The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today, the Speaker would like to welcome three members of Skills Canada Team - Newfoundland and Labrador: Mr. Marc Burton, bronze award winner; Mr. Ryan Skanes, silver award; and Mr. Stephen Rogers, gold medalist. The members are accompanied by their executive director, Carole Anne Ryan.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would also like to welcome a delegation of Newfoundland and Labrador Girl Guide leaders.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard: the hon. Member for the District of St. John's East; the hon. Member for the District of Bonavista North; the hon. Member for the District of Bellevue; the hon. Member for the District of Labrador West.

The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Mr. Speaker, certainly one of the drawbacks of being a minister of government is the limited opportunity to stand and recognize many of the things that go on in your district.

This past weekend – sorry, the weekend before that, the Newfoundland and Labrador Athletics Association held a provincial junior high championship in track and field. A number of schools from all over the Island converged on Pearlgate Field in Mount Pearl to jump, run, and throw to achieve victory.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that G.C. Rowe Junior High School from the District of Humber East, represented by the Minister of Finance, accumulated the most points in being named overall boys champions. In the girls category, Stephenville Middle School, from the District of St. George's-Stephenville East, which is represented by the Government House Leader, emerged victorious and received the girls championship banner.

Mr. Speaker, track and field is a great sport for our young people. It is low cost, active, social, and provides great opportunities for travel.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity today and ask all my colleagues to join me in congratulating G.C. Rowe Junior High and Stephenville Middle School on being the provincial junior high champions for 2010.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the fifty-fifth anniversary of the Wing's Point Pentecostal Assembly in Bonavista North.

The Wing's Point Pentecostal Assembly started in modest fashion in the 1950s when residents first opened their homes to a series of initial cottage meetings. The pioneer pastors of the day were sustained by their faith and goodwill offerings from supportive members of the community. From these humble beginnings, the church has seen its congregation grow from a few individuals scattered throughout Gander Bay South, Clarke's Head, Wing's Point, and Rodger's Cove to now 109 dedicated families throughout the Gander Bay area.

The strength and growing impact of the church in the area is evidenced by the development of a vibrant women's ministries group, a children's outreach program, and an active youth group.

The faith, dedication, and determination of one woman, Mary Lillian (Peckford) LeDrew, a former resident of Change Islands, played an integral role in the establishment of the church at Wing's Point. In the early, formative years of the Assembly, she set out to share her faith and support her fellow man and in doing so she became an integral part of advancing the Pentecostal movement in the region.

H. Paul Foster, the General Superintendent of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland and Labrador, when asked about the Wing's Point Pentecostal Assembly, stated that "the foundations through the Word of God were laid and established by the finest pastors who are, or have been, within our ranks." Today the work of the church is carried on by Pastor Roy Hillier.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the Wing's Point Pentecostal Assembly on celebrating fifty-five years of faith and service in the Bonavista North region.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the Girl Guides of Canada in celebrating 100 years of guiding in Canada this year on May 15, 2010.

Rallies were held all across Canada to celebrate their momentous occasion. There were fourteen rally site locations throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. By all accounts, participants had a wonderful time. There were approximately 2,500 people involved in the rally day celebrations.

Activities included sleepovers, sunrise ceremonies, use of stations for active games and crafts, face painting and of course, finishing up with a campfire for most of the locations. Three locations had a parade through their towns. At one location, the rally held in Blaketown, there was a presentation of a Oneise to the first baby girl born in that guiding area.

Special guests attended several of the rally sites. Four locations had their local MHAs attend, also councillors and mayors of the community, and two of the locations had their MPs attend. One of their National Deputy Chief Commissioners, Ms Sharron Callahan – she is a Newfoundlander, Mr. Speaker – along with their Provincial Commissioner, Ms Judy Shannahan, and her two Deputy Provincial Commissioners, Ms Rosalind Pratt and Ms Germaine Fisher, attended four rally sites, including the rally in Blaketown. As well, the Provincial Membership, Marketing and Public Affairs adviser, Ms Karen Dinn participated. Mrs. Mary Smith, the area commissioner for the coastal area, led the events for the girls at the Blaketown rally. This rally, Mr. Speaker, is the rally I had the privilege of attending.

There is lots of interest in guiding events this year as they continue to celebrate their achievements. Pathfinder age girls will be travelling to Ontario for GM 2010 camp in July, and over the summer girls will participate in local community festivities. Girls continue to work on challenges to commemorate 100 years of guiding and encouraging to participate. As a unit, they can donate 100 items to a local food bank, as an example, and receive a 100 years of caring button.

I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating guiding across Canada on their 100 years and thanking the leaders for their dedicated time and leadership to the guiding movement throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Labrador West seventh annual Relay for Life was held this past weekend over a twelve-hour period from 6:00 o'clock Saturday evening until 6:00 o'clock Sunday morning. I was proud to take part in the opening ceremonies and to bring greetings on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Relay for Life slogan is: Celebrate, Remember, Fight Back.

It was quite an emotional spectacle as a hundred or more cancer survivors clad in yellow tee-shirts kicked off the event with a victory lap around the track in celebration of their winning the battle against cancer.

It was also a time of remembrance. The hundreds of luminaries placed around the track glowed throughout the night as a memorial to those who lost their battle with cancer.

The generosity of the people of Labrador West is well-known and this was evidenced once again by the tremendous financial success of this event. Twenty-nine teams from Labrador City and Wabush including seven teams from our neighbouring Town of Fermont, Quebec raised a total of $117,000.

In the past four years, the Labrador West Relay for Life has contributed over $510,000 towards the fight back against cancer.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the hon. House to join me in congratulating the event chair, Thelma Ricketts, her team of volunteers and the twenty-nine teams who made this year's Relay for Life another phenomenal success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to congratulate Team Newfoundland and Labrador 2010 on being awarded ten medals from the sixteenth annual Canadian Skills Competition, which was held recently in Waterloo, Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, over 600 high school, post-secondary and apprenticeship students from every province and territory competed in forty competitions for the honour of being named the best in the country.

The Canadian Skills Competition is organized by Skills Canada to profile technology and trade careers.

Mr. Speaker, a number of award winners from our Province include: Marc Burton, Stephanie House and Alexandria Matthews, bronze award medal winners; silver awards were for Emma Power and Ryan Skanes. I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to share that Kyle Kearsey, Timothy McDavid, Andrew Power, Stephen Rogers and Jamie Warren were all recipients of a gold medal award. College of the North Atlantic student, Stephen Rogers, was named the Best of the Region Award, which goes to the competitor with the highest marks in our Province.

As well, Andrew Power, also of the College of the North Atlantic, earned a spot on Team Canada and will go on to represent the country at the forty-first World Skills Competition in London, England in the fall of 2011.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial government is a proud supporter of Skills Canada Newfoundland and Labrador and of the Canadian Skills Competition.

In 2009-2010, the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, the Department of Education, and the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development provided $100,000 in funding to Skills Canada.

Mr. Speaker, in November of last year, our government officially launched Creating a Province of Choice: A Youth Retention and Attraction Strategy for Newfoundland and Labrador. The strategy was developed in collaboration with youth with the intent of countering the impacts of out-migration, of strengthening the labour market and supporting the economic development of our Province. Our partnership, Mr. Speaker, with Skills Canada and the interest they have created in skilled trades shows that our strategy is indeed working.

I know I speak for all members of the hon. House, Mr. Speaker, when I offer each award winner congratulations on a job well done.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to first of all thank the minister for an advance copy of his presentation.

Certainly, to see our youth participating in the annual Canadian Skills Competition is great and especially to see that ten of the participants were awarded medals of bronze, silver and gold. It is certainly nice to especially acknowledge Andrew Power, as mentioned by the minister, who will be competing internationally in 2011.

It is a good competition. It is a healthy environment for our young people. I would encourage the government to continue to provide the funding that is mentioned through the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment and that we can see more of our young people getting this opportunity.

We have a strategy that the minister refers to that has been developed as working in terms of our youth, in terms of countering the impacts of out-migration and so on. I would certainly encourage that perhaps that strategy can be used across other departments and other challenges within our Province today.

So it is good, and thank you for this privilege to speak to it.

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

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

I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I am delighted to stand here today in solidarity with him and the speaker from the Official Opposition to congratulate everyone from the Province who had the opportunity to compete in Waterloo, and especially congratulations to those who won the medals. It is great to know that people from our Province – our young people – continue to go on showing themselves very strongly in the Canadian Skills Competition. I also wish Andrew Power a lot of luck when Team Canada competes in London next fall.

There is no doubt that Skills Canada, especially through the Canadian Skills Competition, does provide excellent exposure for young people in the skilled trades, but it is not just co-operation and partnership with Skills Canada that is going to show that the Youth Retention and Attraction Strategy is working, Mr. Speaker. Our young people still need jobs in this Province, and we definitely need better internship and apprenticeship programs to help them make the transition into the workforce, which is the final step. We still have too many having to leave the Province.

I particularly note, Mr. Speaker, that it is still difficult for women who are in trades and technology to move right through the whole process to a journeyperson. So, I encourage the minister to keep looking at these issues in his department.

Thank you very much, 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, following this government's logic on the Lower Churchill file is quite difficult. A couple of weeks ago, the Premier stated that he is going to pursue the Maritime route to transmit power and bypass Quebec. This weekend we learned that Nalcor is supporting a proposal from a private company to develop a 2,000 megawatt line from the Quebec-US border to New York City. If this company is successful, they plan to pre-sell access to this line.

I ask the Premier today: Is this Province willing to pre-buy space on this line without the transmission infrastructure in place to get our power to the Quebec-US border?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this Province is not prepared to enter into commitments unless it has actually something to go on. I think this is just the opposite of the question that the hon. member asked last week as to why we had not entered into certain contracts. We had not entered into them because at that point we did not have any power to sell. Now, it is Monday and she is now coming from the other side asking if we are prepared to enter into contracts even though we do not have space allocated.

This government is not going to put the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in a precarious position. What we are going to do is proceed and we are going to look at all our options. We have not ruled out any of the options. The article that appeared on Nalcor over the weekend is an accurate article. We could look at actually buying space at some point in time when there are approvals in place to take power from the Quebec border. We could still even look at the possibility of building our own transmission line through Quebec. That is something which could have to be done. As well, of course, our preferred option is the Maritime route and we have stated that previously.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The whole purpose of the question is because during the weekend, Mr. Ed Martin of Nalcor was quoted as saying that: "If it was a relationship where we were one of the players on the line and we had guaranteed access for a particular price, that would suit us fine." A few months ago in the House of Assembly the Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Speaker, indicated that they were not prepared to make any commitment because they did not know which route that they would take and which way they would wheel their capacity. So, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the question today was to look for clarification.

Mr. Speaker, Hydro-Quebec has just signed a twenty-six year contract with the state of Vermont to supply power. The Premier referenced last week the MOU that he signed with Rhode Island in 2007 and his attempt to find a customer for Lower Churchill power. We now know that the MOU is dead, as Rhode Island has backed away from signing any agreements with the Province.

I ask the Premier: While everyone else is signing long-term agreements, what meaningful actions is this Province taking to secure potential customers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, when we took over the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, we found ourselves in a position where the previous government had not marketed our power properly in the rest of Canada and even the United States. When we first went to the governors meetings in the United States, it was Quebec power – the power that was coming out of the Upper Churchill was considered to be Quebec's power. They were marketing it, they were selling it, they had generated it, and they had produced it. Newfoundland and Labrador did not even exist in the power markets in the Northeastern United States.

So, what we have done over the course of the last five years is nurture the relationship with the New England governors as well as with other provinces, Ontario and the Maritime provinces, to show that we will be a significant exporter. This government does not have a short-term vision of where it is going; it has a long-term vision. Our Energy Plan goes out to 2041 to the point when we repatriate the Upper Churchill power and we are working back from that.

So, we have a long-term perspective, we are building relationships, we are promoting the Province. As I said last week, I have spoken in New York, I have spoken in Calgary, I have spoken in Toronto, I have spoken in Ottawa. I will continue to promote this Province to the best of my ability anywhere in the world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we have is a minister who claims that we should not be buying capacity on a line. We have a corporation, Mr. Speaker, who is looking to invest with the private sector to buy capacity on a line that we have no route to get to at this stage, and, Mr. Speaker, in addition to that we have no secure customers while others are signing deals to provide power.

I ask the Premier this question. He stated that his preference was the Maritime option when questioned a couple of weeks ago. While that may be his preference, the work that remains to be done shows that this route is at least a decade or more away. One of the major challenges when using underwater cables to transmit electricity is that a significant quantity of power is lost. So using the Maritime route, there will be two instances that will require underwater transmission, across the Strait of Belle Isle and the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

I ask the Premier: How much power will be lost using underwater transmission and what impact will that have on the feasibility of the project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can undertake to provide that information. I am not an engineer. I would not be able to give you an accurate number as to what the power loss is but I can tell you, obviously the Leader of Opposition is listening to her counterpart, the Liberal Premier of New Brunswick and/or his energy minister who has indicated that technical problems are the reasons why we would not do the underwater route. Well, since they made that statement, or since that statement was taken out of context, as they have indicated to us, they have since changed that and they have indicated that there are not significant technical problems with regard to underwater transmission. As a matter of fact, it is happening all over the world. There are lots of jurisdictions. We could cite all kinds of examples. I will provide the examples to the Leader of the Opposition, or any members of the Opposition, with respect to where this is taking place. There is some loss, some power loss but it is insignificant in the big scheme of things. This is the best, clean, green renewable energy project in North America and it will happen eventually.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know that the government has not completed the necessary work to move forward with the Maritime route. There are no environmental impact studies that have been filed to cross the Gulf of St. Lawrence and we know that process will take years.

I tell the Premier what I did talk to the Government of New Brunswick about, however, was the capacity on their lines to accept Lower Churchill power. They have confirmed, Mr. Speaker, that there is no capacity. They say that Newfoundland and Labrador, if approved, would be responsible for constructing new transmission lines across that province and paying a tariff to the people of New Brunswick.

I ask the Premier today: What will be the extra cost of constructing these transmission lines and what impact will that have on the feasibility of the Lower Churchill project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Well, now we understand completely why the Leader of the Opposition is so completely misinformed. She just indicated who she is relying on for information. She is relying on the Government of New Brunswick, who just recently backed away from a deal with Quebec whereby they would have given away their future. So that is where she is getting her information. So let's start from that premise.

The Leader of the Opposition in New Brunswick was in last week to talk to me about the potential power projects, to talk about the use of New Brunswick as an energy hub for Atlantic Canada, for the Maritimes, for the Northeastern United States. It is interesting how a Conservative thinks as opposed to a Liberal, who decides they will just give it all away.

Having said that, we have also spoken to the Premier of New Brunswick, to the other premiers of the Atlantic Provinces who are looking at Atlantic co-operation to build a Maritime route, to build an energy hub throughout Atlantic Canada whereby the Province of New Brunswick would work with us. Now, we have already said whether it is in Quebec or whether it is in New Brunswick, whether it is in Nova Scotia, we have to upgrade. We will pay for upgrade. If we have to pay for rental, we will pay for rental. If we have to pay for new transmission -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - we will pay for new transmission. There is a co-operative attitude. Your divide and conquer attitude, whether it happens to be Quebec or New Brunswick, simply does not work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to inform the Premier that you have to talk to someone in order to smoke the answers out of the government opposite because every day it is a different message. One week we are going the Maritime route, the next week we are going through Quebec. One week we are trying to buy capacity on a line to the United States, the next week we have no way to transport power. So, Mr. Speaker, there are more questions than there are ever answers, I would say to the Premier, and it is all right to talk to some people to find out what the real lay of the land is.

Mr. Speaker, once power is transmitted through Labrador and across The Strait of Belle Isle, down the Northern Peninsula, through the Long Range Mountains, across Western Newfoundland, across the Gulf of St. Lawrence, through Nova Scotia, through New Brunswick, we then have to go through the State of Maine.

I ask the Premier today: What discussions have you or Nalcor had with the State of Maine regarding transmission capacity? Will we have to build new transmission lines there as well?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite talks about taking power and taking it across Labrador and across the Gulf and down through Newfoundland, across the Gulf and through the Maritimes and down into the State of Maine. As if: Look, you know, this is just too much trouble. We really should not bother with this. What we should do is - she should go back to her previous position. We should just give this all away to Quebec. Which is exactly what her government and her Premier and previous governments have been prepared to do is give it to Quebec.

An article appeared in the Montreal Gazette just this weekend. Do you know what it is entitled? Let it go, Newfoundland. Let it go. That is what we should do. We should listen to the hon. member opposite and we should listen to the members of the Opposition. We should just let it go. We should give it all way.

In that particular article they also say, "Williams isn't wrong on the facts." So everything that we laid out in Ottawa last week, every single fact is correct. They acknowledge that, but instead Quebec has this patronizingly colonial attitude: Let it go, Newfoundland and Labrador, give it all to us and we will take care of it. Well, over my dead body that is going to happen, I can tell you right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No one is talking about giving it to Quebec, but if you want to talk about giving it away, I would say that is your motto today. That is the government's motto. Certainly, that is what we have seen with Abitibi, and we have seen it with a lot of contracts going to Quebec companies in recent days. The giveaway to Quebec is starting with government opposite, Mr. Speaker.

Let me ask the Premier what the plan is at this stage for the development of the Lower Churchill because we are no closer today than we were seven years ago, when he walked into office, on knowing what route that this project will take and what transmission ability that we have in order to develop.

So I ask the Premier today: What route is it going to be, and when is it that you are going to get down to work on that file?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Give it all away, so she talks about Abitibi. So, she is not in favour of what we did for the people of Central Newfoundland. She is not in favour of the fact that we took back and we saved their timber rights and their land rights, and their power assets – their very, very important power assets which happen to be related to this. She is not in favour of the fact that we then took that opportunity then to pay severance, which is unprecedented right across the country.

I have in front of me a letter which was written to me by, or written actually to – yes, it is to myself, and basically on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. March 16, 2010, from Joseph Kruger, the head of Kruger Paper in Corner Brook. Last line, last sentence: Again, I want to thank you and your government for saving the mill. That is what we do. We saved the mill and we saved the future for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The giveaway on Abitibi, Mr. Speaker, is letting Abitibi off the hook with hundreds of millions of dollars, and that is what this government did.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday of last week, a three-year-old child was nearly struck when a three-foot copper pipe fell from the ceiling in the blood collection area of the Janeway. It could have resulted in a very serious injury for that child, but fortunately and thankfully, it was not the case. Eastern Health stated that they had given very clear direction that the construction work was only supposed to be done at night when the area was unoccupied.

I ask the minister: Why were the work directives given by Eastern Health to this construction company not followed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This was obviously a very serious incident and one that deserved and received immediate attention. The company was dealt with. The occupational health and safety issues are being investigated, and this kind of conduct on behalf of any company will not be tolerated.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding, again from a review of the matter, that this matter is still be looking at. Thankfully, no one was hurt, but these are not the kind of situations that can be tolerated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Health Science complex is one of the busiest buildings in our Province. Thousands of people go through that building every day and Eastern Health has a responsibility to ensure the safety of its patients, the public, and its employees in instances were work is being done in public intuitions.

I ask the minister: Who decides what protection barriers need to be used and why was no protection barriers used in this case?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

In regard to the Health Sciences or any other such facility in Newfoundland and Labrador there is extra precaution taken each and every day in regard to work being conducted within those facilities. In this case there, there was an oversight, as I understand it, from the manager who actually knew, or was supposed to have known, that the work was supposed to happen after hours, or at a time when that blood collection or whatever other procedures were not supposed to be happening.

Anyways, that did not happen and then company itself took corrective action very quickly in regard to that site, closed it down very, very quickly. Occupational Health and Safety did an investigative review on that. They always do in regard to any of those. Extra precautions are always put in place in regard to any facility in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the directives given to these companies need to be followed to ensure the health and safety of the public, patients and employees are protected. Had Eastern Health been monitoring the work that was being carried out by this company, they would have known that the contractor was not working as per the requirements for safety in the contract.

I ask the minister: When directives are given to these construction companies, who are responsible for ensuring that they are followed and who are responsible to ensure that the monitoring is done?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the directive itself and the work that is being done, it is the responsibility of both parties to make sure that all occupational health and safety standards and regulations are being adhered to. In this case, it just so happened that the company, on an oversight, started the work - that should not have happened. The company acted very, very fast. Occupational, Health and Safety acted very, very fast in regard to closing down that site.

In most cases - as a matter of fact, I have been the Minister of Government Services now for three years just about and the Minister Responsible for Occupational Health and Safety, there has been a lot of work in our facilities across Newfoundland and Labrador. Really, to my knowledge, this is the first incident in regard to any hospital in Newfoundland and Labrador of this sort.

So, the oversight is good, it is working well, but in this case it just so happened that it happened within the company and the company acted on it very, very quickly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government has adopted a distinct law and order approach. More activities are being criminalized and those convicted are more likely to go to prison and for longer period of times.

This past weekend, the minister participated in meetings with his Atlantic counterparts where this matter and others were discussed.

I ask the minister: Can you report on what this new federal approach to crime will mean for corrections services in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice, I think, concurs generally with the actions taken by the federal government in terms of its tough on crime legislation, but at the same time we are cognizant of the fact that it is going to have an impact on the Province and all provinces. At our meetings on the weekend, that was certainly an issue of concern.

There was an action group established some time ago that did up some figures, that I do not have at my fingertips, on what the possible cost might be to the Atlantic Provinces in general. We are concerned with the fact that it will have a financial impact. We have made representations to the federal government and we will continue to do so but at the Atlantic ministers' level and at the federal territorial ministers' level when it occurs in the fall.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Despite the inevitable increase in the number of persons who will go to prison following these federal government changes in their policy, this government has taken no steps to accommodate or prepare for this increase in prisoners. Specifically, the Province has shelved the replacement for the existing penitentiary that is already widely acknowledged to be insufficient and decrepit.

In light of the minister's meetings and in light of this clear, hard-lined federal policy, will the minister take steps to ensure now that the proper replacement facility is put in place here in this Province in terms of a penitentiary?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, in response to the constant criticism from the Opposition in regard to the delay of the pre-trial detention centre in Labrador, this department has constantly said that we are already engaged in that activity. We have started an internal review as to how to best get the best configuration out of correctional systems.

We have a number of correctional facilities in the Province. They all have difficulties. We are all well-aware of the problems with the HMP down by the lake. We are also, I think, acceptable to the fact by this time, because the federal government is not coming on board with respect to building a federal prison. We are looking at all the options we can, including any expansions or modifications or reconfigurations of our system so to get the best bang for our buck, so to speak, as to how we can deal with corrections in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

We know that the feds have absolutely stated they are not building any new prisons in Canada in the foreseeable future. We know that this government committed and announced twice that they were going to build a pre-trial detention centre in Goose Bay, and have now scrapped it. So I will move on, minister, to another question because it is pretty obvious you have not done anything to pursue a new HMP.

Mr. Speaker, government has been quick to take credit for their report of two years ago called: Decades of Darkness. Yet, many of the recommendations in that report are still awaiting action after two years. One of those recommendations – and this ties in with my earlier questions about the prison here. One of the recommendations was that there would be a new Prisons Act to replace the existing one. However, we have seen absolutely no indication of any kind regarding consultations with either stakeholders or the general public.

I ask the minister: When can we expect to see these consultations take place and a new Prisons Act actually be introduced here in the House?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The hon. member is quite right in that that was one of the recommendations of Decades of Darkness. Mr. Speaker, the focus of the government after the Decades of Darkness report was on training and programming. To that end, Mr. Speaker, it has invested upwards of $6 million in terms of training of personnel, training of staff, developing of programs for inmates, so to make our correctional facilities a better place both for our inmates and our staff. Mr. Speaker, we have, as I said, invested $6 million in that.

With respect to the Prisons Act; the Prisons Act needs to be done. There is a lot of work going on as we speak in my department, in doing jurisdictional scans, getting best practices and so on. That act is being developed, and when it is ready, Mr. Speaker, it will be brought forward in due course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, in September of 2008 the Department of Business announced an $8 million interest-free loan for the expansion of Terra Nova Shoes in the community of Harbour Grace. This past April the company announced that it was laying off sixty workers. Last week we see that the displaced workers were invited to attend sessions with the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment and Service Canada to explore options, including EI, Canada Pensions and so on.

Can the minister confirm that this layoff now is indeed permanent and not temporary, as originally thought?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I do not think anyone ever indicated those layoffs that were announced a short while ago were going to be a temporary nature. I think what was announced, the company indicated that they had changed their method of operation, they had developed a new plan forward and that those layoffs were going to be, in fact, permanent, and they reflected their new operation as they move forward.

So there was no mistaken notion, Mr. Speaker, that these layoffs were going to be of a temporary nature. Obviously, as the company continues to operate, as new business opportunities come forward, they will respond to those. If that creates an opportunity for expansion and growth, no doubt the workforce will reflect that growth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, government's response to this announcement was to ask Terra Nova Shoes for a revised business plan so that the department might review the terms of the loan.

Can the minister confirm that the plan was indeed reviewed? If a new plan was received from that particular company, if the terms of the loan were revised, and if so, what are the new terms?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: The member opposite is right, Mr. Speaker. We did indicate that we would be reviewing a new business plan and as a result of that discussion, and if necessary, we will be revising the terms and conditions outlined in the agreement we had in place when we advanced the money to them in the beginning and that process is still underway. We hope to have that concluded in a matter of weeks, I say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

This $8 million to Terra Nova Shoes represents the largest single amount of money provided by the Department of Business to any one company, and is the major money, in fact, ever spent from the Business Attraction Fund since it was founded.

I ask the minister: What changes to the internal application and approval processes have been made within your department to ensure a greater level of certainty of business survival? Because it is quite obvious that the due diligence done here did not pan out and it looks like we could be on the hook for $8 million. So what, if any, changes have your government made and your department made in a terms of doing due diligence on companies who apply for business attraction funds in this Province, and subsidies?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the member opposite, I think it is important to understand - and to take the member back to the time when that announcement was made.

You may recall, Mr. Speaker, the minister of the day indicated very clearly that that company that currently operates in Harbour Grace was looking at – they had an operation in Ontario and an operation in Harbour Grace. When government considered the request before them, it had a circumstance where there were 150, 160 employees working in Harbour Grade at that time. The company was considering whether they would consolidate in Harbour Grace or consolidate in Ontario.

We looked at the business plan that they presented. Obviously, it is a long-standing viable company that we had a long-standing relationship with. They have been in the Province for a long time, very sound financially, and we created an opportunity for them to consolidate their operation in Harbour Grace rather than losing all 150 employees at that time, Mr. Speaker. So, the business case they had at that time looked at a consolidation. The international economy changed and market conditions changed, so we ended up seeing what we saw last year, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this morning we had a technical briefing from Chevron and we were delighted to have that briefing. They informed us that from their perspective they are doing everything they can to prevent a blow out from occurring in the Orphan Basin as happened in the Gulf of Mexico. However, Mr. Speaker, at this moment we do not know what the reasons are for the disaster in the Gulf. Potentially, there could have been technical issues that contributed to the blow out.

If such were the case, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: If this government would be willing to put a halt to the drilling in the Orphan Basin until an assessment could be made of the relevancy of any identified technical issues to the Lona-O55 drilling program?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we were pleased also that Chevron provided briefings to our caucus this morning, to the Opposition caucuses, and to the media. Mr. Speaker, we are pleased with the plans and the extra regulation that Chevron has put in place with regard to drilling in the Orphan Basin, as well as the extra scrutiny that has been overlaid now by the C-NLOPB.

Mr. Speaker, also, in addition that Chevron has representation on the team in the Gulf of Mexico who are dealing with the oil spill there. As well, they have representation on the Obama Administration's response team to the Gulf of Mexico. Lessons being learned are being applied here, Mr. Speaker. All of that gives us a great sense of comfort with regard to drilling in the Orphan Basin.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Yes, I heard those things as well in the briefing this morning, but we still have people expressing their concern about the risk of a blow out in the deep water and what would happen if there were a blow out. Many have concerns that the government would not put a stop to drilling in the Orphan Basin without full knowledge of why the blow out happened.

So, I ask the government: What would it take for the government to consider stopping action in the Orphan Basin? Would it be another blow out or are there technical difficulties that would force them to do it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are quite a number of regulations governing operations in our offshore. Mr. Speaker, if all of the safety measures and regulations were not being observed, were not available, requirements for safety were not available, then we would certainly agree to shutting down drilling in our offshore.

Mr. Speaker, as far as the C-NLOPB is concerned, all regulations are in force, being met. In terms of Chevron's own code of practice, all the regulations are being met, Mr. Speaker, and if there were information that was starting to come out of the Gulf of Mexico to say that there was a systemic problem that had not been identified up to this point then that would be a reason for shutting it down as well, Mr. Speaker. None of those things have happened to 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.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Premier offered to provide a list of the additional safety measures that were being employed by Chevron as a result of the incident in the Gulf of Mexico, and such a list was provided to us by the Department of Natural Resources two days after that. In this morning's briefing with Chevron we were told that one of the measures noted as an additional one on the list from the Department of Natural Resources, a measure that states that Chevron will not use expandable liners as a part of their well casing design, was always a part of Chevron's plan, that this was not an additional measure. As a matter of fact, they were quite emphatic in saying that the use of expandable liners was never a part of their plan.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Could we receive clarification about what else in the list of additional measures provided to us by the government is inaccurate and actually not an additional measure?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the worst accusation that could be made from the remarks now coming from the Leader of the NDP is that in my department sometimes we tend to be overzealous in terms of making sure that people got the correct information. Mr. Speaker, we spend a lot of time on this file. We recognize the concern that is being felt by the people of this Province, by the people of the country and of the world, Mr. Speaker. We, too, are horrified when we look at pictures of what is happening in the Gulf, and we will do everything we can to ensure that does not happen here, Mr. Speaker. The environment is important to every one of us. The sea is very important to us; it is a part of who we are.

Mr. Speaker, we take this situation very, very seriously and would not be offering comfort if we were not sincerely sure that is the case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to table the Credit Union Deposit Guarantee Corporation Annual Business Report for the year 2009.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

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

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move the following private member's resolution:

WHEREAS archaeologist Bill Gilbert and his team from the Baccalieu Trail Heritage Corporation in 1995 discovered the original site of John Guy's 1610 Cupers Cove Plantation and, since that time, more than 145,000 artifacts have been catalogued and important 17^th century structures have been identified; and

WHEREAS Cupids, the oldest English settlement in what is now Canada, is celebrating its 400^th anniversary this year; and

WHEREAS in November, Their Royal Highnesses The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall visited our Province to launch the year-long Cupids400 celebration; and

WHEREAS the provincial government last June announced an additional $1.8 million to help fund the construction of the Cupids400 Legacy Centre, bringing the Province's total commitment to the Cupids celebration and related infrastructure to over $3.8 million; and

WHEREAS this legacy centre will house more than 110,000 artifacts uncovered since the discovery of the original site, and will also include a history/genealogical resource centre, a multi-purpose hall and an archaeology lab where visitors will learn about the processes of archaeology; and

WHEREAS events throughout the year, culminating in the week of August 17-22, will inject an estimated $15 million into the provincial economy while providing important and enduring tourism benefits to Cupids and the entire region;

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly congratulates Cupids on its 400^th anniversary and invites the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and tourists from across Canada and around the world to join the people of Cupids in celebrating this important historic occasion, strengthening our tourism industry and providing lasting benefits to many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the process.

