution. We do not need to be reactive. We do not need to have governments find themselves in a situation of something happens and government is put under the fire, government is put under the gun. There is public pressure brought to bear for government to react and do something. We would not have to do that if we had the proper laws in place. For example, we are going to see the same thing in the Cougar air crash that occurred here, because again, the same limitations under our law apply and the families who were impacted by that tragedy.

Now, I just referenced the two different tragedies that we have had, the Cameron tragedy and the Cougar tragedy, but, of course, it applies to every man, woman and child in this Province. It does not have to be a multiple tragic incident that brings this about. The same thing happens if it is between a husband and a wife and a family in a car accident or whatever. You are limited as to what you can recover once the person has died. That is where the law is inappropriate.

In fact, Mr. Crosbie, not only did he act as a legal counsel in the case but he became so enamoured of it, so engrossed in it, I mean he did an open letter to the media, and in it he refers specifically to the Premier. The Premier is a lawyer. The Premier did personal injury actions. He did a lot of big cases. He understands where we are coming from here. The Minister of Health did personal injury actions. He knows where we are coming from. This is not a case of do it for the lawyers. This is a case about doing it for the people who are impacted because of the current anachronistic state that our law is in when it comes to fatal actions and survival actions. The Law Society has grappled with it for years. Nobody has actually done anything but the place, I would submit, where it should be considered is here, and it should be considered for all those reasons, as I say. We, as government, should not be seen as reactionary to these critical situations, and the people in our public ought to be able to recover whatever they can for compensation.

Just to look at the state of affairs in other jurisdictions in this country, for example. In Alberta, if you were to sue in Alberta, the people who could recover are the children, the grandchildren, the stepchildren, the siblings, the parents, the step-parents, grandparents, cohabitants and spouses. You can recover in Alberta for grief and loss, care and companionship. You cannot do that in Newfoundland. If you lost your spouse in Newfoundland and Labrador because of somebody's negligence and the person died, you cannot recover. You can get more for it if you are maimed for life than you can get if you lose somebody. That is the bottom line. As harsh as that might seem, if you maimed somebody for life you can get more than if they happened to take their life. There is something wrong with that, and that is the current state of our legislation.

Manitoba, for example, has the same kind of recovery. New Brunswick; not only does New Brunswick allow you to recover for your out-of-pocket expenses, the funeral expenses and so on, they allow you to cover for grief and loss of companionship for the parents. New Brunswick also – they are probably one of the most far-reaching pieces of legislation – allow you to recover for punitive or exemplary damages where appropriate, and the monies would go to the estate of the person who was deceased. We only allow for a certain figure that you can identify, out-of-pocket dollar figure. New Brunswick has gone far, far down the road. They say: Look, if there was a punitive element to the person's death, you can award damages for that as well, payable to the estate.

In the Northwest Territories – somewhat like ours, have not caught up yet. Seems, in fact, to have patterned their legislation off of us, but they do allow damages proportional to the injury resulting from the death - a bit broader than us and no question about medical and funeral expenses.

In Nova Scotia, they allow for the out-of-pocket stuff, as well as expenses incurred for the care of the deceased, an amount for the loss of guidance, care and companionship, reasonably to be expected. In Ontario, we also allow compensation for loss of care, guidance and companionship, reasonably to be expected had the death or injury not occurred. In Prince Edward Island, we allow damages for the loss of care, guidance and companionship, reasonably to be expected. In Saskatchewan, medical expenses, funeral expenses, grief counselling, loss of earnings and any other out-of-pocket expenses reasonably incurred.

In the limited time I have left, Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is we have seen two examples in this Province where the law in this given year, in the last two years, needs and cries out to be amended to catch up with modern day circumstances, the same as other provinces have already done. What form the legislation should ultimately take? We do not know. You might ask the question: Well, why do you have do this through a select committee? Mr. Speaker, we have had all kinds of presentations done by law societies. We have had the pronunciations of individual lawyers like Mr. Crosbie who did personal injury actions. The proper place to do it, where you can have a full hearing, and not only get it from a legal perspective, but you can have the input of the individuals involved is by doing a select committee of the House and get the input from the public – all the other stakeholders. Everybody in this Province is truly a stakeholder in this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I had the benefit of meeting with a person who was impacted. I met with the husband of one of the ladies who lost their life - Mr. Howell, actually - as a result of the Cameron Inquiry. I saw it myself upfront and close, of course, as a lawyer when you do personal injuries, but meeting with this gentleman again brought it home real clear. Why should an individual who has lost his spouse, who is left with children, why should you be limited in what you recover if it was someone else's fault that caused that death? Why should you be limited in that case? It is totally uncompassionate to allow the law to stay in the current form that it is. How can we ever justify staying in the past? We are 200 years back from where the law should be.

This is a case where - I know the government does not like to try to strike select committees of the House; I do not know if we have had either one since 2003. We had a couple back earlier. We had one in 2000 on the seal fishery. I believe we had one in 2001 dealing with fishery products. People went out around the Province and came back with something that was in the best interests of all the Province.

This is one of those types of issues. This is not a political issue. This is not an issue where we are even suggesting what the results should be. This is simply calling upon government to say let's recognize that we have a problem, let's recognize that we are behind the cue on this, let's go get the input from the stakeholders who are involved here and let's come back, once we have done the proper investigation through a select committee, and allow the stakeholders an opportunity to have their input, come back to this House with recommendations, or to the government with recommendations as to how we should proceed to amend our Fatal Accidents Act and Survival of Actions Act so that we become current.

We do not have to see the people of this Province suffer anymore based upon the state of the current law. We do not have to see governments who are forced to react to situations because the law is wide open and then governments do not have to get brought into it because of public pressure or whatever else, but you can allow it, to the individuals themselves, to take their cases and go forward and get the compensation that they ought to get.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure today to rise in this hon. House and make some comments in response to the private member's motion brought forward by the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

Certainly, anybody who has been involved in the practice of law in this Province over the last number of years would be familiar with the issues raised by the hon. member with respect to the Fatal Accidents Act and the Survival of Actions Act. It is not a new issue and an issue that has received much discussion in the legal fraternity.

As the hon. member points out, there are some problems with that legislation in that it restricts the amount of damages and the type of damages that can be claimed under the act. I want to just briefly point out the purpose and object of both those pieces of legislation because they really have to be read together. The Fatal Accidents Act creates a right of action that is not available in common law and the Fatal Accidents Act in our Province permits the near relative of a deceased victim to bring a specific action against a person who commits or is guilty of a wrongdoing, but only if the person, if they had survived, had an accident in his own right. That is what the Fatal Accidents Act is all about.

Mr. Speaker, the death of a loved one is an incredible difficult event, which can permanently alter the direction of a person's life. The Fatal Accidents Act is legislation intended to minimize the economic impact on the lives of people who are financially dependent on the family member that had been wrongfully killed.

The Province's Fatal Accidents Act, Mr. Speaker, was first passed in 1916and modelled on the British act of 1846, and the current act is substantially the same as this dated legislation. There have been many transformations, Mr. Speaker, in our country, in our Province and in our society since that act was created. It is suggested, and understandably so, that the current Fatal Accidents Act does not fully reflect those changes. It also concerns that the Fatal Accidents Act has not kept pace with developments in other common law provinces, as indeed the member has pointed out.

The Survival of Actions Act, Mr. Speaker, is simply to put the deceased estate, with very minor exceptions in the same position. An action against an individual or by an individual carries on when that individual dies and that allows the estate to carry on the cause of action, but it does not create any new rights of action, it preserves without interruption any action that is ongoing.

Both those acts, Mr. Speaker, have raised some issues. Damages that are awarded to address financial loss suffered as a result of the death of a family member - and that is the issue that the member refers to. The goal of any claim, a court claim, or a court action, or any action with respect to loss of damage of this type is to restore the person in the same position that he or she was in prior to the incident or prior to the death of the individual member.

The act does not address emotional loss or damage such as pain and suffering, for example, loss of enjoyment of life. The person who is a family member not only does he suffer financial loss, Mr. Speaker, but they cannot use the act to seek compensation for their other losses. Now, no amount of money, Mr. Speaker, can compensate a person for the loss of a family member, but there is a case to be made for damages for non-financial impact of the loss.

Also, Mr. Speaker, for example if a spouse or a direct relative of a deceased was not able to return to work as a result of the loss, then that person cannot claim for loss of employment because of that. There are a number of issues, no doubt about it, a number of issues about these two acts that restrict claims that people can make.