Mr. Speaker, that is moved by myself and seconded by the hon. Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that, under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 15, 2010.

I further give notice, under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 15, 2010.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answer to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition again, on behalf of residents in my district, with regard to the road conditions in that particular area. Mr. Speaker, I will read into Hansard the prayer of the petition.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the residents of Red Bay to Goose Bay use a section of the Trans-Labrador Highway that is unpaved and in poor condition; and

WHEREAS this road is no longer suitable for the traffic volumes that travel this route; and

WHEREAS government will not commit to provide funding to even begin paving for Phase II and Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway; and

WHEREAS the residents of this region deserve a similar standard of road as the Island portion of the Province;

WHEREUPON the petitioners call upon the House of Assembly to ask the government to provide funding, to pave the road from Red Bay to Goose Bay.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, these petitions, as I said, are circulating around Labrador, and as they come in I will be presenting them to the House of Assembly. The petition today is signed by people in the Labrador Straits area. Mr. Speaker, this highway is the main highway through Labrador. Right now, that section of highway, in places, at least fifty kilometres in the area from the middle depot at Red Bay, going toward Mary's Harbour, is in very, very bad condition. It is so bad, Mr. Speaker, that even over the weekend I had calls from tractor-trailer operators, companies that are running freight in and out of the area, bus tour operators that made the first trip up over the road, who said that it was the worst piece of road they have ever travelled over in their entire lives.

If you read the paper today, Mr. Speaker, the local paper, the Northern Pen, I believe it was, carried an article which quoted all kinds of people who use that road for delivering goods, for traffic, for work, and they have all said the same thing: they have never seen that section of road as bad in the years that the road has been there.

Mr. Speaker, last week the minister committed to put some crushed stone on that section of road, but to date there has been no crushed stone on the road between the middle camp and Lodge Bay. There was a little bit of stone put on the road between Mary's Harbour and Lodge Bay over the weekend, where kids were being bused to school, Mr. Speaker, and parents had refused to send their children over that section of road any longer. There was some crushed stone put on there, and it is continuing to be done today, from what I understand, but still nothing to address the other section of road.

Mr. Speaker, it is because of the state of the roads, and because of the dependency upon these roads, that people feel that government needs to take it more seriously and maintain a certain standard on that road, and to start putting together a proposal to ensure that this section of highway gets paved as well.

Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for Labrador was quoted on CBC Radio back some time ago as saying that until the section of road between Labrador West and Goose Bay is paved, there would be nothing coming forward to pave the section from Goose Bay to Red Bay. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough, and it is unacceptable. Government should take their responsibilities to the people in this area more seriously and they should be looking at a long-term solution to dealing with this and that would be paving the roads.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 9, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today on Monday, June 14, 2010.

Further, Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 10, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today on Monday, 14, 2010.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 of the clock today, being Monday.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock today, being Monday.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Government Services for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, Bill 27, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, Bill 27, and that Bill 27 be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 27 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act", carried. (Bill 27)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 27)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 27 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 27 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 27 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Government Services for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 3, Bill 28, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 3, Bill 28, and that Bill 28 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 28 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 3", carried. (Bill 28)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 3. (Bill 28)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 28 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 28 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 28 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Government Services for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act, Bill 29, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act, Bill 29, and that Bill 29 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 29 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act", carried. (Bill 29)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act. (Bill 29)

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

When shall Bill 29 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Health And Protection Of Animals, Bill 30, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved by the Government House Leader that the House shall ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Health And Protection Of Animals, Bill 30, and that Bill 30 be now read a first time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting The Health And Protection Of Animals", carried. (Bill 30).

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Health And Protection Of Animals. (Bill 30)

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

When shall Bill 30 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Human Rights, Bill 31, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and second that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Human Rights, Bill 31, and that Bill 31 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 31 and that this bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting Human Rights", carried. (Bill 31).

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Human Rights. (Bill 31)

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

When shall Bill 31 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will go to the Order Paper under second reading of bills and we will go to Order 13. This was the debate adjourned on June 3, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 2, Bill 19.

MR. SPEAKER: The House is ready to hear a continued debate on Bill 19, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 2.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

Has the hon. member already spoken on this particular piece of legislation?

MR. O'BRIEN: I have, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. minister speaks now, he will close the debate on second reading of Bill 19, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 2.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

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

Yes, it has been a few days now in regard to the debate – the ongoing debate in regard to Bill 19. Just to refresh some of the people's minds, not only in this House but also in Newfoundland and Labrador via our telecast, this bill is about the regulation of insurance companies. It is specifically about the different types of classes of insurance that will be sold.

There has been an ongoing process in regard to the Canadian Council of Insurance Regulators. They carried out a review in regard to defining the classes of insurance all across Canada and the different jurisdictions. In the premise of streamlining those classes of insurance and harmonizing them to be much the same in each of the provinces and territories within Canada, the amendments that we are making here are certainly a result of that review.

In the meantime, the last speaker in regard to the Opposition was the Opposition House Leader. He spoke at length on the particular bill. He brought up a number of points that he wanted clarification on. He brought up a number of points that I did not think he would need any clarification in regard to his profession and the classes, the difference in regard to the legislation itself, and then in turn the policies that come out of that legislation and come out of the classes of insurance that are here in Canada and also in Newfoundland and Labrador.

First, to clarify, I think he asked a question in regard to the harmonization piece, if all jurisdictions would be included. Yes, they will. All the jurisdictions in Canada are harmonizing as we speak in regard to that review, including the federal insurance legislation too will be harmonized over the next period of time in regard to the sittings of their House. So, it is the intention of each and every jurisdiction and the federal government to harmonize to the actual recommendations coming out of the Canadian Council of Insurance Regulators review that happened over the past number of years.

Also, I want to clarify in regard to – the hon. member brought up, in regard to the harmonization not being exactly the same. Well, sometimes the wording in the legislation is often different in various jurisdictions due to drafting style but the meaning of that particular legislation is the same. It is just in the drafting style of the particular province or territory that you might find yourself in or the federal government. Also, in regard to Quebec, there were translating issues, which sometimes result in different wording but the end result is the same as well.

The hon. member brought up in regard to difference of classes of insurance in Quebec. He referenced a couple of occasions I believe, if you look at Hansard, if my memory serves me right, he referred to the difference - I referenced that there would be two issues in regard to this harmonization that we would probably have to come back to the House to re-amend the piece of legislation. One pertaining to Quebec and one pertaining actually to our fire and emergency act here in Newfoundland and Labrador. That we had to let each one of them catch up to each other before we actually could amend and harmonize in that respect. The one - he confused it actually, in regard to that harmonization. He kept referring to fire insurance in regard to Quebec, but that did not pertain to that particular issue at all. It had to do with the credit insurance, in regard to Quebec, the class of insurance in Quebec. The purpose of this piece is to protect the lender from loss where the person or company who received the loan defaults on a payment of a loan or becomes insolvent.

In Quebec, this type of insurance is included in their mortgage insurance class because of how the Quebec Civil Code defines mortgage. For example, in Quebec a loan on a car is considered to be a mortgage but in all other provinces it is considered a loan. So to clarify that, that is the reason why there will be a difference between this Province – and the other jurisdictions, I suspect as well, have the same issue that they have to - there will be a difference between those two words in regard to mortgage and loan. That is the reason why, it has all to do with the Quebec Civil Code, and defines that.

He also asked that the Canadian Council of Insurance Regulators, he was asking how long this took, who participated and what not, and everything. This has been a long process, over several years of work, in consultation with the insurance industry itself. My Superintendent of Insurance was also a part of that process as well. There have been people who have been in that particular industry, either on the regulatory side or on the business side itself, who have been involved in that process over the last several years. All the provinces and territories and the federal government are all members of the Canadian Council of Insurance Regulators and they were all involved in the discussions.

There is a lot of input in regard to that process and getting us to this point that we are able to make the amendments. We are able to streamline and harmonize the actual classes of insurance across Canada, which is really a benefit not only to the industry but also a benefit to the buyer as well, that they can move from province to province. They might have a certain class of insurance in Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, that class of insurance will be the same in Alberta, B.C., Manitoba, Saskatchewan, or wherever they find themselves in.

So I hope that clarifies that we had various people. As a minister, I did not sit because that is a council that is made up of the superintendents and various other people who are experts in regard to the regulatory side of the actual insurance industry. They sit at that table over a number of years.

He also referenced a number of occasions in regard to the different classes of insurance and also went down through a number of them. Now there are going to be seventeen classes of insurance that are going to be listed in Appendix 1. Then there is also an area there where there are other approved products as well. The other approved products enable the industry to develop other classes that would come forward to the Canadian Council of Insurance Regulators for their review. So you might see another class of insurance added to the list and that appendix at some time in the future.

In regard to the different classes of insurance, one in particular, he mentioned the accident and sickness insurance is certainly a class of insurance. As I said, there are many types of insurance policies that fall under the class of accident and sickness insurance. For example, you may have insurance to cover you for an injury or a death while travelling on an airplane. You could have insurance to cover medical costs while on a trip. You could have insurance to cover you if you died or were injured in a type of accident. You could have insurance to cover dental bills, et cetera.

So to clarify for the hon. member, legislation does not dictate what has to be covered in each of the insurance policies. That is dictated by the policy itself. Legislation will say that these policies are under a certain class of insurance, such as accidental and sickness insurance and the insurance companies wishing to sell these policies will need a licence to sell that class of insurance.

Also, under the insurance policies there is detail to the coverage that is insured. Agents and brokers selling these policies need a licence to do so and must complete educational courses so they can understand what is in the policies they are selling and can explain really to the consumers, they can explain it all out in regard to exactly what they are buying. Consumers should read their policies and make sure that the specific item they want to be insured for is actually covered under that particular policy.

Just to list out for the hon. member in regard to the different classes of insurance that has come forward by the Canadian Council of Insurance Regulators. The first one is accident and sickness. Then there is a definition of accident and sickness under the legislation, but again, the policy would dictate exactly what type of insurance under that class of insurance they are actually buying. Then there is another class called aircraft insurance, that speaks for itself in regard to planes and such that would be covered under that type of insurance. Again, the policy would dictate all the various aspects that would be covered under that policy. Then you have automobile insurance which is, again, we are all familiar with because most of us, I would say, have automobiles and in Newfoundland and Labrador you have to have insurance on your automobile. So you certainly have insurance there.

There is another class called boiler and machinery, which means you are protected against liability arising out of bodily injury to or death of a person or the loss or damage of property against any kind of an accident or anything that happens within pressure vessels of any kind of pipes, engines and machinery connected to or operated by these pressure vessels. That is the type of insurance. You have credit insurance, you have credit protection insurance, you have fidelity insurance, and you have hail. Well really, that is needed in Canada. It might not be needed - well it could be needed in Newfoundland and Labrador too, because we have an agricultural industry as well and hail insurance means insurance against the loss of or damage of crops in the field caused by hail. You have legal expenses as a class of insurance. Liability insurance, you have life insurance, you have maritime insurance. That lists them all, Mr. Speaker, that is under this legislation.

Just to give the hon. member a flavour, because he wanted a definition of what was actually defined, what would be the definition of sickness or what would be the definition of certain things pertaining to the accident and sickness class of insurance, I pulled out a policy that would be written for a Mr. John Doe and prepared by a certain company just to give a flavour.

Under health care services under this particular policy, ambulance services are covered; in-home nursing care and in-home health aid care are covered; drugs are covered, that would be defined that, by law, require a prescription by the doctor or dentist to be dispensed; medical services and supplies. Under that, you have breathing equipment, orthopaedic equipment, prosthetic equipment, mobility aids, hearing aids, diabetic equipment and other medical supplies.

I might say, and I could read this policy word for word, if I had time, in this hon. House just to clarify, but just say, for instance, under medical supplies, it is also defined exactly what is covered under medical supplies such as canes, walkers, crutches, hospital beds, bed rails, head halters, all of these kind of things that a person made need if they were into a serious accident and needing those kind of apparatuses to help them come back to health. All of these kinds of things, routine dental services and supplies, diagnostic services, preventive services, those kinds of things are all mentioned.

To clarify for the hon. member, there is a huge difference between the legislation itself and the policy that might be written under that particular class of insurance. In the legislation it is not defined exactly what would be in the policy that is pertaining to the industry itself, that is pertaining to the consumer, that is pertaining to the broker or the insurance agent who is going to write the policy. Then, before signing, the particular consumer would review that policy to make sure that each and every item that particular person wanted covered would be covered under that particular insurance. That pertains to each and every one of the classes of insurance that are under this particular act that are now being harmonized into seventeen different classes of insurance and, as I referenced in my comments, there is a yet to be approved area. In other words, the insurance industry itself will not be boxed in, in regard to developing new types of insurance that consumers may need in the future. God only knows what is going to come in the future in regard to what needs to be covered under insurance from a consumer aspect and from an industry aspect.

Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, I have clarified some of the questions and some of the items that the hon. member referenced a number of days ago in his comments on this piece of legislation. I really think that this is very, very important to the consumer in regard to harmonizing right across Canada and all the provinces and territories. It bodes very well for the industry as well because they have to provide a product. They have to provide a very clear product. The consumer has to understand exactly too what they are buying. So, this bodes well for both sides of that in regard to the consumer and the industry itself.

Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, this is second reading and if there are any other questions that might be asked in regard to this piece of legislation, I would be ever so happy to try to clarify any of those in the Committee stage of this particular bill.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat in the House and I will wait for any other comments in Committee stage.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 19, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 2, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 2. (Bill 19)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 19 has now been read a second time.

When shall Bill 19 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MS BURKE: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 2", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 19)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We call from the Order Paper, Order 12, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Accident And Sickness Insurance Act, The Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act, The Insurance Contracts Act And The Life Insurance Act, Bill 18.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Accident And Sickness Insurance Act, The Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act, The Insurance Contracts Act And The Life Insurance Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Accident And Sickness Insurance Act, The Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act, The Insurance Contracts Act And The Life Insurance Act". (Bill 18)

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Accident And Sickness Insurance Act, The Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act, The Insurance Contracts Act And The Life Insurance Act, now be read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, this is really a coincidental, I guess, piece that we have to do in this House. It all falls out of Bill 19 in regard to the classes of insurance, and certainly I just spoke to that and it was a very good piece of work done by the Canadian Council of Insurance Regulators over a several year period, but with that it actually kind of has a domino effect in regard to the various classes of insurance that have been identified, seventeen of them, and then also the definitions thereof.

So, what we have done, basically, is that all of the definitions of the classes of insurance are removed from all of the acts that I just mentioned with reference to those definitions being made in the schedule of the Insurance Companies Act, which was the subject matter of Bill 19 itself. So, in clarification, all of the definitions of the classes of insurance will now be in one place, that is in the schedule to the Insurance Companies Act and that will make it really much easier for everyone to find. In other words, in regard to getting a definition, in regard to a particular class of insurance, you will not have to be going through each piece of legislation. You will not have to be going down through it trying to extract that definition. It will be all contained in the schedule in the Insurance Companies Act.

Also, Mr. Speaker, to clarify those particular classes of insurance, we have the Accident and Sickness Insurance Act. We have the Automobile Insurance Act. We have the Insurance Adjusters, Agents and Brokers Act. We have the Insurance Contracts Act. We have the Life Insurance Act, and that is it, Mr. Speaker.

So, just to be clear, the Accident and Sickness Insurance Act deals with contracts which provide insurance to cover losses with respect to accident and sickness. Some of the areas that are covered by that act are the contents required in a group insurance policy, requirements in the event of termination of a group insurance policy, the contents required to be a certificate of a group insurance policy. The certificate is what each member of a group insurance policy receives. It summarizes the benefits of the group insurance policy.

In other words, in saying that, Mr. Speaker, the legislation defines it, but then the policy actually gives a summarization of all the benefits, which I have referenced in my last speaking on Bill 19. I could certainly go down through them again if it is the wish of the House and give a flavour of exactly what is in a policy, but to be very, very clear to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and my hon. colleagues here in the House, you will not find the benefits defined in legislation. You would find the benefits defined in the policy itself.

Statutory conditions, which must be included in the contract, such as the provision of a copy of the contract, application, termination by the insured or insurer, notice of proof of claims, when money is payable after proof of claims, when a contract can be terminated for non payment of premium. There must be an insurable interest in order for someone to take out an insurance contract, capacity of minors, disclosure required by the applicant when applying for insurance, pre-existing conditions which must be disclosed when applying for insurance, designation of beneficiaries which is very important, Mr. Speaker, in making sure that they are defined well. In case of an accident or sickness, they become very, very important in regard the execution of your affairs, if you are incapacitated and cannot execute them yourself. All of those kinds of things are covered.

You have the Automobile Insurance Act. Certainly, this act covers the regulation of automotive insurance, which is mandatory in order to drive a motor vehicle on our public highways. Some of the areas covered under that act or forms to be approved by the Superintendent of Insurance, a copy of the application is to be included in the policy. A person placed in a facility in an association must be given the reason why, which is very, very important. I believe I referenced that in regard to some of the other legislation that I spoke on previously in this session of the House, how important that was. Facility insurer association is the insurer of the last resort of a driver who cannot obtain insurance in the regular marketplace. Certainly, they should know why, because more often than not that type of insurance is going to be more expensive on the consumer. So they should understand and have a clear view as to exactly what they are buying.

An agent, broker or representative must advise clients upon request of the names of insurance companies they represent. In other words, you could go into a broker here in Newfoundland and Labrador, they might very well only represent one company, I doubt it very much, but they might represent several companies. They have to be named to the particular client to make sure they understand that as a broker they are actually using several insurance companies to make sure that the consumer gets the best price in regard to what they are insuring, the requirement to buy the monthly premium payment plan. In other words, when you come into a broker they do not demand the full cost of the premium that you are buying, that they are given a monthly plan option. It is then up to the consumer if they will just pay it in full or they will pay it by the monthly plan. So that has to be there as well.

Then the consequences of the insured making misrepresentations when applying for insurance, this is very important, too, from the insurance industry and the brokers that we have in Newfoundland and Labrador, that the client, too, has to be very clear and have no misrepresentations in regard to the insurance that they are trying to obtain. The agent must know exactly what the history is of the consumer in order to provide the best possible insurance, the best possible price that they can actually obtain or get for the actual consumer. That is very, very important in regard to that. So the insured person must be very, very clear and very open to the actual agent too.

So, these are just a few things. The minimum liability insurance is $200,000. That is listed there too. The insurer is not liable respecting – on an excluded driver is there. The insurance must give notice of claim by a third party; reduction in award for a claim of up to 25 per cent for failure to wear a seatbelt. That is very, very important too, because if most of our consumers knew that, then they would be more inclined to wear a seatbelt at all times. Because if they have an accident and it is proven they did not have a seatbelt on at the time, in regard to the payout of that claim, whatever damages to the automobile itself, whatever it may be could be reduced by 25 per cent if the person did not have a seatbelt on. So that is very, very important too. That is spelled out in regard to some of the definitions you will find in that schedule.

The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act, this act deals with the licensing and regulation of the insurance adjusters, agents and brokers that we have in our Province. It lists out - adjusters negotiate the settlements of a claim. They actually look at the particular issue at hand, be it an accident with an automobile or a home burnt down or been damaged by fire, or whatever it would be. He will go in, or she will go in and actually assess the damage. Then they would negotiate a settlement of that claim in regard to the client and the insurance company itself. The insurance agents and brokers sell insurance to the public, and some of the areas covered in that act are qualifications and requirements for obtaining a licence. Transferring from one employer to another, what that would mean in regard to your insurance travelling with you or if you have to buy another insurance with that particular company; rules for student training, corporate licensing requirements, power of the Superintendent of Insurance to revoke a licence, the record of licence, special licences, things pertaining to unlicensed insurers, payment of premiums, requirement to keep trust funds et cetera.

Then, Mr. Speaker, you have the Insurance Contracts Act itself. This act deals with items that must be included in insurance contracts. Some of the areas covered in that act or contracts are considered to be made in this Province and all terms and conditions of the contract are to be set out in the insurance policy itself. In other words, they have to be very clear and clearly defined in regard to the policy, not in the legislation itself but the legislation dictates that they have to be clearly defined in the insurance policy itself. The insured is to receive a copy of the application. They receive that so everything is transparent and accountable. They receive it, they can read it, and they can understand it. They can ask questions pertaining to it, whatever it may be. Delivery of the policy binds the insurers. In other words, as soon as that insurance policy is delivered then there is a binding contract between the two parties itself. The insurer is required to provide proof of loss of forms, et cetera and that kind of stuff.

Then you have life insurance itself, the Life Insurance Act itself. The act is self explanatory. The act governs life and life insurance contracts. Some of the areas covered under that act are documents are to be provided by the insurer, including the application of the insurance policy, contents of an individual policy, contents of a group policy, contents of a group certificate. There must be an insurable interest in order to have the actual policy itself. When the contract takes effect will be clearly defined in the policy itself. Payment of premiums, default on payment of premiums; all those kinds of good things are all listed out. Designation of beneficiaries, all that kind of stuff is in that particular class of insurance as well.

All those kind of definitions, and like I said, this one here is kind of a coincidental type of work that we have to do in this House and it is all falling out of the subject matter of Bill 19. Then also harmonizing and streamlining all the definitions that pertain to the different classes of insurance in one area, which will be in the Insurance Companies Act, under that Schedule. Then, each and every one of them is defined under that act, which I have a copy of, too, Mr. Speaker. I do not know them all off by heart, so to speak, but certainly they are all there to be viewed by the hon. members in the House and also anybody that would be interested out in Newfoundland and Labrador or elsewhere in Canada.

Certainly, I think I have gone over most of what I can actually say in regard to Bill 18 – just a small piece of work that has to happen. It is very important that we put the definitions - as a matter of fact, I am glad they are going in one area now, that people do not have to search through all of the various acts looking for various definitions. Everything is clear, everything is transparent, both to the consumer and to the insurer themselves, the insurance industry.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will probably take my seat in the House. I welcome any comments from my hon. members across the House, and certainly I think they will see it as I: as a good piece of work that has to happen for both the insurance industry and the consumer, Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

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

I will say it is a pleasure to be able to stand today and make a few comments with regard to Bill 18. As the minister already stated, really, Bill 18 and Bill 19 – you have put it in common language – almost go hand in hand together. When I had my briefing by officials within the department that is the way it was explained. I know they cannot be in the one act, but more or less they really could be when you size up the information and the way both of them are laid out.

As noted, Mr. Speaker, Bill 18 is An Act To Amend The Accident And Sickness Insurance Act, The Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance Adjusters, Agents and Brokers Act, The Insurance Contracts Act And The Life Insurance Act. Mr. Speaker, according to the Explanatory Notes, Bill 18 would amend the acts contained in it to harmonize the definitions of the various types of insurance. We know that during debate on Bill 19 we went through, I think, sixteen or seventeen various types of insurance that were outlined and were given the definitions. We do this so that they are regulated with the definitions of those various types of insurance found in the Insurance Companies Act. This act has been amended in conjunction with the amendments proposed in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, generally, harmonization of Newfoundland's various pieces of insurance legislation is positive both from the perspective of the insurer and the insured. We all know that from time to time, as we bring forward legislation, it is the consumer that is first and foremost involved with the legislation. Those proposed amendments, Mr. Speaker, appear to do little more than add greater clarity to the legislation by ensuring that the definitions in each correspond with one another. As the minister stated, we went through quite a few of them the other day in great detail. This allows for the act to properly relate to the others, and makes for easy interpretation of the collection of insurance legislation as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, under this proposed amendment it affects, as I stated, six different acts. Under the Accident and Sickness Insurance Act, under that particular act, it involved the accident and sickness insurance, fraternal insurance, insurance with regard to life insurance. Under the Automobile Insurance Act, basically it is just straightforward; it is the automobile insurance. We went into great detail the other day with regard to automobile insurance, and how important it is. I know the department now are more or less doing some work to make sure that we know how many people are not insured with automobile insurance in this Province. That is good for the consumer overall, because all too often those with no insurance, when accidents occur, it is a tremendous cost that someone else has to pay.

Mr. Speaker, under the Insurance Adjusters, Agents and Brokers Act, that is another bill. We hear that mentioned today, but we are also going to hear that one when Bill 21 comes up. The act is listed as the same. That includes accident and sickness insurance, life insurance and surety insurance. So each of them have their own various breakdowns.

The Life Insurance Contract Act, that deals with accident and sickness, auto, fire, life and surety insurance. The life insurance act itself looks after fraternal and life insurance. So, Mr. Speaker, each of those six acts, within themselves, have their various components. We consider this to be nothing more than necessary housekeeping in relation to a collection of acts, which each has been amended in recent years. We know that the Automobile Insurance Act was amended in 2004-2005. The Insurance Adjusters, Agents and Brokers Act was amended in 2004-2005, and the Insurance Contracts Act in 2009. So, really, what we are doing here today, we are bringing in this act, Bill 18, to make sure that there is harmonization.

It is expected that ordinarily, from time to time, collections of legislation relating to a general subject matter should be reviewed and adjusted to provide harmonization. I guess the minister has explained that fairly well, that each of those acts within themselves are defined, but collectively the six of them come under Bill 18 and this makes for greater clarification. This is an example of government shoring up a collection of legislation to ensure consistency. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, it also brings harmonization, not only here in our Province but with other jurisdictions right across the country, so that we would have the same jurisdiction in each of our provinces.

We know, Mr. Speaker, we went into great detail with the clauses under the accident and sickness insurance, how it affects various people in different ways. We also touched on the aircraft insurance, Mr. Speaker, and we all know that there are different components when the consumer has to purchase various types of insurance.

I just touched on the automobile insurance, but we know there was another important part of this legislation that was the boiler and machinery insurance where various accidents happen from time to time, whether it is on construction sites, whether ships or with various carriers. One of the most important ones, I think, Mr. Speaker, is the credit protection insurance. That piece of legislation covers insurance when someone has a loan or an outstanding debt with various institutions and, because of sickness, there is an insurance policy that they have protection that will help them continue with their payments rather than lose the item, whether it is a vehicle or whether it is their home or what have you, Mr. Speaker.

Another component was the fraternal society insurance where individuals belonging to various societies can have – they are usually not large policies, but probably something in the vicinity of $5,000 or $10,000. That is only made available to those within that particular society.

Also under this policy and involved in Bill 18, which stems from Bill 19, was the hail insurance, and we know that can fall into different categories. Many of the farmers in our Province, I know many of them in my area, have insurance on their crops, and many times, whether we have hail or bad weather, this insurance looks after them.

We also touched on life insurance, and there are so many different components. You can have the regular life insurance; you can have a life insurance policy that is tied to the education program.

Mr. Speaker, as has been stated with regard to Bill 18, really what it is - I am not going to take much more time - it is the coming together of all the various types of insurances. The explanations that we have received and debated under Bill 19, they come together now to form Bill 18 so that there is more clarity, greater harmonization, so that the policies that we have here in the Province with our insurance companies are on par with what we have across the country.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I will take my place with regard to Bill 18.

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

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

I am happy to just take a moment to speak to Bill 18. I think it is important that even when we agree with a bill, and it is a housekeeping bill and it is not complicated, that we put on the record that we are in favour of the bill, which is what I am doing this afternoon.

As has been pointed out both by the minister and by the member from the Official Opposition, Bill 18 is a bill that is also connected to Bill 19, which we have already discussed here in this House and, as we have said, is a housekeeping bill. Language needs to be changed because of changes to Bill 19, and there does need to be harmonization with regard to those two bills, as well as with regard to the fact that we have so many insurance bills in this Province.

I understand that the Canadian Council of Insurance Regulators is quite pleased to see this harmonization take place. It is bringing us more in line with what is happening in the rest of the county. Nowhere else have they had as many insurance bills as we have here in the Province. They are certainly really glad to see that the changes that we have already discussed for Bill 19 are now going to be reflected in all of the other insurance pieces that we have, which is essential, of course; you cannot make changes in one place without going to other references in other bills to make the changes there.

We recognize that we are unique in having multiple insurance acts, and I think anything that we can do to bring us more in line with other jurisdictions, and also to cut down on too many documents, we should make life as simple as possible for people. I know the ordinary person does not have to refer to acts all the time, but the industries do. I think bringing the various insurances into harmonization with one another and cutting down on legislation is always commendable and a way to go.

The bottom line, of course, is that we want insurance that is going to work for people, as the minister pointed out. Some insurances are optional but other insurances, like automobile insurance, is not optional. People have to have automobile insurance, and if they were found not to have it – if they had an accident, for example, and were found not to have it - then they would be charged for not having their automobile insurance.

So, insurance is a fact of life. Sometimes we question why we have it. You can go on paying insurance for a long, long time and then all of a sudden something happens – your house gets broken into or you have a fire or whatever – and it turns out that in actual fact you are then very, very happy that you have it. So it is one of those – in some ways, it is a bit of a curse. You have to have it; you put the money out. Unfortunately, there are some people who cannot afford what we would consider to be optional insurances like home insurance. Some people just cannot afford to have it, but for those who can it is very important that we make sure we have all of our rules and regulations in order to make things secure for the people who do choose to have insurance, and to make sure that they do not suffer in any way because of our legislation not being in place.

That is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker, just to point out that yes, of course, I will be voting for the bill. It is an important piece of administration that needs to take place.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Government Services speaks now, he will close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to just speak a little bit more in regard to this bill, Bill 18, falling out, actually, of Bill 19, which is a very, very important piece of work done by the Canadian Council of Insurance Regulators.

Certainly I welcome the comments in regard to my hon. colleagues across the House. They obviously understand, really, it might be sometimes a little bit of housekeeping that we have to do, but some of this is very, very important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who avail of different types of insurance policies; because, as I spoke previously, there are currently seventeen classes of insurance now in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Once we pass this bill in this House, and proclaim it, there will be seventeen classes with a provision there that if any of the other classes, or any type of a class might be developed over the years, whatever time it may be, that it can actually be added to that particular seventeen – not only here in Newfoundland and Labrador but, nine chances out of ten, if that class of insurance is to be added, it will be added right across all the other jurisdictions and territories. Certainly, if it is needed in Newfoundland and Labrador, I would think that ten chances out of ten it will be needed in any of the other provinces or jurisdictions in Canada.

Also, in regard to one of the comments made by the hon. member, the Leader of the NDP, in regard to the various classes of insurance, and having to have insurance, certainly, for each and every one of us, it is mandatory to have automobile insurance. It is not mandatory to have home insurance, but it is certainly important to have home insurance. As a government, we are very, very aware that some people cannot afford, or whichever way they budget their monies they cannot afford a particular policy on their home. It is very, very concerning to this government and to me as a minister, in regard to not being able to afford that particular insurance policy, because I think it is very, very important that you have that. The very day that you do not have it, well that is the day that you need it. So, I would like to communicate here to any of the public listening out there, that it is very, very important that you certainly have a look at the various aspects of your life, be it home insurance, life insurance, accident and sickness insurance, if you do not have that, that all those types of insurance are very, very important, because certainly, as life proceeds, you will run into various difficulties and you could very well need that particular type of insurance any time in the future.

We, as a government, certainly try, through the Poverty Reduction Strategy, through other various programs within this government, within the various departments, be it Human Resources, Labour and Employment, the Department of Health and Community Services, or whatever it may be, we try our best to make sure that the people who need that type of service from government certainly have every opportunity to be able to budget themselves and have the particular insurance that they may need. Hopefully, as we go along in life, in regard to Newfoundland and Labrador, they will be able to avail of that type of insurance, and certainly how important it is to have it, because I would not want them to have some type of an incident happen that they would be probably homeless if they actually lose that type of insurance.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, Bill 18 is a bill that certainly is coincidental from Bill 19, and to be very, very clear, Bill 19 actually defines the classes of insurance, harmonizes the classes of insurance, and what Bill 18 does is take the definitions out of all those classes of insurance in the various acts that I have mentioned in regard to my opening remarks, and puts all the definitions in one area under the Insurance Companies Act, where it will be easier for everyone to find. It will be clearer, it will be accountable, and certainly it will be easier for all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to have a look at it and make sure that they understand exactly what something in the legislation or policy may mean. So, all of those definitions will be included in that Schedule.

So, Mr. Speaker, with that, I do not think we need to speak any further in regard to Bill 18 or Bill 19 for that matter, which we did just previous to. I think everybody, especially the hon. members across the House who spoke – I would not want to speak for them but I believe they understand how important it is, both for the consumer and for the industry that we move forward. A lot of work went into the harmonization of the various classes of insurance by the Insurance Brokers of Canada and I thank them for all the work they did over the past several years. It is a good piece of work done and very beneficial to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and certainly very, very beneficial to the people of Canada.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat in the House and I close debate on Bill 18 at second reading and certainly welcome any other comments or questions that any of the hon. members in this House may have in regard to committee stage.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Accident And Sickness Insurance Act, The Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance Adjusters, Agents and Brokers Act, The Insurance Contracts Act And The Life Insurance Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Accident And Sickness Insurance Act, The Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance Adjusters, Agents and Brokers Act, The Insurance Contracts Act And The Life Insurance Act. (Bill 18)

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

MS BURKE: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Accident And Sickness Insurance Act, The Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance Adjusters, Agents and Brokers Act, The Insurance Contracts Act And The Life Insurance Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 18)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, Order 14, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act. (Bill 21)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, that Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 21, entitled An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act". (Bill 21)

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

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

This bill, I consider to be a very important bill as well in regard to the amendments that are being placed before this House. It provides greater enforcement ability to the Department of Government Services that will certainly help protect the consumers from insurance fraud. Many of the provisions are similar to those in other acts that my department governs and this ensures harmonization of all those acts across my department, Mr. Speaker.

This act deals with the licensing and regulating of insurance adjusters, agents and brokers. As I stated earlier in the House, adjusters negotiate the settlements of claims such as in the automobile insurance claims, homeowner insurance claims, and commercial insurance claims. Insurance agents sell insurance to the public and represent only the insurance company that employs them.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, to be clear on that, an insurance agent is a person who represents one insurance company and one insurance company only. Insurance brokers also sell insurance to the public but they are independent brokers. They usually represent three or four companies and could represent fewer or more companies. Usually they represent three or four but they could represent ten or they could represent one and still be a broker. I want to clear on that. Agents and brokers operate in the life insurance business and also in the property and casualty insurance business as well.

Products sold in the life insurance business include various forms of life insurance, annuities, pension plans, segregated funds, disability insurance, health insurance, and accident and sickness insurance. Products sold in the property and casualty insurance business include your automobile insurance, homeowner insurance, commercial property insurance and liability insurance. In order for adjusters, agents and brokers to obtain a licence they have to complete certain educational requirements and have a certain amount of experience for various categories of insurance. That too protects the consumer in regard to you do not have a person selling insurance to a consumer who is not well versed and well educated in the various categories of insurance that that person may be selling to the consumer.

There is a measure of consumer protection in that the Superintendent of Insurance has the authority to take actions against licensed agents and brokers who engage in certain inappropriate activity. These actions can include placing conditions on a licence or taking away a licence. In other words, if the Superintendent of Insurance finds that a person who is licensed under the act is doing things that is inappropriate, he or she can place certain conditions on the licence or take away that licence from that particular person altogether. These decisions have an appeal process through an independent financial services appeal board and if the issue cannot be dealt with at that level, well then ultimately, it could go to the courts.

In order for the superintendent to effectively carry out investigations as to the activities of adjusters, agents and brokers, he or she must be given certain investigative powers. Certainly, under the act now, the superintendent has certain investigative powers. Such as, he or she can enter a place of business and demand the producing of records. They can also request a judge to issue a search warrant to inspect to make copies of records. In order to enable the superintendent to be better able to carry out investigations and to provide enhanced consumer protection, my department, myself as the minister responsible, believe that the following additional investigative powers should be provided in the act.

Such as, in regard to this act and the amendments that I am tabling here in the House of Assembly today, search warrants currently does not include a private dwelling. The act provides for a judge to issue a search warrant, providing there are sufficient grounds to issue one. However, it does not specifically provide that a search warrant may be issued for a private dwelling. This authority is necessary, since some of the adjusters, agents and brokers may very well operate out of their house. So that limits the superintendent, in regard to doing the work that needs to be done. This authority is already being provided in the Prepaid Funeral Services Act, and in other legislation in five other jurisdictions. I believe that we will be the sixth, and I would think the rest of the jurisdictions and territories would be doing the same in regard to that as well, because they are all reviewing their particular acts pertaining to the issuing of insurance.

The current act states that a person acting under a search warrant may inspect and copy documents. So this process can take some time, so the authority is being expanded under the amendment to include the seizure of documents. In other words, we are proposing another amendment under the act that does not actually address this issue. Now they can actually go in and investigate. They can make copies of documents, which take a long time, but now they will be able to go in and seize the documents for up to three months, unless a judge orders that they can be retained for a longer period of time. Certainly, there are similar provisions in legislation in five other jurisdictions. Again, us being the sixth, I would think that the other jurisdictions, provinces and territories are considering doing the same.

Also, under the act we propose that it provide an investigator or an examiner to be able to summon and enforce the attendance of a person and to compel the person to testify under oath or otherwise, and to compel a personal company to produce documents and other things as is vested in a judge of the Trial Division. This authority may be used to gather evidence from the person who may be carrying out the inappropriate business practices or from a person really not directly involved in what is happening, but who has documents that evidence the inappropriate activity. The evidence collected in this manner could be used to determine whether the superintendent needs to place conditions on the person's licence or cancel the licence altogether. We are adding this authority to the Insurance Adjusters, Agents and Brokers Act, and again, similar provisions are in insurance legislation in twelve other jurisdictions in Canada already. We are certainly not leading the way here, but I think it is needed. I saw it when I had the legislation reviewed.

Also, we are proposing a section in regard to production orders. What that means is where a company or a financial institution has records that could be relevant to providing that a person has violated the act, the superintendent is currently required to attain a warrant to enter the premises and search for evidence. This search, again, can be very, very time consuming and really disruptive for the business itself, because you must remember the investigators are in, they are searching through the various documents that need to be searched to find the particular one. So, we thought that was counterproductive, not only to the superintendent and the investigators work but also to the business itself. This amendment will allow a judge to issue what is called a production order, which will order the company to provide the relevant information to the superintendent. Certainly, this process is much more efficient for the company and the superintendent. It will protect confidentiality of unnecessary information that the superintendent may come across when conducting a search warrant.

In other words, when they go in to search a particular business they have to search through everything. They search through and see things that have nothing to do with the issue at hand or the fraudulent activity at hand, or suspected fraudulent activity at hand. I correct myself in that it has to be proven that the fraudulent activity exists but that is why the investigation is happening. This would prevent the violation of confidentiality in regard to the superintendent and their particular investigators seeing unnecessary information that they may come across during the search and conducting a search warrant.

The production order is not, to be clear, issued on the person that is being investigated. It is actually to a third party who could hold information that is pertaining to the investigation and very important. Three other jurisdictions have similar mechanisms in place to apply to a judge for a production order. It is my understanding from my officials and also from my counterparts in other jurisdictions that the other jurisdictions are having a look at that too because it just makes complete sense, not only from the investigative point of view but also from the business point of view in regard to the disruption of the business that is being searched.

This act will now also make it an offence to obstruct an investigator or examiner. The act as it sits today does not specifically make it an offence or provide any penalties for persons who obstruct or interfere with investigators or examiners carrying out their duties. I think this is very, very important because you cannot have investigators going in to do an investigation and have their work disrupted, be abused or anything of that sort. They need to be able to do their work. They are there to do a piece of work. So that has to happen and they have to be protected in regard to doing that piece of work. I think this is very, very important amendment too.

There are similar provisions in insurance law in six other jurisdictions as well. We will be the seventh. Again, I will say that each and every one of the jurisdiction are having a look in regard to the investigative obstruction of investigators or examiners.

The last piece of this act, which I think pertains to the amendments that we are tabling in the House today, deals with penalties. Maximum fines in the current act are $100,000 for the first offence and $200,000 for subsequent offences or six months imprisonment. We believe - government believes - that this is too low to act as a deterrent. The Insurance Companies Act currently contains a penalty of up to $1 million where an insurance company fails to notify government six months in advance that they will be seeking to write automobile insurance in the Province, just to make an example.

So, we are proposing that we increase the maximum fines in the Insurance Adjusters, Agents and Brokers Act to $1 million or to a maximum of two years imprisonment or both. The fine or imprisonment given by a judge will depend on the seriousness of the offence. So this is the maximum fine – $1 million is the maximum fine. The judge, depending on the offence itself, can certainly have a levy, a penalty, pertaining to the offence. The offence may not be very detrimental, I guess, to the consumer and it might warrant a penalty of $20,000, $50,000, or if it is a very, very serious offence then certainly the judge can go to the maximum of $1 million. So to be clear, that maximum is a maximum amount, not an amount that the judge has to issue or levy each and every time that he might have something before the bench in regard to this act.

Also before I finish speaking, to give you a flavour in regard to that $1 million and the reasons why it is needed, total trust accounts maintained in this Province are at $32.3 million for twenty companies. One company has an excess of $7 million in trust; another company has an excess of $5 million; and five companies have an excess of $2 million. There are fifty-one national brokers operating in the Province with over $911 million in trust in Canada. We do not know exactly what that $911 million means to Newfoundland and Labrador, but certainly there are a number of people tied to that national broker operating system in regard to that $911 million.

We are talking about big sums of money here. In order to protect the public in regard to the consumer, to make sure that they are fully protected, that you do not have an agent, a broker or an adjuster that would enter into fraudulent activity in regard to the amounts of money we are talking about - $32.3 million in one instance – that is a lot of dollars. So when you get a lot of dollars there, you might have people who would enter into that type of activity. Certainly, I see that we have to have a penalty that reflects the amount of monies that we are talking about and $1 million in regard to being the maximum penalty should certainly, in my mind, deter anyone out there from entering into that fraudulent activity.

We have had instances in the past in regard to this, so certainly we want to close that loop as best we can and make sure that each and every one of our consumers in Newfoundland and Labrador are protected as best we can under the legislation.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I think that I have covered off all the amendments that I am proposing in regard to Bill 21. I will take my seat in the House and welcome any comments in regard to my hon. members across the House, or any hon. members on this side of the House in regard to Bill 21.

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

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

I rise on a point of order at this time. I did not want to interfere with the minister when he was giving his speech on second reading. It concerns a matter that just came to my attention and I have now had an opportunity to review the Hansard of last Thursday evening. It certainly requires some clarification.

It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that when the clock hits 5:30 p.m. the person who is actually speaking, if they are speaking at 5:30 p.m. they can adjourn the House. That is my understanding of how this House has always worked since 1832. However, there appears to be from, at least my reading of the transcripts, some confusion from last Thursday whereby the Member for Port de Grave sat at 5:30 p.m., said he would continue to debate on a later date only to be told by the Government House Leader, address the Chair, and says that we would either finish it, would have leave, or to pass a motion to resume at 7:00 p.m.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is not my understanding of how the rules work. So I would certainly appreciate some clarification. It is my understanding that whoever is speaking in this House at 5:30 p.m., if that person wants to adjourn the debate the House closes at 5:30 p.m. There is no option on the Government House Leader to say we are going to come back at 7:00 p.m.

I raise that point. I think it is very important here. If I am on the wrong track and had the wrong understanding I would certainly like to be aware of it because that is exactly what happened the week previous. I refer you to Hansard of June 3, when the Government House Leader was speaking.

I just think again, we are in the House, if I do not understand them, I want to understand the rules and I would appreciate clarification, or if the Government House Leader has misunderstood it for some reason we all ought to know the rules that we are playing by here so we do not have a similar, at least confusing incident that happened last Thursday.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to address the point of order, because when the House sought direction and the hon. Member for Port de Grave said he would speak another time on this bill, the assumption was that you only speak once in second reading and we would not adjourn the debate at that time. We were asked to stop the clock, so we decided we would keep the clock going.

Under the rules, you would have to complete your comments because you would not have the opportunity to speak a second time in second reading. The offer was made, if the Member for Port de Grave would like to continue his comments, of which he declined. So we continue with the debate as for the rules of debate at that time.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, to the point of order.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I do not wish to belabour the point but it is important. We read it here, and the Speaker said that the Member for Port de Grave, when 5:30 p.m. came - and 5:30 p.m. is acknowledged there - the Speaker acknowledges that the member said he adjourned debate. Now, he was not finished his speaking time and all we are saying is that the understanding is when it is 5:30 p.m. if the member says he will finish the debate on another day, we do not even vote on it, the adjournment motion is laid down by the person speaking, never been debated, never been voted on, the House closes until the next day. It is matter of who is standing on his or her feet at the conclusion of the day at 5:30 p.m. If the government was in the middle of doing their business, no problem, it would be the minister's right then or whoever is on the floor to seek leave to continue, but there was no option to be put to the Member for Port de Grave that he ought to continue it at 7:00 o'clock.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, to the point of order.

MS BURKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to belabour it either, but as far as my recollection goes, and I do not have Hansard in front of me, I do not think there was a motion put down to adjourn and therefore the Speaker sought direction.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Clearly, there is a difference in opinion with both the Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader. The Chair will take the opportunity to review Hansard and the takes for Thursday. We will take it under advisement and rule on the point of order at a later time.

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

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

It is a pleasure to be able to stand again and take part in a debate with my hon. colleague, not in a debate that we are fighting across the floor at each other but with regard to Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act.

I want to thank the minister for some of the explanations with regard to the adjusters, agents and brokers and so on. It makes it a bit more simplified I guess, when you look into some of those acts with regard to insurance. I know my hon. colleague, the member for the Third Party, mentioned how we all have to have insurance and it is good to know what we are dealing with, to know that there are no problems and so on.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reference for a few moments the consumer protection document that is put out by the department where it goes into three or four different statements when it comes to the consumers. Mr. Speaker, that is what this is all about, is to make sure that the consumers are protected. Because under that particular document it states very clearly that the consumer has the right to know the insurance companies, agents or brokers and which ones represent the products that are being sold to make sure that there are no potential conflicts of interest with regard to the agents, brokers or representative, and also to know the ownership and the financial arrangements between the various agents and brokers. So, Mr. Speaker, it is very important. This bill, Bill 21, appears to – is directing to clarify and increase the powers of enforcement regarding the regulations of the sale of insurance products as well as increasing the penalties associated with such an offence.

Mr. Speaker, as the minister stated, I believe he said now there are some seven jurisdictions across the country that are in compliance with each other and I think it is very important, because all too often in this modern day, with all of the technology that we have – and it is not only in reference to, I guess, the agents and brokers and adjusters. In various phases of our society today many people have proposals put forward to them, various schemes and scams and so on, and all too often many of our residents, not only here in this Province but throughout the country, get caught up in various issues and think they are getting involved in something that is really good for them, probably a money saving venture, a good investment venture, but at the end of the day they are the losers of the money that they put forward.

So, Mr. Speaker, Bill 21, under the explanatory notes, "clarify that where a judge issues a warrant authorizing the superintendent or a person authorized by the superintendent to enter and search a place…" of residence or a place of business. As the minister mentioned, many of the – not many, I guess, but some of the brokers and agents can very well operate from their own homes as well as from the various business premises.

Mr. Speaker, we all know full well that when a time comes where an issue comes forward where the individuals have a concern or a reason to be of a concern, we know now that the authority is there, that documents can be seized. The authority is given for them to go and seize those documents, and there is also a time frame of how long they can hold onto those documents. They can keep them, Mr. Speaker, for up to a period of three months. However, at the end of the day, if there is some reason why those documents need to be kept for a longer period of time, whether the investigation is not finished, the authority is there also where they can do that. This is all new sections to this particular act, Mr. Speaker. It also goes on to say that if they are finished with the documents, they can be released to the clients.

The only question I would have for the minister - and I am sure in his closing comments - is where it states that you can include a private residence. I know that is probably a residence of the broker or the agent, but I guess it would not be excluded. Maybe the individual, the consumer, their premises could be approached, as well, in case they could not get the documents from the actual agent or broker. I am just wondering, could that take place as well, if they were looking for documentation to go through with their investigation? Maybe that is outlined in more detail in the bill, but no doubt that could probably be as well

Mr. Speaker, it also talks about a production order, about how, "A judge of a Provincial Court…" - under section 43.02, "…or a judge of the Trial Division may order a person, other than a person who is the subject of an investigation, (a) to produce a document or a copy of a document, certified by affidavit to be a true copy…" and so on.

This is very important, Mr. Speaker, because all too often when it comes to major investigations the proper documentation cannot be obtained, probably from the broker or the agent or whoever could be involved, so it is dealing with a very serious situation; because, as I stated earlier, it comes down to the consumer to see that their investments are protected, that they are receiving the benefits of what they did apply for, and rightly so paid for.

Also under that same section, item (6) says, "A copy of a document produced under this section, on proof by affidavit that it is a true copy, is admissible in evidence in proceedings under this Act and has the same probative force as the original document.…"

We all know, as members of the hon. House, many times we sign affidavits to verify that a document is a true copy of the original, knowing that many times probably the true documents, many people do not want to release them – that is the individual or the consumer. All too often this is very important, that this would come down to this particular stage where those documents would be permissible.

The other item that I want to touch on briefly, Mr. Speaker, is under the section of penalty, section 46.(1) where it goes into: on conviction for an offence under this act,, and it goes on and outlines the various penalties. I know, Mr. Speaker, and I think the minister mentioned this as well, that under the present act, for the first offence it is $100,000; for the second offence it is $200,000, and, in default of payment, to a period of imprisonment of not more than six months, whether or not the individual, corporation, unincorporated association or partnership has been prosecuted for the conviction of the offence. To go to the new act, the changes, the figures, Mr. Speaker, increase tremendously, because they go up to not more than $1 million.

I believe that when a consumer, regardless of whether it is a broker, an agent, or some other insurance plan that they get involved in, if somebody is just using this as a scam to get funds, knowing that the consumer does not have any protection, I think $1 million should be put up there to deter those people. It is good to know that this is in conjunction with the laws of other jurisdictions, because then one province can deal with another, because many of those brokers and agents probably deal right throughout the country and, whatever is happening in one province, this can be beneficial to the other.

When it comes to, in my terminology, ripping off the consumer, I think what is happening here with the fines that are being imposed will probably, when they are taking an individual's money illegally and not properly looking after their investments, I think nothing is too extravagant that they can bring into force to try to deter this.

Mr. Speaker, with those few comments on Bill 21, we support this. We support this bill because it is a cleaning up of the act, bringing in more law enforcement to protect the consumer, as I said, on other pieces of legislation. Much of this legislation brought forward by the hon. the Minister of Government Services is cleaning up the acts, because there are many components within that department that deal with consumer protection, and it is good to see such legislation come forward.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak on Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act.

Basically, Mr. Speaker, this act, the most important purpose is for consumer protection, and it goes a little further, not just residential protection; it covers even the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Anybody with insurance does require consumer protection. Basically, this act enhances the investigating powers of the Superintendent of Insurance; because, of course, Mr. Speaker, if the Superintendent of Insurance gets a complaint, an investigation has to take place. At the time of the report, of course, he does not know what is legitimate, if it is a legitimate complaint, so he would have one of his investigators – I understand there are three in Newfoundland and Labrador – proceed with an investigation into the complaint by the consumer. What he would do, of course, in the past there were a lot of insurance adjusters, there were a lot of insurance brokers and agents, working from their homes. So, if they went to the judge and asked for a warrant to investigate particular premises, then mostly they would go to the offices of the particular insurance company or adjusting firm and be able to take records of the investigation, in particular to the adjuster's file, and proceed from there. Over the years, there were some adjusters who were independent. They would work from their homes, of course, and the previous act would not warrant them to go into the actual residence to recover the particular files. So it is there for protection.

Another thing there, before, if they go and look for documents, they could either request the originals or they would be able to obtain copies of the files themselves, but it also goes to a third party. In other words, if the investigator wanted a book or bank reports, previously he would not have been able to go to a third party and obtain these documents. I understand now, from reading this bill, he would have the option to go to the bank or credit company and request further information to bring forward to cover their investigation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to speak on the adjuster's part of this act. Being an insurance adjuster for thirty or thirty-five years, I had great experiences dealing with the public, and in particular the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think one of my first claims through (inaudible) adjusting was with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, when they had an accident there by Millbrook Mall; that took place, as I said, around thirty-five years ago.

Since that time, of course, the adjusting field is still in my mind. It was a great profession; it is a great profession. It is being represented by very high professionals in Newfoundland and Labrador. At the moment, of course, adjusters do have to take various courses, whether it is correspondence or through a university. After that, of course, they would be regarded and obtain a CIP designation which would be called Chartered Insurance Professionals. Non-adjusters, whether they are independent, as I was, or staff adjusters, most of the adjusters in Newfoundland and Labrador got that professional designation.

Mr. Speaker, going on to the adjusting field, I had great experiences dealing with the government and the various parts of the government in relation to school boards. I remember one major fire I was involved in, and that took place at St. Boniface school in Ramea. That school was totally destroyed years ago. I had the opportunity to go investigate that major fire loss, which gave me major exposure to the people of Ramea. I must say, some of the most polite people in Newfoundland and Labrador are out in that island. I spent days there taking statements from the individual people trying to discover and report to the insurance companies as to the best of my knowledge as to how the fire occurred. We did also get forensic engineers involved and bring that file to a closure to the point that they do have a new school built down there.

Also, we are talking about fraud and whatever. Adjusters in Newfoundland and Labrador do have a major responsibility. In some cases, they are almost regarded as something like the Coast Guard. If the weather is bad, you probably see an insurance adjuster out on the highway in particular to storms which would cause major whiteouts and as a result, of course, you get serious losses, particular to tractor trailers, or fatalities which would warrant an immediate investigation. So, you may get a call any hour of the day to get aboard your vehicle to go to a scene. You have to be prepared for all elements of weather because you do not know if you are going to be out in a storm or go off the road yourself in some particular cases, and be prepared for all emergencies because when you get out and start your investigation, of course, you may be out there on a major loss when it comes to cargo loss. You have to safeguard the cargo. You have to safeguard the tractor trailer itself. You would have to do a complete investigation and, especially, you would be dealing with the RCMP or Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. You would have to take photographs of the scene. You would have to get measurements if required or possible. In some cases, of course, you may even get the environmental people involved. As we all know, the Environment Act do have serious or important rules when it comes to loss of fuel, fuel products. I know in some particular cases we had to work day in and day out removing contaminated soil and safeguarding the roadbed. I have seen, in particular cases, where we had to actually move houses in order to get at the spill. So, that is another part of the insurance adjusters' responsibility.

It also gives you an opportunity, as I said earlier, to meet very important people. I know, Mr. Speaker, on one particular occasion there was a serious accident on a motor coach coming up through Maine. There was a car involved and a couple of people died in the mishap. They wanted me to interview every member in that particular bus. Mr. Speaker, it was a bus full of senior citizens from Tulsa, Texas and throughout the area around Texas, of course, the other areas. They wanted me to meet all of these people. I could not see, myself, how to interview forty-two seniors in one night. So, what I thought about, I contacted the bus company and asked if there was an extra seat on that bus because what I planned to do was to get aboard that bus the next morning in Corner Brook - they were on the way to St. John's. If they had an extra seat open for me, I could get on that bus and interview everybody right throughout the entire journey.

That did take place. I started interviewing the senior citizens. They were all probably eighty, eighty-five years of age. I must say most of them probably had black eyes, some had broken arms, but they would not stop those people from going on their journey. As I said, they were very rich people, farmers - one particular gentleman said: My name is Clinton Riggs. He was telling me he used to be police chief at a particular police force. Anyway, he had this area there that had major accidents at an intersection. He came up with a sign that he was going to try to see if it would warrant or would slow down the accidents or prevent any accidents at all. The sign, he put a name onto it; it was called the yield sign. He was telling me that he lost his job when he put that sign up in this particular intersection because they thought it did not warrant any reasons; however, down the road, of course, as we all know now, the yield sign is throughout the world and I am sure it saved hundreds, thousands, probably millions of lives. That sign, Mr. Speaker, was made up and distributed and invented by this fellow by the name of Clinton Riggs.

Another gentleman - I had to go to Labrador on another major fire loss and I got on the airplane and I sat with a gentleman. He had a loud, rough voice and I happened to take a look to my left and here was our friend of course, Mr. Eddie Shack. Mr. Shack then was on his way to Labrador to promote prostate cancer and its treatment and I guess its investigation purposes. So, he was a great gentleman to meet.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the adjusters in Newfoundland and Labrador do have a major responsibility. I know recently we have had major environmental losses throughout the Province, and in particular, to the Stephenville loss, which again, I had the fine job of doing one-third of the claims. You could not imagine the destruction caused by the environmental exposure there from the water to the point that I know we had to wear a gas mask at one point in time, and another time, of course, you could see the houses actually moved up from the structure, from the foundation.

Mr. Speaker, I do agree with this bill and I will be supporting it 100 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Once again, I am happy to stand and speak to a bill that is important to the people of the Province, Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act.

It is important for the people in the Province because, unfortunately, in this day and age we hear many stories of consumers being treated unfairly by people in positions of trust. Certainly, insurance adjusters, agents and brokers are people in positions of trust because they are dealing with people who are vulnerable. People get insurance because it is so important to them in their lives, but very often they do not always know the details and the ins and outs of what is covered by their insurance claims. They do not fully understand every single word that is in the contracts that they sign, there is a lot of, not deliberately, but a lot of information that is in fine print that very often people do not get to read and they do not get advice with regard to the insurance agreements that they have. We do know that people inside every system, and inside this one as well, there is always somebody who tries to benefit from somebody else, so you do get fraudulent acts taking place. This bill has to do with that fraudulent acts and brings in some amendments to the current bill that, number one, will make sure that if an investigation has to happen with regard to fraudulent acts that no stone is left unturned with regard to getting the evidence that would be needed to see whether or not a person is guilty or innocent of accusations with regard to fraudulent behaviour.

The other thing that the bill does is that it has increased the punishment for people who are guilty of fraudulent acts, giving the bill, or giving the act that the amendments are being made to – giving the act more teeth with regard to the punishment that is required if fraudulent acts occur.

I do understand that the insurance industry is pleased with this amendment. The insurance industry recognizes that the old act needs beefing up and that in actual fact this is long overdue. I think people inside the industry also realize that we certainly needed to strengthen the punishment that would be meted out on people who are found to have performed fraudulent acts.

As the minister indicated and as the member from the Official Opposition indicated, we now have a much stronger fine than what we had in the past. You can now have a fine of up to $1 million or a period of imprisonment up to two years if you are found guilty under the act with regard to fraudulent behaviour, defrauding people of what is owed to them, defrauding people of what is their right.

So this is a good act, there is no doubt about that. I think it brings our current act up to date. It brings the punishments up to date. Hopefully, with the punishments now going up to the possibility of $1 million, that any individual or any group of people, any corporation, would certainly think more than once about taking part in fraudulent behaviour that would cheat others of what is due them and owing to them.

I would like to raise, as did a member of the Official Opposition, the same issue around privacy, because now, unlike our current act, the amendments would allow entry into a private residence. The bill that we are dealing with clarifies "…that where a judge issues a warrant authorizing the superintendent or a person authorized by the superintendent to enter and search a place, that place may include a private residence".

Now, there are reasons for that, and I think the member who just spoke pointed it out, that sometimes an insurance adjuster or a broker or an agent could actually have their business in their private home. That would be the reason for going into the home, into the private residence, would be to go to where the person does the work. In this day of home offices, even more so than ever before, I think that this is important. I think that we need to know, though, that if they are going into - if authorities are allowed to go into a private residence because they have reason to suspect that the person who is being charged with fraudulent behaviour may have documentation in their private residence, because of the nature of the work, I think it is important that nothing else about that person's life, and especially if that person has others living in that private residence, that nothing else about their life gets infringed upon, that they have privacy in the other parts of their life.

I am assuming legislation cannot be too prescriptive, but I would like the minister to speak to the issue of privacy when authorities believe that they need to go into a private residence. I think the extra powers are necessary but I think they have to be used judiciously.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, that is really all I have to say, and I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say about the issue of privacy with regard to the entrance into private residences.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Government Services, when he speaks now he will close debate.

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take my place in the House in regard to speaking to Bill 21, in regard to closing debate in second reading.

As I referenced before in regard to these particular amendments, they are all about enforcement powers. I listened intently to the members across the House. I think one of the issues, I guess in regard to concern, in regard to the investigative powers, is the issuing of a search warrant in pertaining to a private dwelling and what that would entail in regard to privacy and confidentiality.

As I referenced in my remarks in opening up debate in second reading, I referenced that sometimes adjusters, agents or a broker may very well have the place of business in his or her private dwelling. Certainly, when it comes down to investigative procedures, our department and this division has to have the ability to go into a private dwelling when we suspect, the department suspects, the Superintendent of Insurance suspects that there is fraudulent activity going on.

As I referenced in the act, we are talking about big sums of money, $31.3 million in regard to Newfoundland and Labrador. I think there is one company that has in trust $5 million of that $31 million, another one has $2 million and on and so forth. So you are talking about big sums of money.

In order to deter the particular person who might be involved in this industry in regard to entering into any fraudulent activity, moving the funds to their advantage, we have to have the deterrents in place, such as the penalty provisions that are in the act. Also, we have to have the ability to go into a person's private dwelling in regard to investigating and obtaining any and all the information that we need to, number one, bring this through the court proceedings. That is very, very important.