The leading case in this Province, Mr. Speaker, on that is a case of McLean versus Carr Estate, 1994 decision in the Supreme Court Trial Division, in which Justice Barry at that time determined that – and that was a case where Mr. McLean suffered fatal injuries as a result of a fall from an all-terrain vehicle and he was survived by his wife and three children. In that case Justice Barry determined that a child's loss of parents care and guidance is considered to be a loss of a pecuniary nature, a financial nature, and should be recoverable under the Fatal Accidents Act.

He, in that case, Mr. Speaker, awarded all three children $1,000 for every year until they reached the age of eighteen. This resulted in awards of $9,000 for the nine-year-old; $7,000 for the eleven-year-old; $6,000 for the twelve-year-old. He further determined, Mr. Speaker, that award for loss of care, guidance and companionship should not be confined to children, that the widow was also entitled to compensation for her loss because she should be compensated for loss of care and counsel she would have received from her spouse had he lived. For example, if a spouse becomes ill, he can expect to be cared for by the other spouse, or if a difficult personal decision must be taken, he can expect one spouse to provide advice. These are the sort of services that you can retain, Mr. Speaker, through a private nurse or a counsellor, so you can put a financial figure on it. There was no where in that act, no where in the legislation that allowed Justice Barry to make compensation for the widow in that case.

I am advised by my officials, and the hon. member referred to them briefly, that other jurisdictions: Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan have amended their fatal accidents legislation to include a separate legislative provision directing that pecuniary loss of the family be compensated. The wording is not consistent throughout the provinces but, as the member pointed out; all of these provinces, to some extent or other, have included a provision in their fatal accidents legislation to take care of non-pecuniary losses for family members.

Alberta, for example, makes it automatic – Alberta makes it automatic; $75,000 for the spouse; $45,000 to each minor child; $75,000 to the parents and so on. They will be reviewed every five years to make sure they are adequate. Manitoba has similar type provisions that gives the immediate family automatic relief under the act, as do Saskatchewan, and they are provided automatically under the legislation.

The remaining jurisdictions, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia, Northwest Territories and the Yukon are in the same position as Newfoundland and Labrador. They have not amended their legislation to date to include any discreet legislative provision for the loss of guidance, care and companionship. Like this Province here, we have depended on case law over the years in the respect of – and these jurisdictions have been the same – giving awards for loss of care, guidance and companionship as was evident in the case by Justice Barry.

One concern, Mr. Speaker, that is raised with awards for non-pecuniary or non-financial damages, is that they appear to want to attach a financial value to a person and asking the court to try to translate into financial terms the value of a deceased person is a monumental task. No amount of money can compensate a person for the loss of a loved one. To try to put a person's grief on trial to determine how much pain and suffering the individual has gone through, and then again to assess how much they should get in compensation for that, that is a difficult situation.

That is one of the reasons, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation has languished for a while. There are some strong reasons, of course, to allow claims for non-financial damages because while the tragedy of a family member is incredibly difficult being able to claim for compensation for their emotional suffering can be devastating to them, but to give some compensation under the act sort of gives recognition of that loss, an acknowledgement of the severity of the impact of the death on the individual.

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the Survival of Actions Act the same thing applies. The Survival of Actions Act says the only damages that can result in actual momentary loss to the estate are recoverable. That is all that is recoverable under the Survival of Actions Act. That is similar to the provision in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and several other provinces.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt this legislation is outdated - there is no doubt that this legislation is outdated. Mr. Speaker, the idea of damages, just for the benefit of the people who do not have legal backgrounds or the people who are watching on this presentation, the purpose of damages, when we think on damages the ordinary person thinks about damages in terms of damage to property. Damages in law has a different connotation altogether. Damages in law is a pecuniary compensation for a wrong that is done to you, and it is measured in money.

The hon. member mentioned exemplary, punitive damages a few minutes ago, that is damages that are added on to pecuniary or non-pecuniary damages he might have received. Punitive damages are awarded in a case where you want to punish the defendant because he acted maliciously or wilfully in causing the problem in the first place.