In regard to the violation of privacy, when that search warrant is actually issued, I would think and believe that the investigators would take into account that this is a private dwelling. There are other people who live there as well. Nine chances out of ten, the business is being transacted out of an office within that private residence. Certainly, then the investigation would be centred into that particular office or room or wherever it may be. I would not think that it will be all over the house or whatever. I would not think that the investigators would have to go into bedrooms or whatever it may be. It would be centred in one particular area and that is all.

Also, one of the other hon. members mentioned to me that in regard to the private dwellings he wanted clarification to if it was just a private dwelling of the insurance adjuster, broker or agent, or it was in the act that the search warrant could be issued on any private dwelling. He is right; it can be on any private dwelling. A person entering into fraudulent activity could have partners in regard to that fraudulent activity. They could move documents from one dwelling to another dwelling, and again the investigators have to have the latitude to be able to go into a private dwelling, any private dwelling, and obtain the information that is needed. So, I do not think there would be any violation of the person's privacy. I think that each and every one of the investigators and the people involved in regard to this process are very, very professional people. They would certainly take into account that there are people living in that particular home or dwelling. As I said, nine chances out of ten - a very high probability - the particular person who is conducting the business would have that centred into one office within that dwelling, and that would be the focus of the investigation itself. I cannot see any need of really searching through each and every area of the house in question or dwelling in question.

I hope that alleviated some of the concerns, or the concerns that the particular members across the House – I welcome their comments, and I understand that they are in favour of these amendments and this particular bill that is before us today. I welcome any other comments or questions that may arise from the closing of second reading to the time that we go into Committee stage. Certainly, I would very, very welcome those comments, and hopefully I will be able to answer any of the other questions that the hon. members would have.

With that, I will take my seat in the House, and wait for Committee stage in regard to this particular bill.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act. (Bill 21)

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

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

MS BURKE: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 21)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will call Order 16, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Securities Act, Bill 23.

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Fisheries that Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Securities Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 23, entitled, An Act To Amend The Securities Act, now be read a second time.

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am very, very happy to get up in this particular sitting of the House today, in regard –

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Securities Act". (Bill 23)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, I am very anxious, as referenced by some of my colleagues in the House. I apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, in regard to not following proper procedure in regard to my anxiousness to speak to this particular bill, Bill 23. Certainly, this one is as important as all the amendments and all the bills that are brought forward to this House in this particular session of the House and the past sessions of the House. As my hon. colleague across the House referenced, I, as the Minister of Government Services, have had a sort of an agenda in regard to reviewing all the pieces of legislation contained within my department – 150 or 160 of them in total. Certainly, the Securities Act is just as important as each and every one that I have contained within the Department of Government Services.

These amendments are, again, much the same as referenced in Bill 21, the Insurance Adjusters, Agents and Brokers Act, in regard to pertaining to investigative powers of the department and the superintendent responsible. Certainly, I firmly believe that we have to have provisions in place, penalties in place, and powers in place in regard to protecting our consumers from security frauds. Many of these provisions are similar to those in other acts that my department governs, and ensures harmonization of these acts.

I will go down again - not in as much detail, I guess, as I did in the Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act, because like I said, they are much the same, so I do not think there is any need of really going down through them.

First, I would like to give an overview in regard to the Securities Act. It provides for the regulation of the securities industry in the Province. It is not a big industry, as such, but it does generate round about $7 million to $8 million to the Treasury of Newfoundland and Labrador every year. So certainly, that is significant money. Significant money that we as a government can use to avail of to provide the services - the very important services that we as a government provide to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador on a daily basis.

There are two basic purposes of regulating the security industry. One is investor protection, and the other is to provide an efficient and effective capital market. It is certainly necessary to have an effective and efficient capital market so that companies can raise money to carry out their business activities. So that is what it is all about. These companies go out and they raise money, and then they use it to carry out their business activities. In order for capital markets to operate, investors must have confidence in that market that it is being used, and that it is being regulated properly, otherwise, those people would not invest in stocks and mutual funds. If they did not have that confidence, certainly, they are not going to part with their money and enter into buying stocks or mutual funds.

There are two areas of regulation in the securities industry. One in is the insurer regulation, which is the regulation of companies using securities, and the other is registrant regulation, which is the regulation of those selling securities and mutual funds to investors. Currently, in Canada, the securities industry has thirteen regulators – one in each province and territory. In order to streamline regulation and make it more effective and efficient for industry participants, all provinces and territories, except Ontario, signed onto the passport system of regulations several years ago. There were a couple of questions in the House of Assembly in Question Period in regard to that particular issue, and I hope I clarified then for the hon. member who asked those questions in regard to where that stands in Canada today.

Basically, under the passport system, industry participants only have to deal with their principal regulator. All other regulators accept the decisions of that principal regulator. So there are thirteen regulators across Canada, but when you enter the market under the passport system, you use one regulator and one regulator only. So that sort of gives the overall will of the federal government that wants to have a single regulator in Canada. The passport system really works much the same in that when you enter the market, the regulator that you are using is basically the principal regulator, and that would be the only regulator that you would have to use in regard to that transaction. Under the federal proposed system, there would be only one regulator, and one regulator that would handle all business throughout Canada, be it from B.C., Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, or wherever.

Ontario has not signed onto the passport system, as they prefer to be of one single regulator for securities in Canada; however, the Ontario regulator is working closely with the passport regulators so that regulation of the industry is as efficient as possible, as it is today. As a reference, the federal government certainly wants to create the Canadian – well, in 2009, actually, the federal government created a Canadian Securities Transition Office to draft a federal securities act, and develop a plan to transition toward the Canadian securities regulator.

To my knowledge, I think all the provinces and territories were invited to sit on an advisory committee to the CSTO, and I think all have done so except Quebec, Alberta and Manitoba. None of the provinces and territories that have joined that advisory committee has committed to join a Canadian regulator. This Province has joined the advisory committee to ensure our position is heard and to keep informed as to what is happening.

Recently, as I just referenced, the federal government tabled the Canadian Securities Act in the House of Commons, but it was not given a number. It was tabled for reference and draft only. It was not given an actual number. It was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada right away in regard to seeking authority under the constitution to enact such legislation, and the federal government certainly had that power to do so.

The Canadian Securities Act is drafted on the basis that provinces and territories can opt in to the Canadian Regulator, but do not have to join. So it certainly appears to me that the federal government is of the view that while they have the authority to regulate securities under the constitution, the provinces do so as well. So I think they recognize that, in regard to the way the actual draft regulation is drafted. They recognize that right up front, but then they are seeking the concurrence of all provinces to have one single regulator. They believe, the minister - Minister Flaherty certainly believes that the single regulator would be more harmonized to what happens elsewhere in the United States and Europe and around the globe.

In the meantime, Quebec and Alberta have made appeals to the courts stating the view that securities regulation is under the sole jurisdiction of provinces and territories and the federal government has no authority to enact a securities act. This will go before the courts, and it will be a year or two before the court cases are decided. In the meantime, we will continue to regulate the securities industry under the passport system. With this act as well, Mr. Speaker, like I said before, I will not get into all the amendments. I think they were all referenced under the Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act.

Currently, under the Securities Act, the superintendent of securities may make an order to conduct an investigation or examination. An investigator or an examiner has the power to summon and enforce the attendance of a person and compel him or her to testify under oath; an investigator or examiner has the power to enter a business premises and extract documents; an investigator or an examiner can apply to a Trial Division to obtain a search warrant to enter a place of business and seize documents. However, the place of business does not include a private residence.

The amendments being proposed here are as follows, that the search warrant, again, will be extended to include private residence. I think that is very, very important because private residences are used sometimes in regard to transacting those types of business, or there could be information and documents contained in those dwellings that very well have a lot of jurisdiction and relevance in regard to the actual investigation that is on the go.

Also, it will address the area of production orders. We just talked about that in the previous bill in regard to what that means. Right now under the act, the investigators can go in, they can do an investigation, they can make copies of documents, which is very disruptive to the business, it is very time consuming, but now they will be able to have that production ordered by court, by warrant. So that will actually streamline it for both the investigator and the place of business as well.

Again, it will be an offence to obstruct, to interfere with investigators or examiners. They have to do their work. It is very, very important in regard to the investigation they are carrying out. So that needs to happen as well, and I am very, very supportive of that. It provides the authority to judges of the Provincial Court to issue search warrants as well. Right now, under the act, only a Supreme Court Judge can actually issue a search warrant. Now it will be extended to the Provincial Court as well. This will increase access to the justice system, thus contributing to the more efficient investigation process. Search warrants from Provincial Court judges are provided for under securities law in five other jurisdictions now. So we will be the sixth, and I would suspect that the other jurisdictions that do not have this in their legislation currently will be following that process as well.

Last, but not least, one of the most important areas is the penalty provision in the legislation. Currently, under the Securities Act, it provides for a maximum fine of $1 million and imprisonment for a term of not more than two years, or both. Nine other jurisdictions provide for a maximum fine of $5 million and imprisonment for a term of up to five years, or both. We are proposing our penalties be increased to this amount of $5 million to provide more of a deterrent for violating legislation, as losses to consumers can be quite substantial in the securities industry.

If I can actually take the time, Mr. Speaker, just to flip through a couple of notes, because when it comes down to all the pieces of legislation I cannot keep everything in the forefront of my mind. The rationale for harsher penalties is due to the large amount of money being transacted in this business and potential for even large frauds. Recent frauds in Canada have been between $50 million and $100 million. Also, there has been one fraud in the Province just a number of years ago – I just cannot remember the actual, and I would not mention it here in the House in regard to the actual case, but it amounted to approximately $8 million. You are talking about huge amounts of money here that are being transacted. So I think we have to have - the penalties have to reflect the amounts of money that are being transacted and also be a deterrent to anybody who might think about entering into any kind of fraudulent activity when it comes to securities.

Last, but not least, in regard to the amendment, is to remove consent of the minister. Under the Securities Act it requires the consent of the minister to be provided, before proceeding with a charge against a person for an offence under the act. The minister, in my opinion, should not be necessary for this purpose. This is not required by the other financial services legislation administered by the department. Also, securities law in no other jurisdiction requires ministerial approval before laying a charge. At that point in time, the investigation has happened. The investigation is what it is. It is either there is substance to the investigation that warrants before the courts. I do not think a minister should have the right to be able to say yes or no in regard to that investigation proceeding to the courts. I think it is a very important process. I think it is very, very important to protect the consumers. I do not think any one person being a minister, me now, or someone in the future, should have that power to stop a proper investigation and a proper court proceeding.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I went over, in regard to the Securities Act, and regard to the passport system, and regard to the desire of the federal government to create one single regulator. I went over, in regard to the investigative powers that these amendments would give in regard to my department, the Superintendent of Insurance and the investigators therein. I think they are very, very important. I think there is a lot of money being transacted on a daily basis in regard to securities. I know it is not a big industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, but certainly it is a big industry in Canada.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I think I will take my seat in this hon. House and welcome any of the thoughts and comments in regard to my colleagues in the House and across the House. Mr. Speaker, I think this piece of legislation, the amendments thereof, are just as important as all of the pieces that I have brought forward to this House. With that, Mr. Speaker, I take my seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to make a few comments with regard to Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Securities Act.

Mr. Speaker, this act provides for an increase in investigatory powers and serves to clarify in order to ensure better compliance and to protect consumers against scams and other various investments.

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister has gone through the explanatory note very carefully and outlined the issues with regard to search warrants, now that it also includes a private residence, which I think it very well should be. He also went through the production orders. This was stated in Bill 21. Some of the bills, one, correspond with some of the explanations of the others and there was no exception here when it comes to the production orders, where it outlines now that the courts and the provincial judges can also extend for the jurisdiction to do searches as well.

We know, Mr. Speaker, from time to time, I think the minister touched on this, there are large amounts of money that are being invested whether it is insurance or various investments. Also, one of the things in this act, and I think the minister is correct in saying this, where it removed the consent of the minister. The penalty part I will touch on after I make my few comments.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see that many of the jurisdictions are coming together with the rules across the country and know that the federal government are also looking favourably on this and looking for one single regulation right throughout the country.

Mr. Speaker, all too often we hear about various frauds and scams within our system, maybe not as much here at home as we hear nationally and internationally. While I was doing some research on this, I got a copy of the Canadian Securities Administrators guide and it more or less went in to telling people about various scams, how you should try to stay away from the frauds and the scams that are put forward. One of the key things that they stated there, they said if it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is. They went on to outline various components of that, outlining to people various frauds that they should watch out for. It is like they said; there is no typical victim of fraud. Wherever there is money, if a professional is trying to do something, wherever there is money they are out to try to get you involved.

One-third of all the fraud victims are scammed for less than $1,000, but another 27 per cent are taken for anywhere from $1,000 to $5,000. It is difficult or almost impossible to get this money back, so the consumer has to be very careful. I believe the changes that are coming in this act, to not only go along with other jurisdictions but with the increase and the penalties, will hopefully take away from the awkward position many of our residents find themselves in.

The Canadian Securities Administrators went on to talk about the various schemes, and I am sure we all heard talk of the one that called the pyramid scheme where you keep recruiting people. You invest so much money into it and they pay you back interest, but there is no such thing as this money that they have taken is being invested into anything. What they do, they just pay you back interest, what you thinking you are receiving, from money that they are collecting from somebody else, but what happens, once the investors fail to contribute to it, the pyramid collapses and then people are without their money. So they are warning you to be very careful of that.

We also know in this day and age about the solicitation that happens either through e-mail or by phone calls. I am sure many of us here in this hon. House, and people throughout the Province, you get a phone call, you pick up the phone and you hear the whistle blowing on some cruise ship that you are after winning a cruise. If you stay there long enough and give them the information they are looking for, you will soon find out you are not going on a cruise, and you probably will not be able to go on one anyway because they are going to have your money if you play the game with them.

It also goes into various other scams, one they call Forex scam where people, individuals place ads in newspapers asking people to invest money and hear very little about it. Another one was called the offshore investment. It is a great way to avoid taxes they tell you, that you can eliminate paying taxes. This money is sent into other countries and so on, but at the end of the day there is no investment, there is no interest being made and the individuals are left high and dry. Another one is called the pension scam. They take money from a locked-in retirement account. They tell you that you can do that without paying taxes, but more than likely this is another scam.

There was another one that was very interesting; it was called the pump and dump, where you buy into low priced stocks. The caller states that they own large amount of stocks and the more the people invest into it, it skyrockets and all of a sudden they withdraw all the funds and there is nothing left whatsoever, so the markets just plummet.

Mr. Speaker, people should never invest in anything that they do not fully understand or have all of the information on. That is what this bill is all about; it is trying to protect those people. In saying that, it is good for the government to bring in, the minister to bring in this new legislation so that it is there on the books and what can be done. The individual consumer, each and every one of us has to play our part as well. This is there to penalize people for doing it, but if none of us take part into it, it will not reach that stage and we will not be caught in that position.

I also gained interest, Mr. Speaker, in how the people involved in fraud target the senior citizens more so than anybody else. There has been so far, to information I received, 625 victims this year who have been scammed for some $2.1 million. That is a tremendous amount of money, and many of those people I am sure could very well use those funds in other ways.

One of the ones we hear all too often here in our Province is where somebody receives a phone call, a senior citizen will receive a phone call and they think that it is their grandson or their granddaughter on the other end of the line who are crying out for a few dollars from them. All too often, what do they do? They just take the caller's advice, they go and get the money and they send it to them. When they come to find out, it is nobody belonging to them at all, it is just somebody scamming them of their money.

Mr. Speaker, in this documentation it is stated very clearly that one of the things that the RCMP stated was that only 1 per cent to 5 per cent of all victims ever tell somebody about what happened because many times they are too ashamed to admit that they did this when they find out that they have been taken down that awkward path where they were just paying money into something that was not legitimate. As I said, Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Securities Act, hopefully will look after a lot of this. As I stated, the minister has gone through all the amendments and new pieces of legislation that are put in place.

One of the ones I really want to touch on and that is the one how the penalties have increased for offences such as this. I think that is excellent because under the old legislation it is stated that it was $1 million, and an amount equal to triple the profit made or loss avoided by the person or company by reason of the contravention. Now that has been increased to $5 million. Hopefully by doing this, hopefully by each and every province in this country, all the jurisdictions coming together, if somebody is ‘frauding' someone in one province or the other, by working together, by the legislation that is being brought forward here today, that they can work together, catch up on those who are doing our citizens an injustice by taking their hard-earned money many times and telling them that they are investing in a good venture. Lo and behold, at the end of the day, their money is just gone.

So, Mr. Speaker, with those few comments with regard to Bill 23, I think this is another good piece of legislation. Many of those acts that we are seeing come forward from the Department of Government Services is to outline changes in legislation, to put a stronger emphasis on protection for the consumer, and that is what this is all about, Mr. Speaker. As I stated, some of the components of Bill 21 and Bill 23, they interlock with each other with the various explanations and so on.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I just want to state for the record that we support Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Securities Act, and I will close my comments there.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Chair of Committees.

MR. KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my great pleasure to rise in this hon. House today and have a few words on Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Securities Act. Of course, the purpose of this is to set out some very important amendments.

First of all, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Government Services on bringing these amendments forward. It is certainly timely given the current situation, not only in Canada but globally.

Perhaps a lot of us heard of Bernard Lawrence Madoff, or Bernie Madoff he was known as, Mr. Speaker. He is a former stockbroker, an investment adviser in the United States. He admitted to operating the largest Ponzi scheme in history. Now, a Ponzi scheme or a pyramid scheme is ones in which swindles promise high returns, but each participant is encouraged to bring in new investors. The only people who make money are the people who started them. Money from previous investors is used to pay new investors. Madoff made off with up to $65 billion in money belonging to thousands of investors. Last year, approximately a year ago, June 29, 2009, he was sentenced to 150 years in prison. So as you can see, these scam artists can have a significant impact. Can you imagine the loss of that amount of money to investors?

I am very pleased to support the amendments. They will provide greater enforcement abilities to the Department of Government Services, and these amendments of course will help protect consumers from securities fraud.

Mr. Speaker, some examples of security fraud are unlicensed individuals selling securities. That is one example. You should call your provincial securities regulator to verify that a salesperson, of course, is licensed. Of course, there are different licence requirements for different individuals involved in the sale of securities. Affinity fraud is another example, promissory notes often sold as insurance products. Often these companies are offering products that are non existent.

Internet fraud, Mr. Speaker, fraudsters will take advantage of the anonymity of the Internet to promote stocks and other types of investments that often involve pyramid schemes, as I have outlined earlier. One should ignore any investment opportunities or stock tips that you obtain, obviously, from the Internet.

Another example, Mr. Speaker, is callable CDs, prime bank schemes, telephone fraud. Fraud artists can call from boiler rooms which are often rented rooms full of slick, fast talking sales persons to solicit your investments in non-existent ventures that offer very high returns. As my colleague, the Member for Port de Grave said, one has to very careful when it comes to investing one's money and one should never invest in anything over the telephone, especially if you did not place the call.

Many provisions are similar to those in other acts of the department, as it has been outlined already. A number of speakers, Mr. Speaker, have spoken about similarities between the changes in the Securities Act and the Insurance Act, for example. The purpose here with Bill 23 is to harmonize this one.

The new things are that a judge can now issue a search warrant authorizing investigators to enter and search a private dwelling. This is new. A judge will also be able to issue a production order to produce documents concerning a violation of non-compliance with legislation. Now, Mr. Speaker, it will be an offence to obstruct or interfere with an investigator or examiner during their investigation. Mr. Speaker, search warrants granted to an examiner by a Provincial Court judge as opposed to a judge of a Trial Division, which is new. Provincial Court judges administer most of our search warrants in the Province now actually, Mr. Speaker.

As already been mentioned by the previous two speakers, one of the things in this act that is quite significant in the amendments is the increase in penalties. The maximum fines, for example, Mr. Speaker, has now been increased from $1 million to $5 million, and imprisonment terms have been increased from two to five years, and of course it is possible for an offender to get both of these deterrents. So, the key here is that deterrents in both cases, both time and money have been increased to help deter people from being involved in scams that do harm to the consumer. The purpose of course is to build consumer confidence by charging abusers.

Mr. Speaker, many people are too trusting sometimes. Some people would give their life savings to a person who calls or presents them with an investment opportunity that sounds too good to be true. They simply believe that this person is telling the truth because he wears a suit and has a business card and talks like a businessman. Of course, many people would give them money without a second thought, sometimes simply because someone is well dressed. The best thing to do in all cases is to make sure that you are dealing with someone that you trust, check with your accountant, check with your lawyer, and of course you can also check with the Securities Commission of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, it is advisable to have knowledge when you are investing. That helps protect you from the scam artists that are out there. Avoiding being hurt by a con artist is as easy as doing your homework before you invest. Contact your provincial securities regulator. Contact your local Better Business Bureau, that is something else you can do, Mr. Speaker. Deal only with financial advisers, brokers, dealers or financial institutions having a proven track record. Ask for written information on the investment. Often investments have a prospectus, Mr. Speaker, and in those prospectus lays out what in fact is contained with the investment, a description of the securities that are being offered, a list of directors and officers of the company, financial statements, whether they be income statements or balance sheets or whatever over time. A summary of the major risk factors are also found in the prospectus. How the company will spend your money is also there.

So it is important that you do not take everything you hear or read at face value. Do your homework, because the regulations can only do so much. The amendments can only do so much. It is the consumer, ultimately, who must take the responsibility of ensuring that they do their homework before becoming involved in an investment opportunity.

So, the best defence then, Mr. Speaker, is a good offence, and the legislation, like I said, can only go so far. It is important for you as a consumer to educate yourself about the warning signs of fraud. Know what to look for and what to avoid. Do not allow yourself to be drawn in by excitement, and do not allow your emotions to take control of your money.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, the bill would amend the Securities Act to allow a judge to issue a search warrant to enter a private dwelling. It will provide authority for a judge to issue production orders respecting documents. It will clarify that it is an offence to obstruct or interfere with an investigation or examination in the performance of duty, and it will expand authority to grant search warrants to Provincial Court judges – and, of course, increase penalties as I have outlined, and it will eliminate the requirement for ministerial approval before a charge is laid.

So, Mr. Speaker, although there are only a couple of amendments in these changes in Bill 23, they are important amendments. They are certainly timely, and they certainly fit the other ones that have already been brought forward with regard to insurance.

As the MHA for the District of Humber Valley, I am very pleased to rise and support this bill and the amendments, and I congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Government Services, on the job that he is doing and has done on this current piece of legislation.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my chair.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am pleased to stand once again and speak to another bill that we are addressing here in the House, Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Securities Act.

Once again, for people who have been listening this afternoon as we have been doing the debates on the various bills, they will see that we are dealing again with a bill that has to do with the protection of people in the Province, and protection of consumers, and protection of their economic state, because that is what it is all about.

As has been pointed out by all of the previous speakers, this bill is related quite closely to Bill 21, which had to do with fraud within the insurance act, and the bill that we are dealing with now has to do with fraud under the Securities Act. All of that is quite related, Mr. Speaker, as has been said by others.

One thing that I would like to point out to people is that many provinces have a securities commission, an actual Crown corporation that is an agency of the government, like other bodies that we have here in Newfoundland and Labrador. For example, Elections Newfoundland and Labrador is a body that is an agency of government. It is not a Crown corporation; it is agency. We have other bodies that are Crown corporations, like Nalcor which is a Crown corporation.

So, in most of the provinces, in actual fact, all other places except for three jurisdictions, of which we are one, other provinces do have securities commissions. Here in Newfoundland and Labrador, our system is to have a Superintendent of Securities, and that superintendent works within the Department of Government Services, so obviously that is why this bill is being presented to us today by the Minister of Government Services.

This bill is part of a larger plan to co-ordinate things within the division of securities in investigating aspects of various financial transactions. Just as we said when speaking to Bill 21, it would be nice to think that everybody out there is concerned about others and would not defraud people. We know that quite a bit of fraud is going on, and the two previous speakers outlined many of the schemes of fraud that are going on in our society, provincially, nationally and internationally, defrauding vulnerable people of their money. I know sometimes others think: How can people let that happen? How can they get a phone call and fall into the trap? How can they have an e-mail come across their desk and fall into the trap?

There are various reasons for it, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes it is elderly people who these criminals - because they are criminals - reach out to. Sometimes the elderly people and others that they contact maybe are alone, maybe they do not have family members that they can speak to, and maybe they are just lonely and want to speak to people, but whatever the reason we should not blame the victim who gets trapped by these criminals. We need to do everything to recognize that the people who defraud others are criminals, and we need to do everything to bring as much protection as possible to the consumer.

While we can give consumers advice, and we can encourage them to be careful, we should, at the same time, realize that we cannot blame them for what happens. We may wonder at it but we cannot blame them, as I said, especially when they are older people. Sometimes people are desperate, too. Financially, they may not be in great financial situations and somebody comes along with a quick scheme. I think someone has already said here on the floor: If it is too good to be true then it is not true. We can say that to people, but if they are desperate it is amazing how they can respond and trust somebody who is about to defraud them.

With regard to this bill, the Superintendent of Securities has responsibility over five areas: securities, insurance, prepaid funerals, real estate and mortgage brokers. So it is a big job that the Superintendent of Securities has, and in this sitting of the House, if I am correct, and I am pretty sure that I am, government is addressing three of these areas: securities, insurance, and prepaid insurance, as three areas that need to be beefed up, need to be harmonized, need to be brought into the practice across the country as well. That is what these bills are about today that we are dealing with, and this one is as well. Again, it is legislation that is meant to improve consumer protection by harmonizing the powers of investigators for all services. That is extremely important. The more things are harmonized, the more clear action you are going to get, I think, and the more protection people will receive.

When a violation is apparent, when proof becomes obvious that there have been brokers or agents or companies who have defrauded people, investigators have two options. One is an administrative option - for example, suspension of a licence - but there are times when the situation is way beyond just the suspension of a licence, and then the superintendent can send information to the Department of Justice which would look at legal actions. Legal actions sometimes certainly have to take place. We have examples in Canada of people who have ended up in prison because of defrauding, and well they should end up in prison.

This bill that we are discussing today is taking fraud very seriously. It has changed the rules and regulations under the old act, and it is now saying that if somebody is guilty of an offence that is identified under this act - is then liable on a conviction to a fine of not more than $5 million. So the fines can be up to $5 million, which is very important. It shows the seriousness of the amendment that is being made - and they can be imprisoned up to a term of five years, or they can be both imprisoned and be fined.

So I think that the people in the Province should feel comforted by the fact that the government and the minister are taking this kind of fraud seriously. Obviously, we would hope that we would be able to stop people from defrauding, and I guess that brings me to a point that I would like to put to the minister. It is not something that can be taken care of today, but in the long term I think a lot of work can be done. If we had a securities commission, a lot of work could be done with regard to prevention, with more energy going into being able to make sure that there are protections in place to even stop the fraud from happening in the first place. So this is one of the things to consider, I think: When would this Province consider moving to a securities commission arrangement?

We do have more powers because of this amendment. Investigators can have more powers with regard to where they may look for documents, for example. Similarly to Bill 21, they may now enter a private residence in the search for evidence that might lead to conviction. We should be comforted by the fact that in order to do that, the officials must obtain a warrant from a judge before proceeding. So the protection with regard to people's privacy is covered by the warrant from a judge because usually a warrant from a judge will indicate where the search may happen. It just cannot be an overall search. So, we do not need to have concerns about the privacy issues or the human rights issues because the warrant would take care of that.

The reason for this legislation happening now, I think it is something that the minister said, it is sort like it is about time, and he recognized that. A couple of the things that we are dealing with today that is the way it is. When we are last or almost last on the totem pole with regard to getting some changes made to legislation, we know the time has come.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think those are all the comments that I have to make. I would be interested in hearing the minister's sense of a securities commission and his openness, maybe, to looking at that down the road. With that, I take my seat.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Burgeo & La Poile.

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

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words with regard to Bill 23.

First of all, the comments that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi made are quite appropriate in the sense of particularly the securities commission. We hear when we talk about other jurisdictions in North America and in Canada – Ontario and Alberta, for example, have very strong and powerful securities commissions and it is my understanding we do not have or have not felt the need thus far to have that ourselves here in the Province.

Just for a couple of generalizations first, I guess, with regard to this bill. I look forward to this as an opportunity where the minister can educate us because we have talked about schemes that people might undertake in the Province that could obviously impact people financially, economically and, of course, that in and of itself has all kinds of other impacts on people who are taken advantage of. Sometimes their lifesavings go missing and so on.

I am just trying to get my head around, I guess, how the securities enforcement piece works in our Province. We know we have a superintendent, for example, who works in the Department of Government Services. He is, I would guess, the Supreme Being when it comes to enforcing the securities legislation, seeing what it is, making sure that all of the insurance companies or persons who participate in securities comply with the laws that we do have.

I am just curious as to do we have an investigative force other than the superintendent, or do we do the enforcement provisions of this strictly through the police agencies? In other jurisdictions, as I understand it, they have dedicated investigators who work for the securities commissions. Once an incident is brought to light, it may be through a Better Business Bureau type complaint, it may be through some consumer association, it would get reported to government and the government would have some way, through the superintendent, of sending people out to do the investigation. So, we see if, in fact, it is a concern and follows through on it, and using the powers that we are going to be giving to those investigators under the act and including these amendments here to that particular individual.

I am just wondering, maybe if it is a case of the RCMP, for example, and the RNC do the investigations, well that is pretty straightforward. If the superintendent has a particular individual or individuals in this Province who he uses to do that, it would be nice to know exactly where they are, how many of them do we have, or do we simply rely upon the police to do that? I think it is important because that is educational to the persons who might feel they are subject to having been taken advantage of. It is no good to just say in this House that we have a Securities Act, this is what you can do and this is what a Provincial Court or a trial judge in the Supreme Court can do in the event that you feel you have had a problem. If it is as simple as saying go to the police and that is who is going to investigate it that would be very helpful and educational to know that.

I would also be curious if the minister might tell us, when it comes to amendments of this magnitude, obviously, people in your department including the superintendent, for example, you become aware of these issues and you become aware of the lack of protections in our system usually by newspaper reports or investigations that you become aware of from other jurisdictions, or it may be right smack on our own front door when it comes to your attention, and you notice then that we do not have the deterrence, or we do not have the legislation that we need in order to deal with it.

I am just wondering who the department consulted with to determine that this was the appropriate level of response to what was obviously felt to be a problem when it comes to consumers frauds, schemes and so on. It would be interesting to know that, that somebody just did not think this up themselves, that there are people in the industries that you consult with. When did the consultations take place with the securities people? Who are they in the Province? A lot of people do not know who they are. That is educational just to know that stuff because it gives background and context to what it is we are actually talking about here. Some of that general type of information would be helpful, I say to the minister.

By the way, we are certainly going to be supportive of this piece of legislation. I notice one of the amendments here is allowing a Provincial Court judge to issue the search warrants that might be required. That is good to see because Provincial Court judges in our system right now are pretty well the workhorses in our court system. I mean that not in a negative way to any other judge, I mean that in a very positive way that the twenty-four, or twenty-six Provincial Court judges that we have, virtually every search warrant that is issued under the Criminal Code of Canada in our Province comes out of the Provincial Court. It might be somebody under a drug investigation or whatever, but it is the Provincial Court judges that normally issue those, that the police officers would go to and get your search warrant. Of course, you can go to Supreme Court judges, but normally it is the Provincial Court judges that are the workhorses.