So the issue with damages is a complex one, and there are many heads of damages that can be claimed. For example, if you were injured in a car accident and you survive, than there are all kinds of damages you can claim if the other party was negligent: pecuniary damages, non-pecuniary damages, loss of income, loss of pension benefits, income and support for your family members. There is a whole list of heads of damages that you can claim on. That is not the case if the person died as a result of the accident, and that is the problem with these two pieces of legislation, and as pointed out by Justice Barry in 1994. In 1994, that is fifteen years ago, Mr. Speaker, and there have been a number of governments prior to this one who have not taken any action on that particular piece of legislation. So, whether it was Liberal governments, Progressive Conservative governments, nobody has addressed this legislation, and certainly it has always been an issue in the legal fraternity.

The legislation is outdated, needs to be reviewed, especially in light of evolving legislation in other Canadian jurisdictions in case law. We need to allow for a greater scope of the recovery of damages under these two pieces of legislation. Mr. Speaker, officials in my department are aware of this limited scope of recoverable damages, and my officials are already engaged in looking into these issues and continue to review the adequacy and the currency of both these pieces of legislation, and the scope of compensation that they provide.

Mr. Speaker, in the Department of Justice notice published under the Executive Council Act, the powers, functions and duties of the Minister of Justice include the supervision, control and direction of all matters relating to the administration of the acts that are set out in that schedule. This includes legislative reviews of the some hundred pieces of legislation that falls under the responsibility of my department, and which includes both the Fatal Accidents Act, and the Survival Of Actions Act.

Mr. Speaker, clearly, it is the responsibility of the Minister Justice to continually review legislation, and we do that. We bring it to this House. In every session of the House the Minister of Justice will bring legislation to the House that reviews and corrects previous legislation, modifies previous legislation and brings it up to date. That is the role of the Minister of Justice, the Department of Justice, and is exercised in every sitting of this House.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I would propose today an amendment to the private member's motion which basically says that my department, the Department of Justice, will move forward immediately with a comprehensive legislative review of the Fatal Accidents Act and the Survival of Actions Act with consultation to be carried out as the review indicates would be helpful.

Mr. Speaker, I present the amendment, moved by myself, seconded by the hon. Member for St. John's North, to move that the private member's resolution currently before the House be amended:

(a) by deleting the words "are deficient in that they" in the third recital clause;

(b) by deleting the words "is deficient in that it" in the fourth recital clause;

(c) by adding, immediately after the fourth recital clause, the word "and" and the following fifth recital clause:

"Whereas the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has been examining the Fatal Accidents Act and the Survival of Actions Act to determine whether and which changes may be warranted with respect to limitations on recoverable damages"; and

(d) by deleting the resolution clause and substituting the following:

"Be it resolved that this House of Assembly call on government to move forward with a review of the Fatal Accidents Act and the Survival of Actions Act with respect to limitations on recoverable damages and, in conducting this review, to examine the practices and legislation of other jurisdictions."

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The Chair will take a brief recess to allow all parties in the House to have a chance to review the amendment and to allow the Chair to review the amendment and make a decision as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has reviewed the amendment as put forward by the hon. the Minister of Justice and we find the amendment to be in order.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

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

It is a pleasure to be able to stand today and take a few minutes with regard to the private member's motion put forward by my hon. colleague, the Opposition House Leader, the private member's motion on fatal accident compensation. As was stated in the private member's motion that he put forward, and I guess it is similar to the be it resolved in the amendment that has been put forward apart from the part about an all-party select committee to the House, it references the Fatal Accidents Act and the Survival of Actions Act.

Mr. Speaker, Chapter F-6 of the Fatal Accidents Act states it is: An Act Respecting Compensation To Families Of Deceased Persons When Death Occurs Through Negligence. Chapter S-32 of the Survival Of Actions Act, An Act To Provide For The Survival Of Certain Causes Of Action.

Mr. Speaker, we all know, I guess, this was brought about by the Judicial Commission of Inquiry, known as the Cameron Inquiry, which began, I think, in March, 2008. It was from there, I guess, from all the hearings that we heard, it was more or less to try and get to the bottom of what had gone wrong with the ER-PR testing crisis.

I will admit, Mr. Speaker, that when it comes to the legal aspect of it I am not trying to be on par with the two previous speakers, let me assure you. They are very learned individuals and I am not going into the legal aspect of it. I hope, over the few minutes, that I will try to put a human factor into play. I am sure we all watched the individuals as they attended the hearings. We listened to their family members and yes, Mr. Speaker, we even saw some of the individuals take the witness stand.