They may feel that the government is foisting onto them, of course, additional duties here by saying that now Provincial Court judges can do it, but I would assume it is a very practical move because it just gives you more people to whom the investigator or the investigating person can resort if they want to get a search warrant. That is good. We do not want to hamstring ourselves and say only certain individuals can issue these search warrants if we can broaden it to allow Provincial Court judges to do that. They certainly do it in everything else. They issue search warrants in murder investigations or fraud under the Criminal Code. So again, I see no reason why a person would not be supportive of this particular provision because it is only broadening the scope and efficiency of enforcing our laws. We would certainly be very supportive of that.

Just one question, however, that I am not certain about, I say to the minister, and that is under section 14.1(5). In the first sections, it talks about a judge of the Provincial Court or the Trial Division can order the production of documents. It says in subsection (2) the time frames and so on, the specifics of what could be put in that order. It says in number (3), it outlines the criteria that a judge would look at in order to satisfy himself or herself as to whether the order should be made in the first place. It talks about reasonable probable grounds and that kind of thing. Then it goes on in number (5) and says: The order referred to in the first subsection. So we are assuming now that the order was actually granted at some point in time. It says "…may be revoked, renewed or varied."

I am just wondering, who can do that? Do you have to go back to the same judge? Can you go to some other judge for a variation or to get it rescinded? Is there an obligation on the investigator who got the initial order to go back and see that it is rescinded once the job is done? If you find out that your investigation, for example, led you on a certain path and you said we are satisfied now that there is nothing wrong here. I am just wondering how it is envisaged that subsection (5) would actually work and the type of circumstances under which it might work.

The other, just a little curious piece, is under the same section 14.1 (7), it says: "Notwithstanding section 17, copies of documents produced under this section are not required to be returned to the person…" So it seems to be very commonsensical that if you ordered somebody in the first place to provide a copy, it seems pretty sensible that – why would you have to require somebody to go through the rigmarole of giving them back the copies? Unless you want to use the argument that if you took it, you used it for the purposes that you intended, and you found out that there was no charge or whatever to be pursued, or even when you are finished pursuing charges, that you should send back the copies. I am just wondering why? Has there been some incident that required that particular subsection to end up in here?

The other comment – and I say to the minister, I only heard it partially. I believe you referenced the fact that the federal government have started a process but it is sort of in limbo right now, I guess, until the provinces have decided where they are going to go. Again, I missed the detail of that comment by the minister. I think you indicated that the federal House of Commons are or do have before them some piece of legislation for consideration but it will not be considered until after the provinces have gotten their act together. Once everybody is on the one page, then the feds will pursue their particular initiative and see where we all end up. I am just wondering if the minister could in fact confirm if my understanding is correct or not in that regard?

Another thing here that is very supportable, and that is under section 122.(2)(4) when it talks about – it is on page 7 of the bill, where it talks about: "Every director or officer of a company..." being liable. That is very important, of course, because years ago a lot of times - there are two legal entities, at least two legal entities in our system, that is an individual and there is a corporation.

What used to happen years ago, of course, was if ABC Limited did something, scammed somebody, for example, and you ended up doing an investigation and if you laid charges against the company, they would say: Well, it is the company that you have to get at. You cannot get at the people behind the company or behind the corporate veil. Of course, courts in this country and in North America have spent years and years grappling with the issue of: How do we get beyond the corporate veil to make sure that the persons who perpetrated the offence are in fact the ones who should be brought to task? That makes it quite clear here.

If you have a company and you are the director of that company or an officer of that company and something happens of this kind of misleading, fraudulent type nature, you are hooked. Do not try to foist it off and say: Well, that is not my responsibility. That was the company that did that. I notice the fines are going to be the same. So it is not a case even of saying if the company did it, it is going to be a $5 million maximum, if the director did it there was somewhat less. It does not matter, and that is good to see because that certainly is a strong deterrent to any individual who might decide they are going to take advantage of somebody in the securities field. That is what this is all about, it is called consumer protection. You want it such that - because companies do not come up with these brain schemes themselves. These schemes are not invented by ABC Catalogue Company. These schemes are thought up by the persons who are the thinking minds behind this corporate bodies and that is why any fines you are going to impose should be against both of them. So that is good to see that we have actually singled that out and we will be certainly supportive of that.

Now, in a lot of cases, of course – and really, I do not know how governments could ever deal with this in the securities business. A lot of times when you have these schemes, you find out at the end of the day that if someone took advantage of a consumer, got his or her life savings, for example, under the guise that we were a legitimate operator, that we were going to invest it in legitimate enterprises, only to find out at the end of the day that their money is gone off to Panama somewhere. They had actually been taken advantage of.

Again, you can put these deterrents in place in terms of fines, you can tell people you are going to put them in jail for five years, and that is what it is about. You try to make the penalties so large that the person who does not want to go to jail for five years thinks about it twice before he or she perpetrates the crime and say: Whoa, this is not like going to jail for the weekend if I do something bad. I am going to spend five years in the clink. So, the stronger the deterrents you have, the penalties you have, the higher the deterrents to these individuals.

That is good to see because we know, anyone who has watched the news in this country in the last two years, or beyond two years, we need only go back to the Enron days and everything else where we have seen that in the securities industries worldwide we have had absolute cases of abuse by certain individuals and certain companies who abuse people. Now, some might say we are behind the door; we are bit late, but better late than never. It is good to see that we are where we had hoped we would be.

Mr. Speaker, we will not delay this any more. I think that is a couple of legitimate questions I would like to ask the minister, particularly who the investigators are so that we all know where to resort to if we need to have any kind of incident investigated. A lot of people, of course, you can go back to your lawyer, you can go back to your banker or whatever, but it would certainly be nice to know if it is there, and maybe it is publicized, maybe it is on-line or somewhere like that, but for the purpose of educating the general populous, it would certainly be useful information to have.

So, Mr. Speaker, we will be supportive of this bill when it is called for voting.

Thank you.

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

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

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

I am very, very happy to get up and close debate in second reading on Bill 23. Certainly, I listened intently in regard to the comments from my hon. colleagues across the House. I welcome, and I am pleased that they are very supportive of this bill. It protects the vulnerable that we have out there in this world and in this Province in regard to losing their life savings, or at least it helps to protect them. These are people in regard to the security industry, people of trust. The person who is going to invest certainly trust these people to invest their money, to make money for them and it will be there at the end of the day, but sometimes that does not happen. It just disappears, as one of the members referenced it could end up in Panama. These are the reasons why we see that these amendments are very, very necessary. Necessary in regard to streamlining and giving the ability of the superintendent to conduct investigations and to act as a deterrent in regard to anybody who it might enter their mind to enter into this type of fraudulent activity.

There are a number of questions. I will try to answer most, but one I will just ask to defer to Committee stage because I did not quite catch the sections that the hon. member was referencing. One was in regard to investigators: What was the process that that involved? I want to just reference that we have three investigators in the Department of Government Services in that section. These are the people who would investigate particular fraudulent activity or suspected fraudulent activity. Also, they can engage other investigators from other jurisdictions. If the investigation is complicated, they can go out into that market too. They can actually reference the commission that is being used to transact that business because we do not have a commission in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the reason why we do not have that commission is because there is not enough of business transacting to warrant one at this particular time. My mind is open to a commission. If I was to think or somebody would show me the necessary information that I would need, certainly I would entertain establishing a commission in this Province. I do not think there is any need at this particular time because the profits into the Treasury, $7 million, $8 million a year in regard to this Province, which is very small and minute as compared to other jurisdictions in Canada such as Ontario, Alberta, B.C., and Quebec.

I hope that clarifies in regard to the investigation process. We have three but also we refer to the RCMP or the RNC if there is any suspected criminal activity there. So we do the initial investigation and then we would pass it on to the proper authorities with regard to that level of investigations. It is a kind of a twofold, threefold thing. We can also go out to the actual industry itself and the commissions in other provinces to avail of some of their services, expertise and advice.

The Provincial Court judges, I heard the hon. member was very supportive of that. It broadens their scope in regard to the issuing of warrants. Certainly I agree, and would not have it there if I did not agree.

The issue in regard to the direction of the federal government in regard to creating a single regulator, I think he referenced that it might be in limbo that the feds were waiting to see if the provinces come onside. No, that is not the case. The feds have every intention of bringing forward their piece of legislation in regard to establishing a single regulator in Canada. They have referred it to the Supreme Court of Canada to see if they have actually the power, the jurisdiction to establish that. There are a couple of provinces that have also filed applications in court - Quebec and Alberta. They believe that the securities regulation is under the sole jurisdiction of the provinces and territories.

I think I referenced in my previous comments, in regard to the piece of legislation that is being tabled, for information purposes, it has not received a number in the House of Commons and is referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for clarification. They also reference within that piece of legislation that the way it is written actually shows that they believe that the provinces certainly have a right to regulate. They also believe that they have to right to regulate but they want clarification of that through the Supreme Court of Canada. That will take a couple of years in regard to that process. It is certainly not in limbo. The federal government has every intention of going forward. The present Finance Minister, Mr. Flaherty, certainly believes, and his department believes, that there should be a single regulator in Canada. I referenced in this House and spoken that I believe there is some merit in that as well. There is a lot of merit in regard to the passport system because that is certainly really drives down to a single regulator as well in a transaction, but not a single regulator in Canada because you have thirteen regulators in Canada.

I think I have answered most of the questions other than the sections that the member referenced. I will wait because I did not catch the sections. It was going a little bit too fast and I did not get them down exactly to what I wanted. So I will get those sections and, hopefully, when we go into Committee stage, I will get up and I will reference those sections and clarify those questions pertaining to those sections when we go into Committee stage.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I think I will take my seat in the House. Again, I welcome the comments of my hon. colleagues in the House in regard to this very important bill before the House today in regard to the amendments to the Securities Act, Bill 23. I welcome any other comments or any other questions that my colleagues may have in regard to this act in Committee stage.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat in the House.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Securities Act. (Bill 23)

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

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

MS BURKE: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, earlier today when we called the Orders of the Day, we indicated that we would not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. that we would break at 5:30 p.m. and return at 7:00 p.m. for a night sitting. So I will assume that we will recess until 7:00 p.m. at this time. I do not think I need to lay down a motion at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: Recess until 7:00 p.m.?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

The hon. House will recess until 7:00 p.m., by leave.

June 14, 2010                        HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS               Vol. XLVI  No. 37A

The House resumed sitting at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call from the Order Paper, Order 18, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Architects Act, 2008. (Bill 26)

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development that Bill 26, An Act respecting The Architects Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Architects Act, 2008 be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Architects Act, 2008". (Bill 26)

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

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

In regard to this act, it is certainly an act that comes under several acts, I guess, that we have in our department. It actually is pertaining to enabling certain professions to regulate themselves due to the White Paper that was enacted and tabled a number of years ago. Some of the acts, in regard to the seven acts in the department that the minister is dealing with, the self-regulating occupations are the Engineering and Geoscientist Act, the Chartered Accountants Act, the Certified General Accountants Act, the Certified Management Accountants Act, the Public Accountants Act, and the Embalmers and Funeral Directors Act.

Over the past few years, all of these acts have been repealed and replaced with new acts to comply with the principles of the White Paper, as I just referenced, in the regulation of occupations. The key principles of the White Paper are governance procedures. We find public representation on boards and committees; they harmonize discipline process based on transparency and fairness, and requirements to report to government on an annual basis.

I must also reference that the Architects Act, 2008 received Royal Assent on June 4, 2008, but it has not yet been proclaimed. The reason why that has not been proclaimed, Mr. Speaker, is that during the process with regard to developing the act, the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Architects were consulted extensively on the drafting of the new act but on review they saw a few things that should be changed to clarify the intent of the legislation.

Myself, as the minister, I do not believe that we should proclaim something that had issues and concerns in regard to the profession that we were enabling to self regulate. I do not believe in jamming anything on a profession or anybody if I do not have to. I did not like the idea of proclaiming it without actually addressing their concerns.

With the consultation process with the association and with my own department, we decided that the suggestions that were being brought before us in regard to the association, we were open with discussion on the issues. As a result of all those discussions, we have a few amendments to be presented into the House of Assembly today before we actually proclaim that particular act.

At this particular time I should also reference some of the provisions that are included in the act, and they are as follows. The board will consist of seven members, five elected from and by the members of the architects association and two members appointed by government who are not members of that association. The board may make bylaws not inconsistent with the act, including a code of ethics, which I think they have. The board must submit an annual report on its activities, including audited financial statements to the minister and the minister shall table this report in the House of Assembly. The board issues licences to architects to practice in the Province based on educational and experience criteria set by the board. The act does not permit a partnership, firm or corporation to be licensed. However, a partnership, firm or corporation may employ an architect licensed under the act. The board shall appoint a complaints authorization committee of at least three members, at least one which must be a public member.

The board will also appoint at least ten architects, and the minister shall appoint at least three persons who are not architects to comprise a disciplinary panel. An allegation against a licensed architect must be in writing and filed with the registrar. The registrar may attempt to resolve the matter where the complainant and respondent consent. Where the complaint is not resolved by the registrar, it is referred to the complaints authorization committee. The complaints authorization committee may refer the allegation back to the registrar for an investigation, conduct an investigation itself or require the respondent to appear before it. When a complaint is referred to the disciplinary panel, the chairperson of the panel shall appoint an adjudication tribunal from panel members consisting of three persons, two architects and one public representative.

This is all in regard to the appeal which is presently under the act as it sits today. The act also requires that a licensed architect have a seal or stamp to be placed on all drawings. I want to bring that to your attention as well. The act also prohibits a person who is not licensed under the act from holding himself or herself out as an architect and performing the duties that only a licensed architect can perform, and there are penalties surrounding that as well.

Now, getting to the proposed amendments which came up in regard to the review of the drafted legislation before we proclaimed it, are as such: The act provides for the licensing of individual architects but not the licensing of architectural firms, partnerships or corporations. We are proposing an amendment to subsection 13(2) to make it clear that a partnership, firm or corporation that provides architectural services must do so under the direct supervision of a licensed architect. A licensed architect has to be in the place of business and we want to make that very, very clear in the legislation. It was not clear in the past legislation nor was it clear in the drafted legislation. So this will clarify that fact and it was a valid fact that was brought forward by the architects association.

Also, an amendment is proposed to permit licensed architects to operate as a limited liability partnership under the Partnership Act. Other professions, such as the engineers, accountants have this ability. As well, I think the pharmacists and I think a few others are also seeking that as well. In regard to when I was referencing some of the things that are presently included in the act, this was one of the things that was not included in that act which they should have because there are certain situations where they should operate under limited partnership and there are certain advantages to that as well.

An amendment to subsection 32(1) is required in order to provide authority to make regulations with respect to the use of stamps and seals. Section 35 of the act outlines which architectural services for construction, enlargement and alterations that do not require to be carried out by a licensed architect. A number of amendments are proposed to this section to provide clarity as well in that section.

Section 35(a)(ii) of the act refers to residential units for a maximum of twenty people. However, it is difficult to determine what size of a dwelling can contain twenty people. This is being changed to refer to fifteen bedrooms, as it is easy to determine by looking at plans how many bedrooms are in a dwelling. That clarifies that as well because there was a certain gray area in regard to having the act refer to people as compared to actually rooms, bedrooms, or whatever it may be in regard to the building that we are talking about.

Subsection 35(a)(iv) and 35(a)(vii)(F) refer to buildings used for an assembly or industrial occupancy where the building's total occupant load does not exceed sixty persons. This is being changed to fifty persons to be consistent with the Life Safety Code adopted under the fire prevention regulations under the Fire Prevention Act. That was an inconsistency there. We had one act listing sixty persons and then we had the other act listing fifty persons. To make it consistent, the association suggested that we actually reduce that sixty persons down to fifty.

Subsection 35(a)(vii) currently states that the design of an interior space or building, regardless of the occupancy type, can be done by someone who is not a licensed architect. This is not the intent, as the interior design of public buildings of certain sizes is very important as regard to fire and life safety issues and accessibility issues. To correct this, an amendment is proposed to make a reference to this section to Part 9 of the National Building Code. Part 9 deals with houses and small buildings, therefore any design of interior renovations to a building not covered by Part 9 will have to be done by a licensed architect. This is necessary for public protection and was the case in the previous architects act.

When we drafted the actual legislation back in 2008, that was kind of a misprint I guess and not the intent of the legislation. We wanted it to pertain to what was in the first case in the previous architects act. We wanted to retain that. So in this way now we go back and amend that piece of new legislation yet to be proclaimed and make it consistent with the old act.

Section 37(3) of the act requires the name of an employer of an architect to be placed on an architect seal or stamp. This section is being repealed, as the firm is not licensed and it is only necessary to have the licensed architect's name on the seal or stamp. In other words, in past practice or with the past act the architect's firm would be on the seal but now only the architect and the architect's licence number will be apparent on the seal or stamp to be used in regard to stamping of plans and blueprints.

Penalties, again, for holding out as an architect when not licensed under the act are proposed to be increased and expanded to include the corporations. Fines for a natural person have been increased from a maximum of $1,000 to a maximum for $5,000 for a first offence and from a maximum of $5,000 to a maximum of $10,000 for subsequent offences. Provisions for imprisonment have been removed as these are not the types of offences that should require imprisonment.

In addition, there is a new section relating to fines to a corporation being a maximum of $25,000 for a first offence and a maximum of $100,000 for subsequent offences. Certainly, I think this is warranted as well, as the world evolves in regard to the economy. You do not want people out there who are passing themselves off as architects. You want to have pertaining penalties as a deterrent in regard to doing that. I see, in regard to a natural person, the fines rising from $1,000 to $5,000 and then when we are talking about corporations rising from a $25,000 to $100,000 offence.

Certainly, that is the spirit of the act. I want to reference again that the Architects Act, 2008 has not been proclaimed. I was ever so happy as the minister responsible not to proclaim it until we actually addressed the issues that the association was bringing forward to us. I think they are all warranted. They are very good suggestions. That is why I am here in the House of Assembly today in regard to tabling and addressing these. I certainly hope that my colleagues in the Opposition across the House are in concurrence in regard to the need to have these amendments where we can proclaim this important piece of legislation that will enable that profession to self regulate its own affairs.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will welcome any comments by my hon. colleagues across the House. I will try to answer any questions, if there are any questions related to these amendments. I will listen intently to all the comments by my hon. members.

Thank you very much, and I will take my seat in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to be able to stand again and make a few comments with regard to Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Architects Act, 2008.

I say to the minister, I did have a few questions. He probably answered them in his remarks with regard to it not being proclaimed, but I will just go into some of the comments that I have to make, Mr. Speaker.

First, it is important to note that the Architects Act, 2008, which passed third reading, as the minister stated, here in April, 2008, received Royal Assent in June of that same year and has yet to be proclaimed. We know during that particular debate, Mr. Speaker, the department stated very clearly that they conducted extensive consultations and the provincial Association of Architects were very supportive of the new act and certainly have been very vocal in regard to that.

That was probably one or two of the questions that I had knowing that this was stated back when the act was put forward in 2008. There was also a release put out at that time stating that Mr. Blackwood, the Chair of the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Architects review committee, said the association was looking forward sometime for the act to be put forward and passed. He went on to say how he felt this act had come a long way in reducing the red tape that the architects had to deal with and went on to say that there was no longer a need for an architect to obtain a certificate of registration, a certificate of practice and a certificate of approval in order to practice in this Province. He also made a comment in the release as well that the new act also clarifies a long-standing list of building types that require the services of an architect with emphasis on renovation projects.

So, Mr. Speaker, now we know the minister has stated here today that why it has not been proclaimed is because he was not altogether satisfied, there were other issues that had to be put forward with regard to Bill 26. I guess this leads to another question because I remember during the debate back at that time there were some questions with regard to the engineering technicians and technologists. I know that came up in the debate at that time and, more or less, they were looking for other design work which may be done on smaller buildings that would not actually need an architect. I do not know if that was another reason why it probably was not proclaimed, that they were still dealing with the issues put forward by the technicians and technologists.

Mr. Speaker, as we know and it is outlined in the explanatory notes for Bill 26, this would amend the Architects Act, 2008. It would also, those changes and amendments or the section that has been repealed, come in force on the same date that the Architects Act, 2008 would be coming in force. One of the proposed amendments, which I think is very important with regard to section 2 of the act, which enables architects to apply to be registered as limited liability partners. We know that according to the – this was not covered under the existing act and it states under 13.1 that two or more persons licensed under this act to practice as architects are eligible, as required by section 56, to apply to be registered under this act as a limited liability partner. Mr. Speaker, that is a new section to the existing act and I guess that is one of the reasons why it had not gone forward.

The other question that I would put forward to the minister, I know under section 41, it said under the old act a person who contravenes section 40 is guilty of an offence and is liable upon summary conviction for a first offence to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months. I know under the new act under section 41, not that I am out to see that people are going to be imprisoned but I know the word imprisonment is taken away under the new section of the act. That was one of the other questions that I had there for the minister.

Mr. Speaker, overall this piece of legislation is another, I guess, housekeeping piece of legislation. We know that the act, as I stated before, came forward in 2008. Other amendments, there is one section that has been repealed, that is section 37.(3), "Where an architect licensed under this Act is an employee of a partnership, firm or corporation that offers, or holds itself out as offering, architectural services, the name of the partnership, firm or corporation shall appeal on the seal or stamp together with that of the architect." That section, as the minister stated, has been repealed.

So, Mr. Speaker, those are the only comments that I have with regard to Bill 26. Like I said, I thought when we initially debated this back in 2008 that the association had been onside 100 per cent, but I guess in the (inaudible) facts there were different issues that came forward to the minister and he felt that this should have been done before the act had been proclaimed. So, with that, Mr. Speaker, those are the only comments that I have with regard to Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Architects Act, 2008.

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

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

I am pleased to stand and speak to Bill 26. Again, while it is a housekeeping bill, it is something I think that is extremely important. I was glad to hear the minister say that the amendment that is being brought into the act of 2008 is being brought in because the minister did put the brakes on after the act of 2008 had been passed in order to make changes that were being recommended by the Association of Architects. I think this is extremely important that the government listen to people in a profession when an act is being put together and that what is then in the act really reflects what those in the profession say should be in there. I do not see that done all the time and I am really happy to see this minister doing it and acknowledging it because it is extremely important.

I do not have a lot to say about this act. It is straightforward and the minister has explained it. I do note though that in section 6 which talks about section 41 of the act. I find it interesting - two things - it says that "A person who contravenes section 13 or 40…" – so a new section has been added to this section – "…is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding (a) in the case of a natural person, $5,000 for a first conviction and to a fine not exceeding $10,000 for a second or subsequent conviction; and (b) in the case of a corporation, $25,000 for a first conviction and to a fine not exceeding $100,000 for a second or subsequent conviction."

I think this is new having the distinction between the individual person and the corporate person and having a different fine for the individual person than for the corporate person. For anybody from the public who is watching us, the reason why this is important to make this distinction for two reasons; one, the word person in a piece of legislation can mean an individual or a group. So, what this is saying is that for an individual person, and in the piece of legislation that is called a natural person, the fine is smaller than the fine for a corporation who might have contravened the law and is being fined. I think that is really good to see the distinction between the person and a corporate body and that it is a smaller fine for the individual. I certainly support the government in taking out imprisonment that was in there. I think that is really good. I think we need to do a lot of reflection in our society on some of the things that we imprison people for. I am really glad to see that taken out.

Some of the clarifications, I think, are very good. For example, under section 4.(3) it talks about section 35 of the act that is being amended, section 35(a)(vii). The language is much clearer in the amendment, "(vii) an interior space for a building to which Part 9 of the National Building Code of Canada applies…" and then it goes on and talks about what is being covered here. The important thing is that by putting in Part 9 of the National Building Code of Canada then it gives it a clear context for the meaning of the paragraph. It shortens the language; it makes it extremely clear.

Overall, I like the changes to the act. I am glad the minister listened to the profession itself and I will be happy to vote for this act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Minister of Government Services speaks now, he will close the debate on Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Architects Act, 2008, in second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It has been a long day in regard to legislation for Government Services today, but each and every one of the acts that we have addressed here today is very, very important acts to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Be it down in Marystown, or be it in Harbour Breton or be it in Twillingate, wherever it may be, they are all very, very important acts to the public at large all across Newfoundland and Labrador.

I welcome the comments by my hon. members across the House. I recognize that they see the amendments are worth bringing forward here today in regard to the floor of the House. In regard to the questions by the hon. Member for Port de Grave, no, the act was discussed, debated here in this hon. House in 2008, but I, as the minister, did not see fit to proclaim it when there were issues.

We had extensive consultations with the association and the profession. It was only on drafting of the legislation that they realized that there were things missing. As a matter of fact, I remember the discussion, they thought that we had to proclaim it and they thought: Well, what are we going to do now? Anyway, I said as the minister: No, no, no, we are here to make sure that if we are going to proclaim it, we are going to have the right things in this piece of legislation and then we will proclaim it. That is why we are back. Through another consultation process and a discussion, we came forward with these amendments here today. They fell out of those particular discussions.

In regard to the imprisonment piece, the Leader of the NDP referenced it and said that she was glad that it is being repealed and taken out of that section. The hon. Member for Port de Grave referenced it as well and wondered why. The reason is that we do not believe – also, on review of other jurisdictions, we believe that these are not the type of offences that would warrant an imprisonment term. In regard to the fines, they are going to rise now, increase from $1,000 to $5,000 for a natural person, a person that is probably transacting a bit of business in regard to those services from his home, or her home, or whatever it may be. That person would be subject to a $5,000 fine, but a corporation that might pass themselves off as having an architect on staff but not really having an architect on staff will now be subject to a fine of $100,000.

The only other issue, I believe, that was referenced was in regard to the issue surrounding the Engineering and Geoscientists Act when we did it. That was worked out after the fact and everything was okay with that between the two groups. So, we did not have to bring an amendment into that as well.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I think I have referenced any of the concerns or issues, or any of the queries or concerns of the particular members. I welcome their support in regard to the amendments of this bill that is now on the floor of the House in second reading. Certainly, if there is anything else that they need in regard to any other clarifications or comments, the Committee stage will be forthcoming and hopefully I can answer any other questions that they may have in the Committee stage.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and with that, I will take my seat in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Architects Act, 2008 be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Architects Act, 2008. (Bill 26)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 26 has now been read a second time.

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

MS BURKE: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Architects Act, 2008", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 26)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would to call Order 17, second reading of a bill, An Act Respecting Court Security, Bill 24.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister Health and Community Services, that Bill 24, An Act Respecting Court Security, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that Bill 24, An Act Respecting Court Security, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Court Security". (Bill 24)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce to Members of the House of Assembly, as well as the public, comments on this important act, Bill 24, An Act Respecting Court Security, to be known as the Court Security Act, 2010.

Mr. Speaker, most of our court facilities in this Province face challenges with respect to security issues. Many of our facilities are old, were designed and built many years ago. They lack proper facilities to deal with issues of public safety and the safety of those who regularly use the courts. In most of them, Mr. Speaker, they are inadequate waiting spaces for witnesses, for officials, meeting rooms. We have situations where staff intermingles with the public, the public and the staff intermingle with the accused; even the judiciary and officers of the court will share a space with the public and the accused. We have a wide spectrum of physical attributes of our court system that raises some security challenges.

Courts, Mr. Speaker, by their very nature can present adversarial situations. Emotions can get tense; the possibility of dangerous or threatening activity can exist. We see several instances, Mr. Speaker, we see it on TV every now and then with a court coverage, where supporters of one side will engage supporters of the other in some kind of a threatening manner. That can occur when the accused is being led into court or when they are led out of court after a sentencing has been passed. Sometimes the accused might have to run the gauntlet sometimes of public harassment. Now, most of the time our Sheriff's Office, our deputy sheriffs deal with this very professionally, very capably. They are well trained and they do a very admirable job.

We also, Mr. Speaker, have situations in the Province where the physical layout and the physical locations of the court present considerable challenges regarding security. We have courts in this Province held in clubs. We have courts being held in parish halls. In fact, we have courts being held in bars. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we cannot design court security systems for all these situations and have to rely on our deputy sheriffs, who, as I have mentioned before, are highly trained, very well qualified to look after security in these situations. In fact, deputy sheriffs now travel on circuit with judges in order to provide those services.

We do not have the luxury, Mr. Speaker, of having all our courts akin to the new facility just opened up in Corner Brook which is designed with court security in mind. We have a situation in that building, Mr. Speaker, which is state-of-the-art as far as court security is concerned, at a cost of $20 million to this Province. It is probably one of the better, more state-of-the-art court facilities in Atlantic Canada.

Mr. Speaker, by way of initial explanation, Bill 24 will replace and repeal the previous Court Security Act passed in 2004 by updating and clarifying the law respecting court security. Some of the things that this bill does, that the old bill - the current bill we should call it, the Court Security Act, the present one. The new bill will empower security officers as defined in the bill to provide court security for all levels of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the Trial Division, both the General Division and the Family Division, as well as the Provincial of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The new act, Mr. Speaker, will provide for significant advancements in our continuing efforts to prevent prohibited weapons and other prohibited and dangerous items from being brought into a court area. The new act will provide authority for a security officer to perform a frisk search in the course of screening and, as well, it prescribes the manner in which a frisk search is to be preformed.

Mr. Speaker, in December, 2004 this House of Assembly passed the first Court Security Act. The Court Security Act formed the statuary basis under which a sheriff's officer could conduct a significant portion of the court security program within a court facility.

The Court Security Act included, in part, methods of screening. It included access to restricted court areas, authorization for sheriff's officers and police to relive persons of weapons and prevent them from entering a courthouse or a court area if they did not comply. The Court Security Act also made it an offence for all but authorized personnel to possess a weapon in a court area, and to enter such an area often been refused entry and to refuse to leave a court area after being asked to do so.

Mr. Speaker, since the passing of the Court Security Act in 2004 - which remains, incidentally, subject to proclamation - a number of deficiencies was identified in the course of our efforts to implement that Court Security Act. There were a number of them, but most importantly, the act did not contain legislative authority for a sheriff's officer to conduct a frisk search. That was one big, blaring weakness of the 2004 act. It had a rather restrictive definition of a weapon. The definition of a weapon in the 2004 act was a firearm as defined in the Criminal Code and a thing used, designed or being intended to use for causing death or injury to a person, or for threatening or intimidating a person. We thought that definition, Mr. Speaker, was rather restrictive.

The 2004 act, Mr. Speaker, lacked the statutory provision to preserve the common law powers of the Office of the High Sheriff, which we will refer to later on. It also dealt with the regulation power given to the judiciary rather than to the Office of the High Sheriff. As well, of course, there are a lot of improvements required in the language of that act. As a result, Mr. Speaker, all of these deficiencies resulted in both major and minor changes to the Court Security Act. That in the opinion of the Department of Justice was sufficient to warrant the introduction of a new act, a new version of the act entitled the Court Security Act, 2010.

The 2004 Court Security Act did not provide the sheriff's officers with the legislative authority to conduct frisk searches, nor did it provide for any discretion in the method of searching. Non-metal, dangerous and potentially lethal weapons could easily be concealed on a person and likely may not be detected by a walk through or a wand. Further, Mr. Speaker, the Court Security Act, 2004 did not contemplate the current advances in perimeter screening technologies which we have today. To accommodate the use of such technologies in the future, if we had kept the 2004 act, would require an amendment to the act if, for example, they were deemed appropriate to introduce such screening technologies. Even though this act was only passed in 2004, these changes reflect the ever evolving issues with respect to court security, sufficient that we felt that a new act was needed. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, the proposed bill now before the House includes many significant enhancements over the 2004 legislation.

Mr. Speaker, a definition of frisk search is now set out in section 2, which is defined to mean a search which includes touching the exterior part of a person's personal possessions, including clothing. The definition of screen and screening is expanded to include a frisk search. Section 5.(3) authorizes the frisk search of a person before entering into a court facility, and 5.(4) states that a frisk search shall be conducted in a private portion of the court area; and conducted by a security officer of the same sex as the person being searched, thereby providing for the privacy and dignity of the person being frisked. Mr. Speaker, this approach is consistent with court security legislation currently in effect in other jurisdictions, especially British Columbia and Saskatchewan. It provides for a frisk search of a person in a private area by a security officer of the same gender.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the definition of weapon, we did a broadening scope of what may constitute a weapon. The wording in the 2004 act is restrictive and it referred to a firearm as defined by the Criminal Code. That would not allow a security officer to prohibit a person, in particular a person who is not involved in the court proceeding, from entering the court area with everyday items such as a baseball bat, for example, a hockey stick, screwdriver, hammer, exacto knives, pocket knives and so on, items that are not designed or intended for use in causing injury or death, or for the purpose of threatening or intimidating persons. The new act will do that.

The 2004 act also, Mr. Speaker, contains no measures to restrict the possession of items such as alcohol and drugs in a court setting. So, it is obvious that this type of definition of weapon, and the resulting situations and the oversights that we just referred to, impair the abilities of sheriff's officers to deal with potentially dangerous security situations. The restrictive definition currently in the 2004 act may preclude officers from acting in the best interest of the courts and those within the precincts

Mr. Speaker, while clearly not defined as a weapon there is no need for an individual, for example, to bring an exacto knife with them to court unless part of some malicious plan. Exacto knife, for those who are wondering in the House, is one of those simple little knives used for wallpapering or cutting material, as far as I know, something to that effect. When it breaks off - it has a little blade in it that breaks off and renews. As well, Mr. Speaker, in addition to items that constitute potentially dangerous weapons, alcohol and illegal drugs certainly have no place within our courts, and the sheriff's office must be provided the ability to disallow the possession of these items within the court precincts.

Mr. Speaker, in section 2 of the new act the definition of weapon has been broadened to include anything which could be used to cause death or injury to a person, or threaten or intimidate a person. This section also includes a new definition of prohibited item which is defined to include alcohol, illegal drugs, illegal drug paraphernalia, or another item in their possession which is prohibited by the Criminal Code or a law of the Province.

Weapons and prohibited items are forbidden in a court area under section 4 of the bill. A security officer is authorized to screen these items under section 5.(2), and to evict a person who is in possession of a weapon or prohibited item under section 6.(4). Again, the proposed broadening of the scope of what may constitute a weapon, as well as the inclusion of a prohibition on items such as alcohol and drugs is not unique. A similar definition can be found in Alberta, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and British Columbia statutes.

Mr. Speaker, the new act will authorize screening before entry into court areas and provide sheriff's officers with the legislative authority to refuse entry into the court area to people if they refuse to be screened for weapons or prohibited items. As mentioned, the act defines screen and screening to mean: to search using methods prescribed by regulation. The intent here, Mr. Speaker, is to use hand-held wands and metal detectors similar to the airport type screening equipment that most people are fully familiar with.

Mr. Speaker, in recent months we have seen incidents at the Provincial Court, Atlantic Place in St. John's, which has caused much concern for both the Department of Justice and the Provincial Court. Shortly after I was appointed minister, Mr. Speaker, an incident occurred at the Provincial Court in St. John's where a dispute between individuals became serious and the sheriff's officers had to intervene. Officers detained certain individuals involved and it was later determined that one of these individuals had a knife in her possession.

This incident was alarming to us, Mr. Speaker. Although the particular knife was relatively small, the size of the knife is not important to us but rather the fact that it contained the potential to seriously harm people, and that members of the public, as well as our court employees, could be placed in harm's way. Upon becoming aware of the situation, we quickly went to work to determine what we could do to improve safety at the Provincial Court. We got a lot of input into that, Mr. Speaker. We had a lot of presentations made to us by people who work in the court; crown prosecutors, judges, the staff down there.

Part of the review we did was reviewing the 2004 act, which resulted in the recognition that we needed to improve that act considerably. We needed to provide sheriff's officers with improved legislation, as well as advance equipment to carry out their jobs. As a result, Mr. Speaker, we have allocated additional resources and equipment to allow sheriff's officers at Provincial Court to provide a safer environment.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I should point out as well, that since 2004 we have provided seventy-two deputy sheriffs in this Province so that the deputy sheriffs now are on a provincial-wide basis. In 2004, Mr. Speaker, the only deputy sheriffs were in St. John's; I think there were about thirty of them. Now, deputy sheriffs are stationed at all courts in the Province.

Budget 2010 allocated $350,000 for three additional deputy sheriff positions, as well as a senior manager of court security. Further, we are enhancing security, Mr. Speaker, by providing perimeter screening at the Provincial Court, Atlantic Place. Now, Mr. Speaker, Atlantic Place is our busiest court in the Province. It was designed, I believe, it is my understanding, as a shopping centre. So security is a huge challenge there. There are two or three different approaches one can use to get into the court. With the nature of crime changing, with drugs now and mental illness playing such a significant role in crime these days, and as a matter of fact recently we had charges brought for the first time in organized crime, so the type of crime and the level of security in our court system is now much more significant.

The type of crime, the type of criminal, the accused, and the type of situations arriving in our courts has the propensity, Mr. Speaker, for violence and for dangerous activities. That has come to us from the staff and the judges and the office of the court as well as the public and people who use the court. Atlantic Place is probably the hub of that activity being the busiest court in the Province.

The current plan for the new screening process includes modifications to the existing footprint of the fourth floor at Atlantic Place to ensure accommodation of the enhanced safety and security measures contained in the ne act. For example, the entrance ways to both Courtroom Number 7 as most people know, it is the first appearance court - those people who practise law would know that number seven is the first appearance court - will be modified along with the Small Claims Court and access to the courtrooms one to six. Courtroom Number 7 will have its current door changed to serve as an exit for those in court and will be a double locked door entrance system for court staff. These are physical modifications made in the building itself.

With regard to the perimeter screening, Mr. Speaker, that we just mentioned and we have accounted for in this year's budget. Screening will now take place at two points at Atlantic Place, and those people who have been at Atlantic Place at the fourth floor will know that there is access to the court through the escalators at one point and through elevators at another point. So, screening will now take place at both of these points and individuals in custody will no longer mix with the people who have been screened, using new equipment supplied. The new equipment will include walk-through metal detectors, hand wands and electronic turnstiles. The extra sheriff's officers, Mr. Speaker, have been approved to take care of that. These initiatives will provide a more secure environment and help prevent possible threats to the public and court staff, along with significant new measures to assist in prevention of the infiltration of weapons and other contraband into the court area.

Mr. Speaker, these changes are welcomed by the staff of the Provincial Court and, more particularly, they are welcomed by the sheriff's officers who have a difficult task to do. They will now be provided with better tools to do the vital job of providing court security.

I would like to thank, at this time, our sheriff's office for the hard work, the dedication and their participation in this process. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we cannot expand through all of the courts, what works on the fourth floor of Atlantic Place will not work in the Lions Club in Baie Verte. There is no quick fix to all of these situations.

The 2004 Court Security Act also lacked the provisions to preserve the common law powers of the Office of the High Sheriff. Mr. Speaker, the office of the sheriff is very old; in the Anglo judicial tradition, it originated in medieval England. Some of the common law roles of the High Sheriff, Mr. Speaker, that are not entered anywhere in legislation, the sheriff had the ancient right to bear arms in the discharge of their responsibilities, for example. The sheriff is a personal agent of the Crown and no limit could be put on the number of duties he might be called upon to perform his duties. By common law, Mr. Speaker, the sheriff is the keeper of the King's peace and is responsible to ensure that felons were pursued and arrested. The High Sheriff was responsible for the execution of the orders of the courts and a sheriff is required for the formulation of juries, responsible for some formulation of juries and posses, incidentally, as well.

The roles and the responsibilities, Mr. Speaker, of the sheriff have changed dramatically down through the centuries. It is impossible to provide a comprehensive listing of these roles and responsibilities, it would be an impossible task, but without a statutory provision to preserve the common law powers of the Office of the High Sheriff, the common law powers in relation to court security, that they once possessed, will be gone. The legislation will be the only source of authority with respect to court security except any orders that the court would give. Section 13 of the bill preserves these common law powers.

Mr. Speaker, the 2004 Court Security Act provided for the involvement of the judiciary in matters relating to court security. For example, it provides that the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court may provide advice, and the rules committee of the Trial Division and the Court of Appeal may make rules with respect to matters related to court security.

This distinction, Mr. Speaker, of having the court make the rules about security is unique in our jurisdiction and it presents some potential difficulties for the sheriff's office in their effort to develop a common set of rules. The possibility of conflict exists between the sheriff's office in their carrying out the security rules and the rules established by the court.

The review of the practices in other jurisdictions showed that the responsibility in court security matters is more appropriately vested in the Office of the High Sheriff and not in the courts. Mr. Speaker, that is what sections 11 and 12 in the new act reflect this transfer in responsibility.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of provisions in the 2004 Court Security Act, but the language needed to be improved to provide clarity, resulting in a number of changes in the new act. The results, Mr. Speaker, were concluded that with these major deficiencies and with the need to improve the language, we concluded it would be more appropriate to repeal the 2004 Court Security Act and replace it with this new Court Security Act, 2010.

Mr. Speaker, more people use the courts than criminals. Many people go to the court because they are obliged to do so. Witnesses, peace officers, jurors and of course the people who work there every day. When on court premises, people expect to be safe. It is a responsibility of the Department of Justice to ensure that safety.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the changes we have made to the Court Security Act, 2010 along with the perimeter screening at the Provincial Court, will greatly enhance the safety of these individuals and demonstrate our commitment to providing a safe and secure working environment for all of our court employees, as well as an enhanced level of protection to the general public.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to discuss Bill 24, An Act Respecting Court Security. I ask the support of all hon. members in passing this bill and I look forward to the comments of the other speakers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words on Bill 24. Passingly strange, the last two pieces of legislation we have dealt with in this House since dinner this evening, June 14, have dealt with new acts, both of which have come about because the government failed to proclaim the earlier act.

We had the Minister of Government Services up when we resumed after supper saying here is a new act about architects. Now, mind you, we passed one a few years ago. We never proclaimed it. We never made it law. We never did anything with it. We sat on it for a few years. They did not tell us why but said, in the meantime, we finally have our act together and instead of amending the one we brought in a few years ago we are going to scrap that now, we are going to repeal that altogether because we have since had some ongoing conversations with the architects and we are going to put some new stuff in there.

Normally, the way the process works is you pass a law, we spend time in the Legislature because it was important enough for the government to bring it forward in the first place, but instead, this government operates on a little different tack. They bring the legislation in, they debate and tell people why it is worthy, why we need to have it. They get it and put it on a shelf and did nothing with it, but four or five years later they come back and say: We are going to scrap that one; here is a new one. That is hardly the way that most democracies work. You bring it in, in the first place, because you need it. Sure enough, we have the second piece here tonight, since dinner, called An Act Respecting Court Security.

We were here in this House of Assembly back in 2004, the current Minister of Finance was then the Minister of Justice, and raved about why we needed a new Court Security Act at that time. He put out press releases as to why we had to bring it in. Security guards needed it, demanded it and wanted it. The public was deserving of it. Guess what? Everybody in this House, including the Opposition, unanimously agreed with that and voted for it because it was of such urgency we had to get it done. All the reasons were given back then as to why we needed to do it, but they sat on it for six years. We are here in 2010, Mr. Speaker, with a new Court Security Act again, not an amendment to the one we brought in six years ago, not a couple of amendments, they scrapped the whole thing that was of such importance six years ago and said – and I thought very shallow reasons, actually, we never did hear a good reason from the minister other than we are going to add a few things. Well, the fact that you might add something six years out to this piece of legislation does not justify sitting on it for the last six years and that is what we have here.

Anybody who pays any attention to this piece of legislation tonight, it has to cause you some concerns. That is not to say we will not vote for it, because I guess it comes down to balance and on balance this member will probably have to vote for it, but it is very disconcerting some of the things in this piece of legislation. Anybody who has any concerns at all about civil rights would have to be somewhat concerned about some of the provisions of this act, particularly when we talk about frisking people.

Now, the minister talked about courtrooms and where they are held in this Province and so on. He is quite right. We have instances still in this Province, or at least up to a little while ago, where courts were held in parish halls, quite common, where courts were held in clubs. Now, you might need some explanation of that comment because when the minister said it I thought I am sure there is somebody out there watching this tonight who is saying: What does he mean we hold court in a club? Well, what it means, Mr. Speaker, is quite simple. There are places in this Province that are still rural enough, and I practised in one of them, that we do not have courthouses in those communities. We do not have them. I know in Labrador, I was personally up in Hopedale a few years ago when, to my surprise, I checked into the hotel for the evening only to find out that court was going to be held in the bar in the morning, which was the first time I had ever seen that. When there is nowhere else in the community that you can hold court, you have to use the facilities that are available. So, I guess that is what the minister was alluding to that we all do not have courthouses that we can conduct in.

In Burgeo, for example, there is no courthouse in Burgeo; no security in Burgeo. The only court security we have ever had in Burgeo in the thirty years I have been going there was from the RCMP officers or the fishery officers who happened to be there. Back in those old days and I am not that old, but back when I first started there were no prosecutors either. The prosecution was done by the RCMP. You do not see that today, all prosecutions today take place by a Crown prosecutor, but that was not the case back – there was usually a rookie RCMP officer who was entrusted with all the files. It did not matter, no legal training, but he or she was entrusted to do it and they did it.

In fact, the first Crown prosecutor that I met in a courtroom was in Port aux Basques; his name at the time was Constable Gary Bass. I am sure anybody in this Province who watched the news over the last number of years probably heard of him. He became the Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP in Canada responsible for the Pacific Region. He is the guy who was involved years and years ago with the Argentia espionage case that took place, if people remember the news.

We have come a long way from there, and I agree we needed to come a long way. Today when you walk into a courtroom, either as a participant by being a lawyer or a judge, or you are there as a police officer, or a fishery guardian, or a witness, or you might even be a victim, nobody needs to be victimized again simply because you go to court. We have come a long way but we are still not there.

The minister says that we have deputy sheriffs throughout the Province. I am not sure what happens now in places like Burgeo and the more isolated communities, if the deputy sheriff accompanies the judge or not. I understand they do, particularly if they anticipate there might be some issue.

In the urban areas and in the capital city here of St. John's, of course, it is quite common, anybody who watches the news each night, you see persons who are accused in particular or persons who have been arrested and are in the process of being detained, taken for charges. It is quite a common sight to see them being taken into and out of court. You see some pretty strange behaviour too, some unacceptable behaviour. We have seen on TV cameras, accused persons going to and from court spitting on people. We have seen that; spitting on the public, spitting on the media, spitting on the sheriff's officers themselves. So, yes, there is no doubt that protections are needed in our court systems.

I guess the dilemma comes about - how do you provide it, who provides it and the form that it should take. For example, should it be electronic and what should be included in it? I cannot recall the details right off hand now, and I am sure the minister can educate me on this, but I do recall that there were a number of electronic wands that were supposed to be used by deputy sheriffs for people going into and out of court; metal detector type things that you hold in your hand.

My understanding is that the Auditor General had a problem with that at some point. The detail escapes me, but I thought it was a case of we sat with thousands of dollars of wands somewhere in the sheriff's department and it never was used because staff were not trained. Now, maybe the minister can clarify me on that, but that is my understanding. That would seem to be the basic type of first step you are going to make because I certainly think using a wand to check out the initial security: Does this person have a steel pipe, does this person have a gun; does this person have a knife? That is a pretty logical first step. God forbid, if we had them and did not use them because we did not train the people to use them.

The other thing is: Can the minister give us some facts and information as to how many court facilities in this Province have the actual walk through, elevator type X-ray machines? Is there anywhere in the Province that has those? Now I realize you probably could not put them everywhere. We just had a new state-of-the-art court facility in Corner Brook opened a few weeks ago. A beautiful facility, all of the amenities in terms of room, space, video conferencing when it is needed and so on; rooms for lawyers, rooms for accused, people to talk to their clients. Places for juries, for example, to rest while they are deliberating and so on, which is needed. They should have had it; should have had it on the West Coast years ago. They finally got it; great to see.

When it comes to the electronic piece, maybe a bit of detail around exactly where we are going to be after we pass this piece of legislation versus where we are today in terms of the electronic surveillance, because it is a pretty big step to say we are going to allow people to be frisked. Just think about it, folks. We have come a long ways in terms of civil rights. When was the last time you ever heard of anywhere in a Western democracy that a Legislature was going to give somebody the right to personally, physically pat somebody down? It is pretty unusual these days. If you go through an airport, for example, you would not tolerate it. There are all kinds of electronic devises you go through. Yes, you subject yourself to a search for safety reasons but subjecting yourself to a physical contact from someone – a big step.

We have all heard of Big Brother; 1984 back then was the famous book. Just how close do we want Big Brother to be? We are going to make a big step here. We are going to allow deputy sheriffs to pat you down when you go into a courtroom. No criteria. It says where they have to do it. It says they have to do it in a room somewhere privately. I do not know if that is good or bad. It says it has to be done by someone of the same sex. I do not know if that is good or bad. How many people are going to be there? Because what we are doing here is we are giving these deputy sheriffs, albeit they need and deserve security, we are giving them a pretty broad brush here. Again, you can easily try to convolute what I am saying here or twist it anyway you want to twist it, but I throw this out because this is the kind of stuff that ought to be considered.

We heard of a case in the media just last week where a St. John's lady claimed to be assaulted by guards. Now that will work its ways through the system. There is an assumption that they will do the right thing and I would say that ninety-nine point nine of them will always do the right thing, but we are giving them some pretty broad powers here. I am just wondering if the minister can tell us: What made them take that gigantic step to go from electronic monitoring - and there are all kinds of ways of doing that, as I say, the wand, you can do it by way of the walk through devices - to go to allowing personal frisking?

Now, the first thing that prompted me when I saw this piece of legislation, or heard that notice was being given in this sitting of the House that we were going to be discussing a court security act, my first response was to say: well, what has brought this on, because I thought we had done this a few years ago? When I went back, of course, the first thing I figured out was yes, we did it a few years ago but it was sitting on the shelf. Nobody had ever done anything about it. Then I wondered: well, what could have prompted the government to all of a sudden take it off the shelf and do something with it? I think I found it. I think I found out the reason for it, because governments usually react to pressure. Somebody points something out, or a story gets printed and the government reacts then by doing something.

There was a story that came out in the CBC last November, 2009. They never had time to do anything with it in the fall sitting, because it was in November. That was a story where Newfoundland and Labrador court workers - there had been a confidential study done, nobody knew about it, but it indicated, no question, that the lawyers, the judges and the court staff in this Province where apprehensive about the lack of security at the Province's courthouses. That was in a confidential report that the CBC had obtained. Of course, once the CBC got their hands on a copy of the report and made it public, then we see the government, who sat on this thing for six years, react. That is why we are back here tonight dealing with it again. So let's not try to colour coat and sugar coat why we are back here with a new act. We are here because public pressure forced the government to bring this back here, first of all.

Again, I would be very appreciative of knowing from the minister, since that story broke in November of 2009, what additional consultations have been done and with whom, since 2006, or 2004 when we passed the initial act? There certainly weren't any public consultations. I take it there must have been some consultations with the lawyers, with the judges, with the deputy sheriff's association, the sheriff's office. I would assume there was. I would like the minister, if he could, to provide us with the details of that because from my reading of this we have basically three changes tonight in this new act that we never had in the old one, three. The main one, I would suggest, is the right to frisk people, a very important right. Anybody who has any civil libertarian type stripe in them at all wonders: Where did we come to, to allow that, if there are other alternatives? As I say, there are only two conditions on here governing the frisking. It says it has to be done in a private room and it says it has to be someone of the same gender. It is pretty carte blanche, other than that.

The second thing it does is court security officers may now screen for drugs, alcohol or other illegal items in addition to weapons. I can understand the sense of it, I guess, but somehow I do not have the logic to take me right there. Why has this become a major issue? Do we have a problem in our courtrooms that people who come in there, either people who are accused of being criminal or committing criminal acts, do we have problems with witnesses in courtrooms that bring drugs and alcohol in the court? Are there an unusual number of people showing up in court drunk? Have there been incidents involving people who were drunk causing rackets in our courtrooms? I am just curious to know that stuff because that is a pretty big step.

We have all kinds of institutions but I do not know of very many where we have ever said do not come there and bring alcohol. Alcohol is a legitimate product. I realize you cannot come in drunk but we do not need to put that in this act. We have laws under the Criminal Code called drunk and disorderly. We have all kinds of laws that already exist. You cannot be drunk in certain places; you cannot drink in certain places. I am just wondering why we needed to put it in this particular Court Security Act, or where are our other laws deficient that it is not already covered off? Because legislation, as I understand it, would deal with things that are known to be needed to improve certain circumstances, but I already thought we had some pretty comprehensive laws when it came to drugs and alcohol already under our Criminal Code and other provincial statutes.

One thing I do like about this particular act, they are finally going to put their money where their mouth is. They are saying in clause 15 that this act will come into force on October 1, 2010. Hopefully, we are not going to have to wait another six years to see that the sheriff's office and their officers will have some protections. They are finally saying we are going to give you a definitive start date here.

Now, that begs a question of the minister, and I would appreciate an answer to this as well. Since we have been six years without the first act being proclaimed, does that mean that the government has allowed the courts to go for six years without the security? We see the sheriff's officers working, you see that on TV.

The main concern I guess about the frisking piece, which is in here as well, is it is absolutely discretionary. I am somewhat concerned that there are not more restrictions put in place as to how and when a person can exercise certain discretions. There may be some obvious circumstances where you say the sheriff's officer should be able to - if they are being rowdy, for example, and it is an obvious rowdiness when they walk up on the steps of the courthouse and you can smell alcohol off them and you say: well, look, I don't feel comfortable letting that person inside a courtroom. You might say: well, look, we have to check this person out and see if it is going to be safe for everybody inside. No problem with that, but what if a lady just walks in the courtroom off the street and interested because it is a certain case going on, a murder case, and she is intrigued by it? She wants to go in and sit in the audience and all of a sudden a sheriff's officer says: Just a second now, I have to get one of the lady officers to come over here, we want to search you. No reasoning whatsoever. He never saw the person in his life before; do not know where she is from or if she is related to anybody inside. Yet, totally, absolutely discretionary says: We want to send you over to that room and have somebody pat you down before you can go inside. Because there is another phrase about justice too, justice should be seen to be done as well as be done. The public, being open and being exposed is a piece of it and putting some limitations on it like this, it just causes some concern.

Now, this member, if I have to come down on one side or the other, I will come down on the side of being in favour of the security of everybody inside and some kind of limitation and infringement upon the person's civil rights, because I feel safety is paramount. It is a pretty big step we are making here and it is sad that we do not have some more protective measures in this piece of legislation.

The other piece that is - because you can be sure and certain over the next six years that we watching this, there is all kinds of risks that deputy sheriffs will face, I would predict, that they are not facing right now because of this right to frisk. They are going to have allegations of harassment. People are definitely going to be accusing them of harassing them. You are also going to have risk of profiling. Everyone is aware of that since 9-11, and they brought in certain conditions in the United States, the border securities. There were all kinds of allegations of profiling. Because I am of a certain culture, you are making me go through tests and standards that you would not somebody else.

You are going to see that happening in our court systems now. I have not heard about it before now. I bet there is even going to be deputy sheriffs who it is going to cause stress to, because now we are also putting an obligation on them to make sure that nothing happens in a courtroom. Because we have made it discretionary for them, what if they innocently do not frisk somebody because they do not feel comfortable with it and yet something did happen?

If the frisking is meant to be a replacement for the electronics, I think we are gone down the wrong path. That is why I would appreciate the minister's assurance that the electronic pieces are still in place and that the frisking is only intended as a final option or solution when you do not have the electronic monitoring. For example, you may be somewhere in a rural community and you feel that it has to be done.

It is not even a bad idea, I think, to ask that they exercise it in conjunction with someone else rather than being a sole discretion. If you have concerns about somebody, before you go to that extreme what is wrong with asking the police officer or the judge who is there as well? At least as a safety valve so that you do not find yourself in that situation.

The other major piece that is missing here - and I raise this in the context of big brother again. In the previous act, as I understand it - and I stand to be corrected by the minister – it is my understanding that in the previous act the rules committee of the courts decided and they were responsible for making regulations for it concerning the searching methods and about weapons and so on and other aspects of court security. There was a committee that existed within the courts made up of judges and so on – principally judges, members of the Law Society, the Minister of Justice was a member of it. So you had a balance of people who were involved in the court system. It is my understanding that it was that committee who made the rules around security.

We do not have that any more. This government is removing that authority. The judges are not having any say any more. The rules committee is not having any say any more. The lawyers are not a part of it. It is my understanding that all the authority now regarding court security is going to be vested in the Cabinet. If I am wrong on that, I would certainly appreciate being advised, but that is my understanding.

It talks about a Lieutenant-Governor in Council making regulations respecting a person or a class of persons authorized to possess a weapon, search methods and screening. That is in section 11. There is another section which says that the minister may consult, but it says making regulations about designating a building or a part of a building, land or other space as a court area; designating a part or parts of a court as restricted zones; and respecting a person or class who may enter a restricted zone. That is what the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal, the Trial Division, the Provincial Court and the High Sheriff will be involved in. According to section 11, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council is going to make all of the regulations concerning the screening devices, and that is a massive move.

We have removed the ability of rule making for security purposes in our courts completely from the hands of people such as judges, such as lawyers, such as the sheriff's office who have a vested interest in it and we are leaving it solely and wholly to Cabinet, and I do not believe for a moment that is right. I do not believe that these people, who are the ones we are trying to design the security for, should not play a role. It does not say anything here about an advisory committee, it does not say anything about the rules committee any more, they have just gutted the rules committee authority to make rules on screening, and that is not right.

When we get to Committee stage we will probably be proposing an amendment in that regard to make sure that these bodies are at least consulted when you are going to make these things, make these rules about screening and what are weapons and what are the search methods in particular. The last thing as well when it comes to court security is we do not want it tainted when somebody says it is a political process. That is where this is headed. If you remove the voice and the participation of people like the judges, the sheriffs and the lawyers in the process and you just say the Cabinet is going to decide, people are going to say it is absolutely political now. What is going to go on in our courtrooms when it comes to security? That is not right. Especially since we had it there, we had made provision for it back in 2006, but that is the one they scrapped, so that is not going to be there.

Some information - I do believe it was section 12 of the old act of 2006 said the rules committee of the Trial Division and of the Court of Appeal established under section 54 of the Judicature Act may make rules with respect to security in a court area of the Trial Division and the Court of Appeal, and specifically when it comes to who can and cannot have a weapon there, the authorized class of persons who can possess weapons, screening methods that may be used by security officers, persons in restricted zones and so on. So, the new act has gutted that, and I see absolutely no reason why you would.

I say to the minister not only are we a bit deficient in the way we came about this process and why we are here, we are here because of public exposure through the media. We are here because government was tardy for six years and never did what they should have done and proclaimed the old one. We are here probably because the government does not want to put the necessary funds into electronic screening everywhere so we have to come up with the frisk method, and at the same time we are taking away from the basic rights we had under the old act, which never was proclaimed, whereby the people in the process, for example, the judges, the rules committees of the Supreme Court are now being frozen out here again.

That is some of the deficiencies here. I think anybody here is going to vote for security. Nobody wants to see a racket going on down in our courtroom. Nobody wants to see anybody get hurt and everybody wants to be able to feel protected. You should feel protected wherever you are to in our society, not only in a courtroom, but if we are going to do it, we ought to do it right and we ought to do it for the right reasons.

I think that outlines some of the concerns that we have, Mr. Speaker, and hopefully we will get an opportunity when we get to the Committee stage to debate some of the merits of some of these particular clauses at that time.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

I am happy to have the opportunity to stand and speak to this issue.

It is a very complicated piece of legislation that has been put in front of us. It looks simple, it is short, but when we read it carefully we realize we are dealing with a very, very serious issue, and it is the issue of security in the courts and how we maintain that security.

On the surface, I will be honest, when I first read it, everything looked very logical to me. Then when I reread it and did some deeper thinking, some questions arose. As I reread it and did more thinking, other questions arose. On the surface, we have become more used to security in our society than we ever have been before, especially since 9-11. We all expect when we go through airports that we are going to have to go through security. That security is mainly electronic, but we also know that one can be frisked at airports. In actual fact, one does not have the right to say no. You have the right to say no. If one says no to being frisked in an airport, then there choice is they are not flying. That is the bottom line. You are told that you can say no, but if you say no you are not going to be permitted to get on a plane, you are not going to be permitted to go to the gate, you are not going to be permitted to fly. The option to say no is there. We have gotten used it, there is no doubt about it. We normally do not go through frisking when we are going through airport security. However, the option for airport security to do frisking randomly is in federal legislation and federal regulation.

I, myself, have had that happen to me on more than one occasion. Again, I had no option. If I wanted to fly, the frisking had to happen. One thing I would like to note with regard to frisking when it happens in airport security – and I point this out to the minister – not only in airport security do they say that the person who does the frisking has to be of the same sex as the person who is being frisked, they also say there has to be two people. You choose to go into a private area and there have to be two people. That is what I have gone through each time that I have been frisked. It has not happened to me hundreds of times, but it has happened enough times that I know I do not like it, and yet, I have to go through it when it happens, but I had the security of two people. Even though the person who was going to frisk me was of the same sex there was also a second person of the same sex there as a witness.