We know that once this was all finished Madam Justice Cameron's report was released to the public with some sixty recommendations. It was then when counsel, Mr. Ches Crosbie, went forward with a class action seeking damages, not only for personal injuries, but mental distress, nervous shock, care, companionship, et cetera, for all patients who were under this particular receptor testing. We all know and we have heard that any delays in the settling of this action would result in possibly a lower settlement for the victims and their families if they should succumb to the cause of their illness.

Mr. Speaker, even today, many families are still wondering what would have happened if they had received tamoxifen. Unfortunately, a claim for pain and suffering compensation went when those individuals passed away. However, throughout Canada, the wrongful loss to society and comfort for a loved one is compensated to a certain degree in each of the other jurisdictions. Even though those jurisdictions may be different in many ways, but some form of coverage is in place.

We know, Mr. Speaker, and we have heard many times, courts have condemned the law as being inhumane – and we have probably heard that here today. The Supreme Court of Canada has condemned the wrongful death laws that we still enforce, and it seems, Mr. Speaker, that we are really out of touch with the modern conceptions of fairness and justice. Our legislation entitles those affected to receive a small amount of compensation; however, additional funds were provided above what our legislation entitles an individual to receive. The motion that was put forward for an all-party committee – and we know that has been amended.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, from where we stand, this was not a plan to criticize or to have anything negative to say to government. This has, in no way, any political hidden agenda. It was a means to accomplish a review of legislation that has been there for many, many years, and hopefully, allow family members of deceased members and loved ones, to be able to claim compensation.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen their stories, we have heard their stories, we have seen those involved in the media, and yes, each and every one of us, I would venture to say, has known someone personally. I know, Mr. Speaker, our family was very close to a lady who passed away recently. When you are close to an individual, you can only imagine what they all went through their last few days, knowing that when they passed away, any chance for their families to receive compensation for pain and suffering went with their passing.

All our residents of this Province, Mr. Speaker, I think deserve better and we, by changing the legislation as it is today, can make that happen. This should be entrenched in the laws of our land and then possibly government would not be placed in difficult positions from time to time when cases come forward.

Mr. Speaker, there are other people throughout our Province who were not included in this class action. I ask: What options are open to those people? I suggest that we should try and correct the wrong, based on what a review would bring forward, even though I know the amendment states otherwise, and I am sure my hon. colleague will speak to that when he closes debate.

Compensation after death due to negligence, I believe, should be a right, and unfortunately, our laws today does not allow that. Other provinces have recognized this and I think that we should do the same. I am sure there are many others outside of the cases that we come to know because of the Cameron Inquiry. There are many other situations and various situations throughout the Province that people are placed in a similar situation. They also deserve the opportunity to have the laws protecting their rights to compensation enshrined in the laws of our land.

I understand that in our Province judges have unilaterally allowed some claims on a nominal basis, for example, possibly allowing $1,000 for each child under the age of eighteen. However, our Fatal Accidents Act is unclear and they may be excluded based on our legislation. By contrast, and I will just use one example, in Alberta under section 8(2) of their act, it provides an award for grief and loss of guidance, caring and compensation of $75,000 for a spouse, and $45,000 for each child who is a minor or if they cease to become a minor and are unmarried.

Mr. Speaker, while it is true that money will never right the wrong, it is a means for those people to know, in their circumstances, that compensation is available, and they may not have to worry about the suffering and worrying of what is happening if they do not survive their illness. We have learned much through the Cameron Inquiry. As the former speaker mentioned, as of July, 127 have passed away, of the 425 who had changes to their test results. Their pain and suffering will never be known. We must recognize in law for their sake and that of their families.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we should move forward and become more proactive on a go-forward basis by implementing, I suggest an all- party select committee, even though the amendment says otherwise, with the hope that recommendations will be enacted into law for the residents of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 this afternoon to speak to the civil compensation, private member's motion. I think this a very important issue that the private member has brought to the House for our discussion. I am quite pleased to stand and support the original motion that was brought to the House.

One of the things I think that all of us in the House agree, and I think it has been obvious in the speakers before me, that we all recognize that when people suffer from damage that has been caused in the health system, not just in the health system but that is what we are dealing with today, but when damage has been done to people, damage has been caused that causes them to be affected, whether it is through complete loss of life or through maiming, that they deserve absolutely, to have recompense for what they are going through and what they have been through. That it is not only the patient, it is not only the person who has had damage done to them that suffers but when we think about whether it is an accident or somebody in the health care system being affected the way the patients who underwent the ER-PR testing were affected, that everybody who is part of their life is affected. It is not just the individual. If they have partners, if they have children, if they have parents still alive, even grandparents, the issue is that it is not just the individual who is impacted. All those who are close to that individual are impacted.

That is what this motion is all about. It is recognizing that when an individual suffers, everybody who is close to that person also suffers. It is a deficiency in our current legislation, and I do not know why the government would think they had to take out the word deficiency. It does not mean the government is deficient, but we do have a deficiency in our legislation because of the fact that our legislation only recognizes the right of the individual to having recompense.

The action that took place with regard to the ER-PR testing sought damages for personal injury, which is quite logical, mental distress and nervous shock, referring to the patients. The action that was laid on behalf of the patients who underwent the ER-PR testing also sought loss of guidance, care and companionship, loss of consortium, mental distress and nervous shock, which related to the relatives of patients. It is more than just. It is actually humane to recognize that the close relatives of the patients who died go on suffering, and it is hard to measure what their suffering is. The pain of loss is bad enough. We all have undergone that I am sure, and when we lose a loved one there is immense pain. When you lose a loved one with the knowledge that perhaps the loved one would still be alive if the loved one had had the right treatment, than that is an untold stress on the person. The mental agony that one goes through, I cannot image because I have not gone through it myself, but I can just image how bad it is.

I think it is right to recognize that our current legislation is deficient. As I said, it is not a statement about government. It is not putting government down. Our legislation is deficient, and we want our legislation to improve. We want that legislation to be on a par with other legislations in the country. I know my colleagues have already said it, but there are at least five other provinces which have made legislative changes in their legislation and now include claims for loss of guidance, care and companionship; Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I. and Alberta. All of these provinces have recognized that their legislation was deficient.

Manitoba also made changes. As a matter of fact, I think they began making changes in the 1970s. They realized that they had to recognize the pain that the family members go through. There is a lot for us to learn from the other provinces. I will not go through all the provinces, but I am sure that as the legislative review happens, every single province will be looked at and should be looked at.

I am just taking one province. For example, in Manitoba under section 3(1) of the act, the claimants include spouses, including common-law spouses as defined in the act; parents, including grandparents, step-parents and persons in loco parentis to the deceased; children, including grandchildren, step-children and a person to whom the deceased stood in loco parentis, and siblings.

The other thing that is significant in Manitoba, and I think this is very important, is that no personal assessment of the claimant's loss of guidance, care or companionship is made. In other words, they do not have to prove the degree to which they are suffering as claimants. It is accepted that people who have been close to the individual who is now dead have undergone pain, are undergoing a loss of guidance or a loss of companionship. That is recognized. They do not have to prove the degree to which they are suffering. You get standard awards; obviously, everything has to be looked at.

In Manitoba, for example, the standard award for spouses, parents, and children is $10,000. The standard for siblings is around $2,500, recognizing that there are some levels of a relationship that are closer than others. It is never easy to come up with a figure because money will never undo what they have gone through. I think this money has to recognize things like people might have to go through therapy; people might have to get counselling just trying to cope with the loss of their loved one. The money that would be allowed for recognizes that.

I am not going to spend too much more time talking about the need for the change in the legislation. I think everybody, from the presenter of the motion through to the minister and the second speaker from the Official Opposition, have shown why this is necessary. I am glad that the minister has assured us that he recognizes why it is necessary to make changes to the legislation.

The thing I would like to use the rest of my time to talk about is why I think it is important that an all-party select committee is set up to deal with the issue. I firmly believe that we should have in this Province a better committee structure, we should have standing committees that deal with issues on a regular basis and we are the only province in Canada that does not have standing committees dealing with policy issues as a regular ongoing, all year-long activity. Our standing committees, except for the House of Assembly Management Commission, come to play mainly at budget time. The committees are the committees that take part in the Estimates meetings. They are the ones that quiz government on the use of money, but that is the only time that our committees standing even though our Standing Orders say that these standing committees may meet at all times throughout a year, even when the House is not sitting.