I think that is really an extremely important point. I do not think it is enough. I really would like the minister to think about this. I really do not think it is enough to have one person do the frisking if frisking is going to happen. I know there is much more to this act than the frisking issue, but it really is at the core of the act at the same time and that is why I am going to do a lot of speaking to it. That is my first concern, that I think if somebody is going to be frisked then there have to be two people there when the frisking is happening. I would not feel comfortable going into a private area with one person to frisk me. As I have said, I have been through it a number of times, two people present, one who does the frisking, the other observing. It felt uncomfortable enough, but if I had been told there was only going to be one person, I think I would have really and truly, each time it has happened, I may have said I do not think I can go through it. It is enough of an assault on your privacy to have to go through it than to go through it with only one person there and you do not have the security of somebody witnessing what is happening.

The other issue, and it is a matter of interpretation, so I am going to be asking the minister: Can he please explain to me section 2.(c) which is the definition of frisk search? I see the minister looking it up there as I am saying. So, section 2 of the bill subsection (c) where it says, "‘frisk search' means a search which includes touching the exterior part of a person's personal possessions, clothing or body".

I am not sure how to read it so that is why, and I am very – it is really important how to read it. If it means that a frisk search includes touching the exterior part of a person's personal possessions, touching clothing or touching the body, if that is what it means then I have a concern because does touching the body mean the body without anything on it? It is really important to understand how that is meant there. If it is not clear, it could also mean touching the exterior part of a person's personal possessions, touching the exterior part of clothing, but then if you say touching the exterior part of the body I do not know what that would mean. So, I have real concerns about that definition in the way it is written. It is one thing to say that your body is going to be frisked with hands on the clothing over your body. It is another thing to say that your body is being frisked, because that could imply that hands can be used on the naked body. So, the way in which the definition is written really is problematic to me and I would ask the minister to look at it. I think we would need a bit more advice on how that is written. It is of concern.

The other issue, and I think the Opposition House Leader raised this as well, he probably raised it in putting it in a different way, but it is the whole issue of, when will frisking take place? Is it because the security officer does not like the look of somebody? Is it because somebody has said: oh, I think you should frisk that person because that person has a history of violence? Is it that it is just totally arbitrary? I am really concerned about the fact that there are no indications; it is just that the security officer may frisk. There are no directions at all about what would cause that to happen, why should it happen?

When you go through the airport security and you walk through the electronic portal that you go through, if you have metal on you then something goes off and indicates. That is when they use the wand. If it goes off and the wand still does not find anything then they do ask you to do other things, undo your belt if there is a metal buckle on it, et cetera. It could be because they cannot come up with any reason for the alarm going off that they may ask to frisk you or tell you, you have to be frisked, but there is an indicator of why. Now, they also do random frisking in airports too, and that is where I had it happen to me was random frisking. I am concerned about what criteria is going to be given to the sheriffs or the security officers in terms of helping them make the decision whether or not they are going to frisk. Obviously, you could have random frisking. If people know there is going to be random frisking then they know it, but what do you do when you talk about none metal weapons?

The minister did speak about a baseball bat. Now, I fail to see how somebody could hide a baseball bat. So you would not need to frisk to look for a baseball bat. You would say, as they do in airports, for example, make sure that outer coats are taken off so you cannot hide something big. Because you could, if you had a very loose coat on you could hide a baseball bat, go through electronic portal and not have anything found. Ways of dealing with that is you ask people to take their coats off, just like in the airport security you are told to take your coat off.

I am not comfortable with regard to the fact that the frisking seems to be extremely arbitrary. I do not know if the minister and his officials looked at that, if they talked about it, if he has a good rationale that he can present here to the House. I would like to hear it. If I am not satisfied then we could do more talking about it in committee when the time comes.

I do understand the need for the security, there is no doubt about that. I think one of the things the minister mentioned is a big issue and that is, for example, at Atlantic Place it always struck me, every time you see on the news those who are accused being brought out from the holding area. They are just out there amidst everybody, the media and their supporters or their family who at least are there to let them know they are there for them, or friends or whatever, everybody is just mingling together. Obviously, one of the things the minister talked about is the fact that that kind of thing is going to end in Atlantic Place, and I think it is extremely important that it do end in Atlantic Place. I do not know how easily you can get it to end, for example, when court is being held in a Lions Club in a rural area or in a motel bar which happens as well, as we know, in some of the areas. At least trying to keep the accused separate from other people in the court area is a way to go.

We do know, as the Opposition House Leader spoke, some people have used something that we would never think of as a weapon but in actual fact is a weapon, and that is the whole thing of spitting. In this day and age where we know how dangerous spitting can be in terms of spreading some serious diseases, then spitting is very frightening for somebody. To have somebody spit on them, especially if the spit were to hit them in the face et cetera, that is very serious.

Security, which is more than just looking at frisking, which is more than just looking at electronic security as you enter but security with regard to keeping prisoners separate from others as they are being brought into court is extremely important. There is absolutely no doubt that most of our situations are situations where it is almost impossible to keep people separate from the public as they are being brought into court. That is certainly true in Atlantic Place in St. John's. I have not been in the new courthouse in Corner Brook and I would imagine that being just opened, that that kind of issue has been dealt with there.

It is a serious issue and certainly those kinds of things need to be put in place. I am glad to see they are being put in place. The issue concerning the frisking, all of it to me has problems. I have named them all; I think I have named them all fairly clearly. I really ask the minister to give us some answers with regard to the frisking.

I want to see if there are some more issues that I have noted here that I want to look at. There is another one that concerns me as well, that is section 8.(3), eviction for disturbance. The whole section is talking about the right of the security officer to evict a person for various reasons.

Number one says, "A security officer shall evict a person from a court area or restricted zone where directed to do so by a judge and may use reasonable force to do so." Then section 8.(2) says, "Unless otherwise directed by a judge, a security officer may evict a person for causing a disturbance in a court area or restricted zone and may use reasonable force to do so." Then it goes into subsection (3) and it defines what disturbance means. "For the purpose of this section, a person causes a disturbance where that person (a) fights, screams, shouts, swears, sings or uses insulting or obscene language; (b) is impaired by alcohol or drugs; (c) impedes or molests another person; or (d) acts in a manner that a judge, or in the absence of a judge, a security officer considers to be disruptive."

Now we have examples, especially in our country, and I think we have some here. We do, and we have more than one here in our own Province as well where people who are mentally disturbed have caused disturbances. The security officers dealing with them, whether it is RCMP or RNC officers, there have been incidents where the security officer dealing with them misunderstood the behaviour of the person with the mental disorder. Some of the actions of security officers have been to use common parlance over the top. We actually have situations where people ended up dead because of the behaviour of the security officer. Very often those things happen because security officers are not trained to know how to deal with somebody who is acting out of a mental disorder.

I have a concern that the definition that is given here with regard to disturbance could cover somebody who is actually acting out of something quite involuntary because of their mental condition. I would be concerned that a security officer would use what a security officer may think is reasonable force but which in actual fact could exacerbate the situation with somebody who has a mental disorder.

I have concerns about security officers who are now going to be involved in screening when they have not done screening before, need to have quite a bit of training to know how to do this screening, especially when you consider that security officers, for example, who are part of the RCMP where they have had a lot of experience for a long time or security officers who basically are part of the RNC. They have quite a bit of training and yet, even they do not have sometimes adequate training with regard to how to deal with people who are in a mode that is causing a disturbance, especially when the person is suffering from a mental disorder. It is also true of somebody who is under the influence of a heavy drug, for example, that great damage can be done.

What is the training that is going to be done to now allow, not only allow but demand that security officers under the sheriff's office will be able to screen and to make judgments with regard to the issues that are put out here in the act? I am not saying that they will not know how to do it, but I am saying if they are not trained to meet the kinds of circumstances that they could face in these situations, because the training is quite specific, that we could have real problems happening. While I really understand the need for security in court situations, it is a highly charged situation and there are moments that can be quite dangerous, at the same time I do not want us going completely over the top with what we are putting in place. I have to ask: Have we had incidents that are so dangerous that we have to go the length that we are going?

I want to vote for security in the court system, I definitely want to vote for that but I do have some very serious concerns, I have named them. I look forward to hearing from the minister with regard to the issues that I have raised and will want to have more discussion and more thought before I can vote for this piece of legislation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am just going to take a few minutes this evening to discuss this, An Act Respecting Court Security. This act will "empower security officers as defined in the Bill to provide court security for the Court of Appeal, the Trial Division - General Division, the Trial Division - Family Division and the Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador".

Under this piece of legislation a security officer is defined as "…the sheriff, a deputy sheriff or a sub-sheriff appointed under the Sheriff's Act, 1991..." In many of our courts today throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, the security in these courts is provided by sheriffs and deputy sheriffs throughout different courts. In cases where sheriffs are not provided, quite often we will find that an officer or a member of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police stationed in the Province act as court security. That is the process that we have in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. This particular act will empower those security officers to have certain powers to ensure the security of our courtrooms. This is a proactive piece of legislation in many respects as it gives those officers the opportunity to ensure the security by taking certain measures.

As some have discussed here already, one of those measures would be a frisk search. It is quite often known as a cursory search of a person's body. As well, it enables them to identify prohibited items as laid out in the act to include such items as alcohol, illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia. It is very common in Newfoundland and Labrador today, more common today than ever before, to find paraphernalia such as needles that are being carried and used by drug users. That would be included under illegal drug paraphernalia, as well as others items, the possession of which is prohibited by the Criminal Code or the laws of the Province.

This is a method in order for security officials, sheriffs and police officers acting in security, as security in our courts, to ensure the safety of people in attendance in courts. That includes the accused - a person may be accused of an offence - victims of crimes, as well as witnesses. It also includes ensuring the security of court staff and judges who act in the courts and carry out the business of the courts. It also, Mr. Speaker, includes the general public. The court system in Newfoundland and Labrador is open to the general public to attend, view and observe. It also helps to ensure the safety of the general public.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that in my lengthy experience in policing, I have had numerous occasions to attend courts, the Provincial Courts, Supreme Courts and as well in Family Court while attending matters that were pertinent to my responsibilities as a police officer. I can tell you that over those years I have experienced many circumstances where circumstances became violent and dangerous to those in attendance.

Sometimes we will see circumstances where accused persons will cause a disturbance, as been referred to earlier. As well, we will see times when family and friends of accused who are upset by the person having to appear before the court, when they become upset and they become violent in the courtroom. We have seen cases where victims of crime or families and friends of victims of crime have become overwhelmed by the seriousness of the matters that are being dealt with before the courts and have also become upset and had to be restrained and dealt with.

I can also tell you, Mr. Speaker, in my experiences over the years, I have seen numerous occasions where persons will carry on themselves, on the person, in a concealed manner, items that can be very dangerous if used inappropriately or intended to be used inappropriately such as a weapon. In a court circumstance, where a person is very upset by one reason or another, by either being a friend or family of a victim or of an accused, or sometimes it might be a person just from the general public who has no particular association at the matter that is before the courts but is upset by the action and the matter itself, being able to hide or conceal different items on the person, very simply hide and conceal items on the person, then there must be a way, a proactive way, for the courts to be able to ensure the safety of those in attendance. This act empowers the security at hand if it be a security officer, as mentioned, a sheriff or deputy sheriff as well as a police officer with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary or a police officer with the RCMP to ensure the safety of those in the courts.

Mr. Speaker, again I told you, as I mentioned earlier, my comments would be brief, but I wanted to speak to this, this evening, based on my own experiences where I have seen people carry knives and sticks, baseball bats at times, pieces of lumber and other objects which they can conceal inside a coat, inside clothing that they are wearing and make it accessible and readily available to them on very short notice and cause harm and injury, very serious injury. This act will protect the courts under sometimes very difficult and trying times and it will protect those people who are in attendance at court.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the comments of my colleagues across the way, as well as my colleague from Topsail. I am not going to take a lot of time responding to the individual issues that were raised, Mr. Speaker, if they are going to be raised again in committee. I see no point in repeating all of this.

Suffice to say, Mr. Speaker, as was just mentioned by my colleague that this act is a much needed act. It is an act in which the government and the department will satisfy its responsibility for public safety and the safety of people using the courts. All of the measures in this act are required and meet with a positive response from the people using our courts. It is a proactive act. It gives certain powers that we think are definitely needed in this modern age of court security, of the sort of crime and the sort of people we are finding in our courts. Mr. Speaker, with regard to the specific issues of frisking I am sure that will come up in committee.

There are a couple I would want to respond to, though, that are not specific to the act. I do not know how often I have to say it. The hon. the Opposition House Leader made a comment that he discovered where this came from; it was done in response to a confidential report that government sat on for six years. We have said on a number of occasions, he is referring obviously to the Norris report, which was commissioned by the court to look at court organization, which was not commissioned by the Province, was not reported to the Province, was not our responsibility to release. It had nothing to do whatsoever with the court security. There were three or four issues of court security mentioned in there, but that report was presented as an organizational plan for the courts and we did not approve or agree with the organizational plan as put forth and that was the end of the matter as far as the government was concerned. The report went to the courts and what the courts would do with it was their business. This act was not drafted, Mr. Speaker, or not presented in response to that report. It has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

I am somewhat surprised at the comments of the Opposition House Leader because what I interpret him as saying is that we do not need this stuff. We do not need regulation to keep from bringing drugs and weapons into the court. We do not need these security measures. I find it somewhat dismaying that he would take that position, but then at the same time, he says if I am going to error, I will come down on the side of the infringement of human rights. So, I do not quite understand where he is coming from. I would assume he will be more specific, Mr. Speaker, in committee. With respect to the issues raised by the Leader of the NDP, again, these are issues which I am sure will come up in committee, and I leave them until then.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Court Security. (Bill 24)

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

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

Now? Tomorrow? Presently?

MS BURKE: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Court Security", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole presently, by leave. (Bill 24)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will call from the Order Paper, Order 11, second reading of a bill, An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Certain Health Professions, Bill 17.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the MHA for Port au Port.

Mr. Speaker, we are here now to deal with An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Certain Health Professions. This is a piece of legislation that we indicated we would be bringing in this session. Mr. Speaker, this act is based upon the principle that public protection is the key purpose of professional regulation, and it is achieved, Mr. Speaker, when qualified practitioners are supported –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Are you going to move the –

MR. KENNEDY: Oh, sorry.

Yes, I move, seconded by my colleague, the Minister of Justice, that Bill 17, An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Certain Health Professions, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 17, An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Certain Health Professions, now be read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Certain Health Professions". (Bill 17)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Okay, I will start again. We are here tonight to deal with An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Certain Health Professions, a piece of legislation that we indicated we were going to bring in this spring. It is an important piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, and it is based upon the principle that public protection is the key to professional regulation.

I spoke briefly of this the other day, Mr. Speaker, in the act respecting social workers, and essentially again, the principle being that public protection is achieved when qualified practitioners are supported in their delivery of health care services while adhering to high standards of professional conduct and competency.

We regulate professionals as a government, Mr. Speaker, when there is a significant risk of public harm if services are inadequately or inappropriately delivered by unqualified or incompetent individuals.

The Health Professions Act, Mr. Speaker, which is the short title for this act, as outlined in section 1, will govern multiple professions under one health professions council which will in turn establish a quality assurance program to promote high standards of practice, including provisions respecting continuing competence, continuing education and professional development.

The umbrella legislation, Mr. Speaker, will allow smaller professions, which may not have the capability on their own to support regulation, to become regulated through the sharing of key resources.

Our government is pleased to introduce this bill, Mr. Speaker, as the group seeking regulation has been requesting this for a number of years.

The objectives of umbrella legislation, Mr. Speaker, are: one, to develop an alternative model for profession seeking regulation; two, to develop a model of regulation for professions whose numbers make self-regulation impractical; three, to grant professions to regulation they have requested under a single professional umbrella act, and most importantly, Mr. Speaker, to protect the public.

Under this present act, Mr. Speaker, medical laboratory technologists, acupuncturists, audiologists, dental hygienists, midwives, respiratory therapists, and speech language pathologists will be regulated under the act. Other health professions can also be included as the need arises.

The new act is consistent, Mr. Speaker, with recent legislative changes for other health related occupations such as massage therapy, veterinary medicine, pharmacy, optometry, physiotherapy, dentistry and nursing.

As I just referenced, Mr. Speaker, the act will create a health professions council that will bring together a variety health professions under one common umbrella to undertake important objectives, act in the public interests, support the quality and safety of health services - and this is outlined, Mr. Speaker, in section 7 of the act - improve patient safety, strengthen the regulatory system and facilitate patient-centred inter-professional collaboration and care.

The council, Mr. Speaker, is the embodiment of the umbrella that we speak of in relation to this legislation. They are the group which will be responsible for registering, monitoring, developing and disciplining members of the various colleges that have come together to enhance public protection. It will be an interdisciplinary council comprised of the various member professions and members of the public who will handle registration and licensure, form a complaints authorization committee, handle all disciplinary matters and promote professional development through continuing education and a defined quality assurance regime.

The specific duties of the council, Mr. Speaker, are set out in 7.(3) of the act and they include to regulate the practice of each profession and govern members. Section 7.(3)(b), monitor compliance with and enforce standards of academic or technical achievement, continuing education.

Again, Mr. Speaker, it further goes on to state: to provide information about the professions to the public and to ensure the public are aware of what professional standards they should expect, how to bring concerns about individual practitioner in compliance with standards, and, Mr. Speaker, to promote inter-professional collaboration among the colleges.

Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do here is to help certain groups that are not big enough to regulate themselves - there can be a number of members - to allow them to come under this umbrella legislation. Unlike existing professional statutes such as the Dental Act, 2008, the Health Professions Act will have specified authority for the Minister of Health and Community Services or designate to intervene and inquire on matters considered to be in the public interest.

Part II of the act, Mr. Speaker, deals with the registration of health professions. It is important to note, Mr. Speaker, that after this bill is proclaimed, individuals will not be able to practice a designated profession unless they meet the registration requirements for the profession and are duly registered.

Part III, Mr. Speaker, then deals with quality assurance. Part II is sections 18 to 20. Part III then begins quality assurance under section 21. In terms of Part II, Mr. Speaker, as with other regulated health professions, there will be a registrar appointed by the council and individuals who do not agree with decisions regarding their ability to register will have the right to appeal. They can appeal first to the council and then to the Supreme Court Trial Division.

Mr. Speaker, I explained this briefly the other day when I talked about the Social Workers Act, but it is important – or sometimes, at least as lawyers, we assume that all members of the public are aware of the complex court structure that exists in this country. As I indicated the other day – and we just heard the previous act, the Court Security Act, and there were references to Atlantic Place and other areas throughout the Province. Well, the Provincial Court, Mr. Speaker, as a lot of members in this House and a lot of members of the public are aware, deals with a lot of provincial offences but also offences under the Criminal Code, Small Claims Act, and offences under the Highway Traffic Act.

So, Mr. Speaker, what we have then, though in this particular act we are dealing with here today, the Health Professions Act, would then go to the next level of court in this Province which is the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division. Mr. Speaker, that is our Supreme Court judges who you see, they come out in their robes. The Provincial Court judges wear robes or suits, but the Supreme Court judges – the Minister of Justice referred to the new courthouse out in Corner Brook that will have both the Provincial Court and the Supreme Court.

It is important, Mr. Speaker, that at any time in our system, if an individual feels aggrieved by a decision made by government or by a self-regulating profession, there has to be a method or manner of appeal. So this section of the act, section 20.(3) gives that ability to appeal within thirty days of the received decision. Thirty days is a standard time frame in a lot of statutes and in the Criminal Code to appeal.

Where thirty days came up, Mr. Speaker, I cannot really say in terms of knowing how someone picked out a thirty-day period, but I think what it has to do with, in law it is accepted that there has to be an end to proceedings. So that if you wish to appeal a matter then you have to deal with it in a certain time frame. There can be extensions of time granted if there is a good reason. Also, I think under the Supreme Court of Canada Act you may have sixty days to file a leave to appeal a decision. In any event, Mr. Speaker, the important point I guess, as I digress somewhat here, is that there is an avenue of appeal.

Mr. Speaker, when preparing to introduce this bill the provincial government had a number of consultations. In November, 2009 and January, 2010, consultations were held with those professions seeking regulation: Aboriginal groups, women's organizations, other jurisdictions, and the regional health authorities. A discussion paper was prepared and meetings took place with all groups requesting regulation. Feedback from the groups impacted by the new legislation has been extremely positive. We have received letters of support by groups who are not directly affected, such as the Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Canadian Dental Hygienists Association, the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women, and Aboriginal groups.

Another group who was pleased to see this introduced, Mr. Speaker, is that of midwives. During the consultations, midwives indicated this was a first step towards recognizing their profession as a regulated health profession in Newfoundland and Labrador. We will continue to work with midwives regarding scope of practice and ways for the public to continue benefiting from the expertise they provide.

The regulation of medical laboratory technologists under the act, Mr. Speaker, is consistent with the recommendations contained in the Cameron report. I think when we gave the Cameron report update earlier in the year I indicated at that point that the Health Professions Act would be brought in, in this sitting. This demonstrates our government's commitment to ensuring high quality standards are put in place in laboratories throughout the Province. This will be among the first professions regulated under the act, and it is our intention to have this work completed in the coming months.

The government recognizes the importance of implementing the recommendations set out by Madam Justice Cameron, as indicated in our update. We have made significant progress putting these into practice and we will continue to implement the remaining recommendations in a timely manner. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the provincial government and the regional health authorities have completed or substantially completed thirty-nine of sixty recommendations contained within the report. A key piece of this legislation has to do with quality assurance. In fact, as I have indicated earlier, Part III of the act outlines the quality assurance provisions.

The purpose of quality assurance, Mr. Speaker, and again, if anyone is interested in reading the act but I will attempt to summarize here. The purpose of quality assurance activities is to ensure that there is ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the quality of a service and to promote the highest possible standards of practice and service delivery for the public. There are a number of provisions in the bill that address the need for a focus on quality assurance.

Under section 21, Mr. Speaker, the council will be required to establish and maintain a quality assurance program. This must include a mandatory continuing education and professional development program. The bill allows the council to appoint a quality assurance committee with the role of investigating practice concerns that may be brought to their attention but that are not of a nature that would be considered conduct deserving of sanction.

Again, Mr. Speaker, as I was talking about the Social Workers Act the other day, I indicated the difference – I think it was during the Social Workers Act, I indicated the difference between the two. Conduct deserving of sanction may be conduct that is more blatant or egregious or conduct that is more serious, that would engage the college or council in disciplinary conduct. Again, I went through that the other day, how in the Social Workers Act and how in many of these self-regulating bodies, how that is done.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lower threshold which could lead to concerns about practice that may not be conduct deserving of sanction. Oftentimes, Mr. Speaker, in any practice or profession individuals have to exercise professional judgement, but because you make a bad decision does not mean that you have made a decision which is deserving of sanction. That sanction can be, Mr. Speaker, it can be everything from a letter of reprimand, to a council, to a fine, to a disciplinary hearing. Again, I outlined the other day the process by which this procedure could begin.

Mr. Speaker, what that decision though, or a number of decisions could lead the body or council to question whether or not the individual involved is up to standard in terms of the quality required to practice his or her profession. It still may not amount to conduct deserving of sanction, but the way things were done thirty years ago may not be the way things are done today. So, the requirement for mandatory education, the requirement for continuing education, the requirement for refresher courses is something that we must always consider. That is why mandatory continuing education and professional development becomes so important.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the basis for a lot of these professions will still be a good dose of common sense and human nature, but it depends on the nature of the profession that we are dealing with. If you are dealing with - obviously, the medical laboratory technologists, they are going to have to ensure that they are up to date with the latest procedures and processes out there and that the equipment they are utilizing is something which they are trained to do. Mr. Speaker, it could be a different requirement under other professions. Again, such as the social workers we talked about the other day can be - when we look at the groups that we talked about here today, we are looking at, as I have indicated, the medical laboratory technologists, the midwives. There are a number of other groups that will be brought in under this act, acupuncturists, audiologists, dental hygienists.

So, the point is that the standards applied to these professionals will oftentimes vary with the nature of the professional activity so that people who are familiar with that process will certainly be able to make these judgments. In this particular case, and I do not know how many acupuncturists there would be in the Province, Mr. Speaker, but we know there are not as many as there are in terms of medical laboratory technologists. This council will allow for the regulation to take place and for standards to be put in place and for complaints to be brought forward.

Mr. Speaker, I come back to, again, the purpose of these initiatives, and that is to ensure ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the quality of a service and to promote the highest possible standards of practice. We have a quality assurance program; the council will appoint a quality assurance committee. They can investigate these practice concerns that may be brought to their attention. Again, as I indicated the other day, Mr. Speaker, they can come forward most often by an individual who feels aggrieved. However, it could be a family member; it could be another member of a profession who has a concern about what is going on with an individual in the profession.

The council, Mr. Speaker, will have significant investigative powers to support the council in carrying out their quality assurance, public protection mandate. For example, ordering a health professional to be assessed, or take an exam, or review an individual's practice, subpoena records, et cetera. Like in the Registered Nurses Act, 2008 and the Medical Act, 2005, there is a duty on health professions to report to the council when they are aware that a practitioner in the same profession may have engaged in conduct deserving of sanction. We always have to be careful of that, Mr. Speaker, because in any profession we may have people who dislike each other, who may have had run-ins with each other, may be competitive with each other. So we always have to look at this and bring an objective assessment obviously, but this is a good requirement that other individuals in the profession will have to bring that concern forward. What this act does, Mr. Speaker, it puts a duty on them and a duty to comply with it.

We also view the requirement, Mr. Speaker, for professional liability insurance outlined in section 19.(3)(b) as an important quality assurance measure, giving its protection of the individual practitioners and the public who may be seeking redress for practice errors.

Mr. Speaker, I can, again, speak in terms of the Law Society in my practice as a lawyer, and I forget the exact amounts of insurance. I know we paid fairly high fees each year for, not only our registration but for the insurance. I think lawyers would be covered - I am not certain, Mr. Speaker, I think it was up to $1 million. It serves the purpose of insuring, not only the lawyer against mistakes and negligence but also to insuring that the public have proper redress.

Mr. Speaker, under sections 58 and 59 - if I could just jump ahead for a second - give the minister the powers to conduct investigations. It says, Mr. Speaker, and this is important, section 58, "Where, after consulting with the council or affected college, the minister considers it to be in the public interest, he or she may appoint a person to review and make recommendations about…" It then goes on to outline "(a) the quality of the administration and management, including financial management, of the council or a college; (b) the administration of this Act as it relates to a heath profession; (c) the performance of other duties and powers imposed on the council, a college or committees of the council… (d) the practice of a health profession."

So, Mr. Speaker, the minister does have powers, but I can state that these are intended as a last resort. The purpose behind this bill and these other bills that we have brought in over the last period of time is that these professions, or professions, because they are themselves involved in that same practice are the ones who are familiar with the ethical and professional concerns placed upon them. They are the ones who can best judge the quality of the work. They are the ones who know what is expected of them and they are the ones who can tell if their peers are not complying with the quality assurance requirements or the competency standards.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a matter simply of a minister coming in and saying: well, I do not like what is going on here, we are going to change things. This provision here under sections 58 and 59, and I would indicate, are meant to be a fail safe valve.

Section 59 states, "Where a review has been completed under section 58, the minister may accept or reject the recommendations of the person appointed under that section…" So, the minister is still given discretion to act but does not have to. May accept or reject and even then, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that any minister will be wary to move too fast. It will certainly take and require a good review and healthy debate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we also looked at, in developing this act, best practices in other Canadian jurisdictions. Five provinces in Canada have umbrella legislation that regulates all health professions. Those are British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec; however, Mr. Speaker, the legislation in our Province will regulate only certain health professions. So each profession regulated under the act will establish a college, will be a source of professional expertise to assist and guide the council to establish regulation criteria for registration, continued competence and discipline. Now, that is again very important, Mr. Speaker, because we are not only dealing with a council but we are dealing with a college that will, again, be familiar with the ethical, professional standards, quality assurance initiatives and competency requirements.

So, Mr. Speaker, these colleges will then provide the council with all of the professional expertise needed. By constituting individual colleges under the council – so we come back, again, to our midwives, our acupuncturists, our medical laboratory technologists, speech language pathologists, dental hygienists and respiratory therapists. They will each establish a college. The college will then provide the council with all the professional expertise. So, by constituting individual colleges under the council, umbrella professions will maintain their independence and expertise while collaborating with other professions to ensure public protection. There are times, Mr. Speaker, when health professionals will engage in conduct that is inappropriate against established standards of practice and codes of ethics that is found deserving of sanction.

Part V of the bill, Mr. Speaker, sets out the process to bring forward these complaints. Part V is headed up Discipline, and is contained in sections 33 to 50 of the act. Section 33 states that "This part applies to all health professions designated under this Act." Mr. Speaker, an allegation is "a written document alleging that a person…" – and this is the definition section of the act – "…has engaged in conduct deserving of sanction; "complainant" means a person making an allegation…; "conduct deserving of sanction" includes (i) professional misconduct, (ii) unprofessional conduct".

Now, Mr. Speaker, the average person – I guess not the average person, anyone may say: Well, what is the difference between professional misconduct and unprofessional conduct? Now, I am not sure I have the answer right off but if I were to look at the words, professional misconduct means that you are engaging in activity during the actual practice of your profession, which is something that can possibly amount to an allegation deserving of sanction. Whereas unprofessional conduct, Mr. Speaker, could relate to things going on in terms of the - I suppose it could go as far as a person's personal life, financial affairs, or whether or not there are issues arising, for example, such as getting involved with the criminal law. So that someone who is convicted of a criminal offence – although that may not be professional misconduct, although it could be, it could certainly be unprofessional conduct.

"Professional incompetence"; again, Mr. Speaker, as I earlier indicated, it is a thin line in determining professional competence or incompetence because every profession has individuals who are better than the others. Now, some people work harder, some people are smarter, and some people make mistakes. So, Mr. Speaker, professional incompetence is a difficult one and I would suggest that oftentimes, while it could be an individual decision, there would more often be a pattern here or it would have to be gross negligence or negligence, where oftentimes we talk about the duty of care or the fact that a – what is the duty of care expected of a reasonably competent, it could be a lawyer or doctor, in these circumstances? So, again, professional incompetence is one we have to be careful of because of that thin line, Mr. Speaker.

"Conduct unbecoming a health professional, (v) incapacity or unfitness to practise as a health professional"; again, Mr. Speaker, I am not quite certain what that would amount to, but that could be something that would be best left to the colleges and the council to determine. Then, of course, Mr. Speaker, "…acting in breach of this Act, the regulations or the by-laws".

Mr. Speaker, we go on to Part V, the process to bring forward complaints to council, either from a member of the public, as I have indicated, who will oftentimes feel aggrieved by a decision made and may very well be aggrieved. It is very important that they have a process as a member of the public to bring forward their complaint; or in circumstances where information is in the public domain, the council itself can initiate an investigation. That is a little bit more difficult, Mr. Speaker, because information in the public domain, we have to distinguish fact from gossip and innuendo.

Again, I think I talked the other day briefly about the importance of a person's reputation and how we have to ensure that even though a complaint may be made or an allegation made, that a decision is made on facts. So, I would suggest that the council would be more reluctant to act in these circumstances by initiating an investigation, but there may be circumstances, Mr. Speaker, that are so blatantly obvious that the council will feel that they can do that. So, I would suggest to you that that will not be the normal procedure but that oftentimes there will be complaints coming from other members of the profession or from, more likely, members of the public.