I think, right now, we are talking about putting in place an all-party select committee, and I guess we are having to do a select committee because of the fact that we do not have the practice of our standing committees, the social program, the Resource Committee, for example, we do not have the practice of their meeting all year round. If they did, we would not have to do an all-party select committee because there would be a standing committee that could deal with this issue. It is important that we have committees that deal with these issues, that we have all-party committees that deal with the issues.

What happens with all-party committees, number one, is that work can go on even when the House is not sitting. The work that is important here is the work of discussing and putting in place legislation. I do not think that we adequately deal with legislation by only dealing with it here in the House of Assembly, within the confines and the restrictions of the rules of debate in the House of Assembly. To have full discussion on legislation, you do it in committee, and that is how it is done in every Legislature across Canada. I am not talking about something that is weird and strange. I think it is really logical. Then, in committee, when all parties are in committee together, new ideas come out. It is not just bureaucrats inside of a department who are writing the legislation. If one thinks that we need to have experts come and speak to us, they can be called to a committee. So having standing committees and having all-party committees really enriches the discussion that goes on around policy. We have more time to deal with issues, more time to think about what we are doing and it is a broader discussion than just having it done inside of a department and then brought in here to be discussed, as I said, in the confines of the rules of debate inside the House.

It is not a strange thing to expect; it is not a strange thing to ask. As I have already said, every Legislature in Canada, including the federal as we know, we all know the parliamentary committees. All of the other Legislatures have standing committees who do ongoing policy discussion whether the House is in place or not. For that reason, I am very happy to support the resolution calling for the select committee. I wish we had standing committees. Since we do not, it is necessary to call it as a select committee.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I think I have made my main points and I am not going to continue talking just for the sake of talking. I do support the original resolution and I will be voting against the amendment.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

I guess it being Wednesday and being the presenting member, the hon. the Opposition House Leader will close debate.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: That is my understanding, Your Honour, that there are no other members to speak.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members for their contributions. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General who, being a lawyer himself of course, would be well aware of the Fatal Accidents Act and the Survival of Actions Act, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and the Member for Port de Grave for their commentary.

I think there is recognition, no doubt, that there is an issue here that we need to be brought into the twenty-first century when it comes to these two pieces of legislation. I guess we differ based upon the amendment that was put forth as to how we should get there.

Obviously, the amendment that the minister put forward wants it to be done in a review forum. I am disappointed to hear that and saddened, actually. There is no doubt that this government and successive governments have been reviewing this since 1832 and nothing has happened from governments. That is how long it has been – since 1832.

To suggest that a government, not only this government, but any government is just going to continue to review without doing something substantial, something that lets the stakeholders have an input. You notice again we saw this in an earlier private member's motion submitted to this House that this government ducks the tough decisions when it comes to letting stakeholders have a say. That is not involving the people in the process.

Go ask some of the family members who were involved in Cameron, if it is okay to have government decide where they should go. Go ask the members of the Cougar families if it is okay just to have government quote, review. That is a pretty loosey-goosey term, Mr. Speaker – a review by government. Is that going to be a few lawyers up in the civil Department of Justice going to sit down, put their heads around it and say this is what we think is okay? There is nothing definitive and substantial about this amendment at all saying: Yes, we will look at. No more than that. That is not good enough.

These pieces of legislation cry out to be amended and to be addressed properly. All we have asked for here today is that it be done in a proper fashion, in a proper forum. They could have even suggested some other forum to hold the hearings. It could have been something else other than a select committee, but no, what did government do? Government ducked the opportunity to have a public review of this thing and said: No, we will look at it.

I will not be voting for the amendment on the amended resolution just for that reason, because it changes the full intent and scope of what was intended by the principal motion. The principle here was to let the public have a say because it is the public who were impacted by this draconian legislation that we still operate under, and to suggest that we are going to take it, shove it in the closet and just shine a light on it whenever we get around to it by way of a review is just not acceptable. That is not doing justice to anybody in this Province who is going to need to have this piece of legislation in the future. It is not good to the people who have been impacted by the two recent tragedies we have had in this Province.

It is sad to see, but I guess because you carry the numbers, of course, that is who carries the day, but unfortunately, the people of this Province are not being well served now by an amendment of this type, which totally guts what the intention was, which was to have input from people so that we could move ourselves into the current day circumstances and not live in the dark ages like we have been living with these two pieces of legislation.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as put forward by the hon. the Minister of Justice?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as amended?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

Motion, as amended, carried.

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, the House now stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow, being Thursday.