Mr. Speaker, the model of discipline set out in the bill will be familiar to members of this House. It is the same one first described in the White Paper on the regulation of occupations, and since incorporated, in fifteen health statutes and many others governing professions in this Province. Mr. Speaker, it has been a common theme over the last, almost three years that I have been here now.

The act will come into effect on a day proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. However, Mr. Speaker, before the legislation can be proclaimed, regulations respecting the relevant professions must be developed, which will require extensive consultations in collaboration with these professions. Because I keep coming back to that basic point, they are the ones who know what is required of their members from a professional, an ethical and a competency standard.

Mr. Speaker, this is, I would suggest to you, a unique bill which will allow for continued evolution as professions complete the work required to establish their colleges. The bill will apply to different professions at different times. As we indicated, medical laboratory technologists will be one of the first groups that we will deal with.

In order to ensure clarity regarding our intention of having the act apply to different professions at different times, Mr. Speaker, I will be introducing an amendment during the committee discussion to ensure that we can proclaim the act in whole or in part as determined by the state of readiness of the professions. In other words, we cannot force this upon them, Mr. Speaker. They have to feel that they are ready to deal with this.

Our government, Mr. Speaker, continues to look at health regulation from a new and different perspective; a perspective that focuses on transparency of the professions, accountability to the public and government, and development of high-quality assurance programs. Mr. Speaker, I am not saying, nor are we saying as a government that this piece of legislation will mean that there will never be mistakes made. It does not mean that there will not be incompetent or unprofessional conduct. What we are simply trying to do is to put forward a model that allows these, in this particular act, the smaller groups who want to be self-regulated to have a say in how they are governed. We think that that is a very good thing, Mr. Speaker.

I am not going to go through the complaints authorization process but if anyone is interested in it, it is in section 38 of the act. It outlines the investigations, the complaints authorization committee. It talks about the adjudication tribunal and the hearing.

I talked a little bit the other day, Mr. Speaker, about the process when there is a hearing and if an allegation is made against you, especially as a member of a profession, then your reputation is oftentimes the most valuable thing you have. Therefore there is an onus and a duty upon an investigation to ensure that relevant facts are brought forward, but also that a person has a chance to defend him or herself, Mr. Speaker. That is where we are in the - where the rules of natural justice come into play in these types of hearings. The rules of natural justice require that a person have a right to be heard and a right to present their case. It does not mean that we will have the strict rules of evidence that apply in a court of law.

For example, Mr. Speaker, one that jumps out at me is the use of hearsay evidence in a criminal trial is much more strictly circumscribed than it is in a hearing of this nature. However, Mr. Speaker, hearsay evidence in a criminal trial can have a devastating effect, simply for the fact that it can be part of circumstantial evidence and can be given undue weight. So that is why there has to be strict admissibility rules that require that there be, what is referred to as a circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness dealing with reliability, the principles of reliability and necessity.

In a tribunal like this, Mr. Speaker, hearsay evidence can be put in because oftentimes issues are not in dispute, to give someone a background, to simply get the facts out there, but again, we always have to be careful with the use of hearsay evidence. The point, Mr. Speaker, is that we do not want these adjudicated tribunal hearings to go on as long as court cases. So in doing that, it is not that we are circumventing or shortcutting the rules of evidence, it is just that the rules of evidence are being modified to suit the particular hearing in question.

Mr. Speaker, another one of the rules of natural justice is that an individual is entitled to be represented by council, and that is outlined in section 40 of the act. Then we have to be provided - an individual has to be provided with the documents that are being relied upon. Again, a very common sense approach, that if you are going to be facing an allegation then you have the opportunity to respond and to present your case.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at – again, I am not going to go through this in detail, but under section 42, if an individual pleads guilty there are a number of ranges of the types of sentence that can be provided and they are really quite extensive here. They can range from everything, Mr. Speaker, from a reprimand to a suspension, to a fine not exceeding $100,000 to be paid to the council, a cost or part of the cost incurred in the investigation, compliance with everything from making restitution to the complainant, obtaining medical treatment or counselling, obtaining substance abuse counselling or treatment until the respondent can demonstrate to the council or other body or person that the person responding capable or unfit to practice has been overcome.

Again, Mr. Speaker, these provisions are such that if an individual in life is encountering certain difficulties, it could be anything from a marital break up to family problems, to mental illness, to alcohol or drug abuse, that the individual is given an opportunity, I guess for lack of a better term, to rehabilitate. Once they can determine or show to their council that they have dealt with the issues, or are dealing with the issues involved, then the council can take all of that into account.

Mr. Speaker, these are ways of – it is not simply a matter of kicking someone out of their profession. That is not the only way we achieve the protection of the public interest. Oftentimes in the criminal law you would say that the public is best protected when the individual involved is rehabilitated, when the individual who has problems or who has committed a crime as a result of certain illness or it could be, again, mental illness or substance abuse, that if they deal with these issues they pose less of a threat, or perhaps even no threat to society. We are seeing similar principles here outlined in this act. That is under section 42; it deals with the guilty plea.

Under section 43, Mr. Speaker, you get the hearing of the complaint. All it says is that "…an adjudication tribunal shall decide…" – so the use of that mandatory shall, Mr. Speaker, means that there has to be a decision "…whether or not a respondent is guilty of conduct deserving of sanction." So, again, we have to go back to our definition of conduct deserving of sanction. This is where there could be a lesser standard, Mr. Speaker, unless you come within - an individual - that definition of conduct deserving of sanction, then you have to be found not guilty because the word shall is used.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is not simply a matter of determining whether or not they like you or whether or not you may have committed a complaint, it is they shall decide. Now, where they decide though, that the respondent is not guilty, it shall dismiss the complaint and where it believes that the submission of the complainant to the tribunal was a hearing, but where it believes that the submission of the complaint to the tribunal for a hearing was unreasonable order that the cost be paid by the respondent.

So, that is a little bit unusual there, Mr. Speaker, in terms of you can be found not guilty and still have to pay the cost and make any other order it deems appropriate. If an adjudication tribunal decides the respondent is guilty, again, you will see the outline here of the types of conditions that can be applied on an individual.

Mr. Speaker, there is the process or outline for the filing and publication of decisions and the de-registration and suspension. Now, interesting, Mr. Speaker, under section 47, "Where a decision or order of the adjudication tribunal (a) suspends the respondent; (b) allows or directs the respondent to surrender his or her registration; (c) restricts the respondent's practice; or (d) specifies conditions for the continuing practice of the respondent, and where the respondent alleges that new evidence has become available or a material change in circumstances has occurred since the making of the decision or order, the respondent may apply to the complaints authorization committee for a supplementary hearing…". Now, Mr. Speaker, in criminal law you would have to go the appeal route and show that your new evidence is available at the next level of court, or if there is a material change in circumstances, unless you have been found guilty, and before a conviction is entered, then there are very restrictive circumstances where you can ask to have this evidence brought forward.

So, this procedure, Mr. Speaker, I like this is in that you do not have to go through an unnecessary appeal, what you can deal with here is if you have a change in circumstances or new evidence, and ask them to vary it. Now, Mr. Speaker, again, there has to be a basis, or there has to be a time frame involved, and an application under section 1 is ninety days. Now, it gets to be a bit tricky, Mr. Speaker, because new evidence might not always be available, so then what do you do from there? Well, then the normal appeal periods, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, would apply. Under the section, the complaints authorization tribunal or an adjudication tribunal may make a decision it deems fit. Mr. Speaker, there is still the appeal to the Trial Division, under section 50. I am trying to look at here, Mr. Speaker, at how we can reconcile the ninety-day period to find new evidence and go back to the committee for a re-hearing and a thirty-day period with appeal. So, Mr. Speaker, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations, the minister may make regulations, are outlined in the Part VI, called Regulations. Under Part VII is the General. I talked about the powers of the ministers earlier, Mr. Speaker.

So, Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do here, as a government, is to provide quality, reliable and safe access to health care throughout the Province. So this new legislation, Mr. Speaker, will provide professional regulation that will ensure protection of the public through the establishment of consistent licensing, quality assurance and disciplinary processes, and under this new legislation, Mr. Speaker, the groups again, in conclusion, that will be dealt with are medical laboratory technologists, acupuncturists, audiologists, dental hygienists, midwives, respiratory therapists and speech language pathologists.

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated there has been consultations with these various groups that medical laboratory technologists as outlined under Cameron will be one of the first professions included under the legislation. We will continue to work with these groups, Mr. Speaker, and bring in these groups when they have had a time to determine the regulations that apply to them. There will be a quality assurance council; the colleges will have an opportunity to get together.

Mr. Speaker, in all, we feel that this is a good act. It is one that continues on the road that we have been on with the regulation of self-governing bodies and especially as it comes to disciplinary processes, but always, Mr. Speaker, with a view to furthering the public interest.

Mr. Speaker, those would be my comments for now.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to speak to Bill 17, the Health Professions Act.

Mr. Speaker, I guess there is a lot of history behind this particular act and similar ones that were introduced in the House of Assembly. In fact, in 1996 there was a paper done and it was released titled Challenging Responses to Changing Times. It was new proposals for occupational regulations for all occupations within the Province. It encouraged governments to basically take a critical look at self-governance for all of these different bodies and organizations.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, over the course of that period of time there has been a number of bills introduced in the House that do provide for that kind of self-governance in a number of occupational areas. Some of those areas would include: dentistry, nurse practitioners - there was a whole series of them, and I do not recollect all of them at this stage, in which we dealt with this type of legislation and bringing it forward.

This evening, Mr. Speaker, we are doing so for another group of professionals within the Province that is going to be covered now under this particular act. They would include things like: acupuncturists, audiologists, dental hygienists, medical laboratory technologists, midwives, respiratory therapists and speech language pathologists.

Mr. Speaker, the goals of the paper at the time and the legislation is really to encourage comprehensive and consistent practices within all of these particular professions and occupational areas. It is also, Mr. Speaker, to improve public protection through the establishment of efficient and effective disciplinary mechanisms. I will get into discussing that as we go through this particular bill. It is to engender more public trust in the process of self-governance and to ensure practitioners are dealt with fairly.

Mr. Speaker, a self-regulating organization will protect the public, not only the economic interests of the practitioners who are involved and the public demand standards of practitioners who are credited to provide services in that market, but some such organizations, as I have said, have already seen this type of legislation introduced and I named a couple of them – dentistry being one, architects, engineers, psychologists, veterinarians, and I know there were others as well. Most of the other self-regulating bodies have had their legislation changed since this was introduced and they now have adopted the same process and procedure.

Mr. Speaker, under this particular legislation, which as I said is really designed to protect the public to the greatest extent, but also to allow these professional groups to have input into how they are governed in their own profession. It certainly allows mechanisms to deal with a whole series of issues that could arise within their particular profession – everything, Mr. Speaker, to do with licensing and registration, and to do with other factors as well.

Mr. Speaker, the umbrella legislation contained within the bill really is a model for governance of certain health professions. It will allow that multiple health professions govern under one health professional council in combination with professions and specific colleges. Mr. Speaker, this was done because there were a number of disciplines in the Province who were working without regulation. A number of them we have heard about many times. In fact, one such group, such as midwifery, Mr. Speaker, was one of the ones that we continued to raise in the House of Assembly a number of times over the past five or six years.

Mr. Speaker, the bill will give the Health Professions Council the responsibility for regulation of all professions captured by the legislation. It includes professions for registration, quality assurance and discipline.

It also provides opportunities for the creation of specific colleges, which would be the source of professional expertise to assist and guide the council in the establishment of criteria or benchmarks for registration, entry to practice and continued competency. It would also allow profession specific colleges to establish its own bylaws, the scope of practice, the standards of practice and a code of ethics for these professional organizations.

The college, Mr. Speaker, according to this act, will mean the college of a health profession or group of health professions established under the act. A separate college is established for each health profession designed under the act, and the college will act in all matters in the best interests of the public.

So, basically, what the legislation does is it first of all outlines a council. A council is a committee, and I will get into how that council or committee is composed, to how it is structured, and what the responsibilities are. Also under that council, Mr. Speaker, they have the authority to set up other committees such as a registration committee that would look at the actual registration of all of the health professional groups. They also have the authority to set up a quality assurance committee. That quality assurance committee is deemed with certain responsibilities under the act as well. One of those is the ability to appoint an assessor, and I will get into what the role of the quality assurance committee will be, along with the assessors that they appoint.

As well, under the act, Mr. Speaker, as well as composing a council, they will also have the ability to set up separate colleges. So each of these particular professions, such as the acupuncturists, the audiologists, the dental hygienists, the medical laboratory technologists, the midwives, the respiratory therapists, and the speech language pathologists will all have the authority to set up a separate college for each of their professions, and they will be the bodies that will actually govern these particular professions. I will get into talking about how those particular colleges will work in representing each individual professional group. Also under these college groups, Mr. Speaker, they have the authority, as well, to appoint committees, and one such committee that they do have the authority to appoint would be under the membership committee.

So we have a council that is being composed, we have a separate college for each profession that will fall under this act, as well, Mr. Speaker, there will be a complaints authorization committee and disciplinary panel. That particular panel and committee will have specific functions as it relates to the act as well, and I will get into talking about how that particular complaints and disciplinary panel will work and the responsibilities that they will be entrusted with.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, the act also provides for an adjudication tribunal, and, of course, this is a superior part of the bill that has very specific functions in terms of dealing with these professional groups. We will also take the opportunity to explain what their responsibilities are and the authority that is entrusted to them under the act. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, there are certain functions that the minister will have and abilities that the minister will be granted under this particular act to override, in some cases, the decisions that have been made by any of these particular groups or the council at the end of the day, and, of course, these would apply in very specific circumstances and very specific cases. We will attempt to explain what powers that are being entrusted to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite a comprehensive bill and what I have just outlined is basically the major components of the bill. What I have not talked about yet is what the functions of those specific components will be and how each of those particular committees, disciplinary panels and adjudication tribunals will be set up.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, this is not a new piece of legislation. As I said, precedent has been set in the House under other professional groups. It really falls in line with legislation that has been consistent for all of these other professional groups as I have outlined already, there have been a number of them. Mr. Speaker, although it is not new, I think it deserves to have explanation and I will certainly take the opportunity to do that.

Mr. Speaker, the council shall act in the public interest. The objectives of the council are to support the quality and safety of health services, to enhance public protection, to improve patient safety and strengthen the regulatory system, and facilitate patient-centred inter-professional collaboration and care and enhance the public protection. The council, Mr. Speaker, will consist of three representatives from each college, two elected officials, as well an appointed individual. There are seven health professionals represented by this act, which means this will be a council of twenty-one individuals who would make up this particular council under this Bill 17.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the council under these twenty-one people shall consist of a chair of the college which is established under the act, one other member elected from and by each college, as well as an individual who is appointed by the minister representing each college who is suitable to represent the public's interest. It also outlines in the bill, Mr. Speaker, the requirements for a quorum, an oath of affirmation, an appointment of a registrar, the details regarding a Web site that must be available to the public, the ability to set fees, the requirement to submit an annual report and the possibility of making by-laws.

Mr. Speaker, the council is deemed with a tremendous amount of responsibility, as I just indicated. Once their committee members are compiled and elected, and because they will represent seven particular groups here, along with the chair who will be appointed and other members, we are looking at a council of approximately twenty-one members.

Mr. Speaker, the council shall also appoint a person as a registrar. That registrar, Mr. Speaker, shall be a non-voting member of the council. The registrar shall keep all records and maintain all records of the council. They shall maintain a Web site for the council, and I will get into that in a few minutes, and they shall act as a member of the council.

Mr. Speaker, the duties of the registrar will be those that are assigned by the council, and can be assigned by the council. Council may also appoint a deputy registrar and officers, managers, other staff and employees as is required or necessary in terms of carrying out the responsibilities and the duties of the council. The registrar shall maintain a registered list of all the health professionals in which he or she shall ensure that they have proper records of their names and any other information that may be required regarding that particular health professional. Also, "The registrar shall make the register of the council available for inspection by the public on reasonable notice and at reasonable hours."

Mr. Speaker, it will be public information, those who are registered with the council. People will be able to check that, obtain that information and know if the service they are seeking from an individual, to ensure that individual is actually registered with the council within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, there will be a Web site, which I think is important. The registrar shall maintain a Web site so that the public shall be able to access information regarding the activities of the council, such as their annual reports, such as the registry of names of professionals that I have just talked about that would have to be outlined, as well as a copy of the regulations and by-laws that have been made by the council. The Web site will also provide links to the Web sites of the individual colleges. So you will be able to go in under the council Web site and not only see if the acupuncturist that you want to hire, Mr. Speaker, or seek the service of is a registered individual in the Province, but you may also log on to that particular professional site and see the list for everyone in the Province that may be registered.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the person may request and the council should provide the information on this Web site to any person who may need it. It does say that they can charge a fee for doing that. I do not know why that is, maybe because there is a certain amount of work or responsibility that is included in doing that.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I said you could access through that Web site would be the annual report. The annual report of the council would include a year-end report. It would be done every year, and the activities of the council. It should include their audited financial statements, statistics respecting the frequency and circumstances of access to patient records, and the annual reports of each college established under the act. That is outlined here in section 29. I will get to that, Mr. Speaker, when I talk about how the professional colleges are set up and what the entitlements are under that particular regime.

Mr. Speaker, the minister also has the responsibility to table the annual report of this council in the House of Assembly within fifteen days of receiving it or I guess within the next sitting day. Where the council fails to comply with subsection (1) - which, as I outlined, is their annual report, their audited financial statements and so on, along with the reports of their colleges - where they fail to comply with providing that particular information, they can be found guilty of an offence and they can be liable to a fine of up to $1,000.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is some of the details of the council itself, but under the council they also have the ability to set up a registration committee. This section of the bill, which is titled Registration, actually includes two particular sections of the act. It says: The council shall establish a registration committee which will evaluate health professional's applicants for registration. The successful applicant will be required to meet the requirements for registration, maintain professional liability insurance and pay the required fee. This decision can be appealed within thirty days of receipt of the decision.

Mr. Speaker, under this particular section of Registration: A person may not practice a health profession which is designated in the Schedule unless that individual is registered under this particular act. So, if you are a midwife, or an audiologist, or a dental hygienist, an acupuncturist, a medical lab technologist, a respiratory therapist or a speech language pathologist, you have to be registered under this particular act in order to practice in Newfoundland and Labrador. There will be a registration committee established and that committee will evaluate all the applications that come in from these professional groups and professionals. Where the registration requirements have not been met under this particular act, they will not be granted permission. Mr. Speaker, in order to work within the field in this Province they do have to be registered.

Mr. Speaker, "After consulting with the college of the affected health profession, the council shall, with the approval of the minister, prescribe the registration requirements for that health profession in the regulations." Basically, what that means is that if you take a group like dental hygienists, they will have the input to the minister in terms of what the registration requirements are necessary for their particular occupational area for their profession. They will be able to outline with the minister what the requirements are and prescribe those requirements as part of the regulations under this particular act. Then, Mr. Speaker, a person who wishes to be registered will have to meet those requirements as they are outlined and maintain professional liability insurance of a type and in an amount that is acceptable to the council. That will obviously be set out by the council in consultation with all of these professional groups that will be set up and identified within their own colleges.

Mr. Speaker, a person who is affected by a decision of the registration committee respecting their registration - whether they are turned down or whether there is some other issue - they will have the opportunity to appeal that decision that was made by the registration committee. They will have the opportunity to appeal it "…within 30 days of receipt of the decision," and they will have to "…appeal it to the Trial Division by filing a notice of appeal with the Registrar of the Supreme Court."

Under this particular section, Mr. Speaker, the council will have a registration committee, and after consulting with the affected colleges pertaining to that profession – and I use the example of the dental hygienists – then they would outline their own requirements for registration of health professionals within their group, and then any person who wants to practice in the Province will have to meet those particular registration requirements in order to practice. In addition to that, they must maintain a professional liability insurance which will be set out by the council or the acceptability of it will be determined by the council, and they must pay the required fees that are established to practice within the Province. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, as I said, if they do not like the decision they do have the opportunity to appeal it.

Mr. Speaker, under Part III they talk about the quality assurance program. The council will establish and maintain a quality assurance program that includes continuing education and professional development that will be designed to promote continuing competence and continuing quality improvements.

Mr. Speaker, the council, under this legislation, may appoint a quality assurance committee and the committee themselves may appoint persons registered or licensed as health professionals as assessors. I talked about that earlier on when I introduced my first comments. Mr. Speaker, as I said, the quality assurance program is there to ensure and promote professional development, to ensure that there is continued competence and to ensure that there are improvements.

Mr. Speaker, the quality assurance committee will also be given certain powers under this particular act. They may have the power to actually order a health professional to undergo an evaluation or an assessment. They may order a review of a health professional's practice and a review of patient records, if they deem that it is necessary, to ensure that these individuals are meeting the required regulations. They may order periodic audits of aspects of health professional's practices and they may accept an agreement between the council and the health professional to give effect to matters within the quality assurance committee and regulations.

"Where a health professional fails to comply with an order made by the quality assurance committee, that committee shall refer that failure to comply as an allegation to the complaints authorization committee." That is another committee that is actually being set up under this particular act. I will get into that later because, as I said, it is the council, then it is the colleges and, as well, there is a complaints committee and disciplinary panel that go along with this. So when we are dealing with certain sections and it talks about appealing to these different groups and different professional committees, well then these are outlined as well further on in the particular bill.

Mr. Speaker, the quality assurance committee, as I stated in my opening remarks, they also have the ability to appoint under this act an assessor. "An assessor may, for the purposes of the quality assurance program with the co-operation of the health professional (a) enter and inspect the premises where that health professional engages in the health profession". The assessor also has the authority under this act to "…inspect that health professional's records of care administered to patients".

Basically, Mr. Speaker, not only do you have a quality assurance committee that can walk into the offices of any of these people, whether it be midwives, dental hygienists, audiologists or whatever, and examine the records within their office and look at their particular scope of practice and review their patient records and so on, they can do this on a periodic basis, they can conduct a random audit of these particular health professional practices, but also they have the authority to appoint an assessor.

That assessor, Mr. Speaker, can enter the premises of an audiology practice, a dental hygienist practice, or a respiratory therapy practice, and they can actually inspect the premises where that health professional engages and provides their practice from. They can inspect the records that are there in terms of the care that is being administered to patients. Mr. Speaker, they can ask for information respecting the assessment and care of patients by this health professional group. They can also require that the health professional confer with the quality assurance committee and that the standards of practice that they fall under are subject to the quality assurance program.

So, Mr. Speaker, an assessor has a tremendous amount of power as well because they can also access patient records without the consent of that patient. All records and specific information relating to the quality assurance program or a review of recommendations under it is confidential. So, it is quite the authority that they have been given here.

One of the things that may be of concern to the public is the ability of an assessor who is wondering if a health professional is meeting the quality assurance regulations as outlined, meeting the regulations as outlined by the college, upholding the conditions of their registrations and licensing to practice within the Province. In carrying out that, they have the ability to access patient records without the consent of a patient. That is obviously something that could be of concern to patients in the Province in terms of letting those records that are owned by their professional doctor, physician or whoever they visit, Mr. Speaker, being assessed and accessed without their consent.

So, Mr. Speaker, there is also, under this particular section, a duty here to report. I guess what that basically states is that if you know or if you are aware of a health professional who falls under this particular act that is not abiding by the laws, not responsibly carrying out their practice and abiding by the rules and regulations under which they are governed in this Province, then there is a duty to report. So any health professional, Mr. Speaker, who has knowledge, from a direct observation or objective evidence, of conduct deserving of sanctioning of another health professional of the same profession shall report the known facts to the registrar; that is a duty that they are bound by under this particular legislation.

Mr. Speaker, a person who dissolves a partnership with a health professional based on direct knowledge of the health professional's conduct deserving of sanction shall report the known facts to the registrar. So say, Mr. Speaker, I am into practice with a group of respiratory therapists in the Province and we happen to separate, we happen to dissolve that particular partnership, and we do so because of some issues with regard to health professionals within that partnership, then there is a duty as well, to report that and to ensure that it is reported to the registrar. The registrar is what I have just outlined, and they are the ones who have the ability and the mechanism under the law, Mr. Speaker, to carry out the required investigations.

Mr. Speaker, any person who observes something or knows something, in terms of violations of other health professionals and they report that, or any person who is in a partnership – and I use the example of respiratory therapists – within that practice and gets out of that practice because there is a breach of laws or regulations within that professional group or within that office, well then they do have the duty to report, but if they report it they will not have any actions brought against them. The legislation does protect them under this particular duty to bring forward any knowledge that they know or have observed with regard to these particular sections.

Mr. Speaker, also under this act the council is the umbrella group, as I said, which represents all seven of the professions that fall within this legislation. That is why the council itself is such a larger organization that will be compiled of something like twenty-one members as part of this particular council. Each of these professional groups, Mr. Speaker, has the ability to set up their own colleges. What these colleges would be is basically a membership of the people within that professional organization.

So, audiologists, for example, would have their own particular college that would be compromised of all audiologists within the Province that have a licence to practice or registered under the laws of the Province to practice in Newfoundland and Labrador. The same thing, there would be a college set up of dental hygienists, and again, it would be those individuals who have the authority under the law, under Bill 17, to be able to practice within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is the same thing for the other five professions: acupuncturists, medical laboratory technologists, midwives, respiratory therapists and speech language pathologists.

All of those individuals, Mr. Speaker, will have their own college and each college will elect from those professional memberships that are part of it a chair and a vice-chair. The act outlines that the college shall act in the best interests of the public, and each college is required to submit an annual report each year of its operations. When I talked about the responsibilities under the council here to report on an annual basis and include in their annual report not only the reporting of the year of the council but the audits and financial statements but also the report of each of these individual colleges. They are required to do this under this particular bill.

Each college, Mr. Speaker, will also under this legislation approve a program of study and education for the purposes of educational requirements. This is not unusual, Mr. Speaker. Every professional group within the Province who has their own regulations and guidelines establishes certain particular rules around the programs of study for their particular professions and the education levels that are required, so that is nothing new. We saw that in the other bills that were approved regarding everything from architects to dentists and veterinarians and so on in the Province. What is being outlined under this group of health professionals is very much the same thing. It is exactly the same thing actually, Mr. Speaker.

Each college will also have the opportunity to develop entry into practice requirements. They will establish a scope of practice for the health profession that it represents, and it will establish standards of practice as well as develop a code of ethics. All of these things are standard within every professional group within the Province today.

For example, this particular college, the college of midwifery - as we know is a group who has been waiting for this legislation for quite a long time - they would, under this particular legislation, now establish the scope of practice for their particular professional group. As we know, midwifery was very well regulated at one time within the Province to a certain degree. Government, Mr. Speaker, a few years ago repealed the Midwifery Act in Newfoundland and Labrador at that time in hopes of replacing it with a new act, more modern legislation that would govern the profession as they see it in operation in the Province today. However, Mr. Speaker, it was later decided that midwifery would not have separate legislation onto itself but rather would fall under the legislation respecting certain health professionals within the Province. They became one of the group of seven of health professionals who now fall under this particular bill.

Mr. Speaker, I will speak a little bit more to that if I have the time at the end because obviously midwifery is a long-time practising profession in this Province and was very widely used at one time in providing that service to the public.

Mr. Speaker, the college itself, as I said, will establish their own scope of practice. That is very important because every professional organization does that. They have the authority to do that in terms of outlining what is an acceptable practice and what is not.

They also, Mr. Speaker, establish the standards of their practice. This is very important because this really is what the public looks at in terms of measuring the quality of service that is being delivered by any professional group out there. It does not matter what profession you are in, the public always measures the level of service, the calibre of service, but more importantly the quality of the service by the standards that are set out within that practice by these particular groups.

As we know, Mr. Speaker, these professional organizations will strive to establish the best practices and the highest standards that they possibly can in delivering services to the people of the Province and to the public. Mr. Speaker, this is the authority that will be left to groups like audiologists and dental hygienists and so on in the Province now to go out and establish those particular standards and scopes of practice.

The other thing they will do is develop a code of ethics. All of the legislation that we have passed in the House pertaining to establishing these umbrella groups and organizations has really had a code of ethics attached to it. A code of ethics is very important because that, Mr. Speaker, is really the foundation under which you find complete trust within the patient and professional relationship. It is the code of ethics that is determined and guides the individuals within the profession, that allows for confidence and trust by the patients who use their services.

Mr. Speaker, it is also required to establish and maintain an up-to-date Web site for the public. When I talked about the council and one of the things that would be done under the council would be a Web site whereby you could go in and see if Dr. Such and Such or Ms So and So was actually a registered speech pathologist in the Province and they were part of the registered body and able to practice in Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, that Web site will allow you to do that but it will also provide you with a link to each of the professional groups' Web sites. That is basically what that talks about under Part IV of the bill, which outlines how the colleges will operate. Mr. Speaker, the college will also to have the authority to establish certain by-laws. Those particular by-laws will be done as necessary and will certainly pertain to the standards of practice that will be outlined by each of these particular groups.

Another section of this bill deals with discipline. It applies to all the health professional groups that are established under this particular bill. It is established to deal with any allegations, any complaints, any professional misconduct or unprofessional conduct that could be deemed by these particular individuals or health professionals. It also will deal with "(iii) professional incompetence, (iv) conduct unbecoming a health professional," within that field that they are working in, to deal with things like "(v) incapacity or unfitness to practise as a health professional, and (vi) acting in breach of this Act, the regulations or by-laws".

Mr. Speaker, all of these things are things in which an individual dental hygienist, or a midwife or a language pathologist, or any of these individuals in this Province can be disciplined for. If there are any professional incompetence that are known, if they are deemed to be, for some reason, unfit to practice, if they breach any particular pieces of this act, if they conduct themselves in a way that is unprofessional within their occupational area or if there is any unprofessional conduct, any of those things can be looked at in terms of the disciplinary process.

Mr. Speaker, the council must appoint a complaints authorization committee. The persons who constitute the disciplinary panel will make up this, and they are outlined within this particular act. So, any time there is a health professional that is being looked at, in terms of their conduct or their inability to practice, or they are not following the laws that are outlined within the act, then the complaints and disciplinary panel that will be set up by the council has the authority to deal with those particular issues.

I will just explain to you, Mr. Speaker, that this particular committee, or complaints and disciplinary panel, shall have three of its members. The council shall appoint three of its own members, at least one who is a member of the complaints authorization committee. "The council shall appoint the chairperson and vice-chairperson of the complaints authorization committee…"

Mr. Speaker, the following people shall be the people who make up the disciplinary committee. They will be "(a) at least 4 health professionals from each health profession…" that have been designated. That is the seven groups that we are now talking about that will fall under this particular bill. There will be four health professionals from each of those designate groups; "(b) one person appointed by the council… who shall be appointed to serve as chairperson; and (c) at least 3 persons who are not health professionals registered under this Act to represent the public interest, as appointed by the minister." So, in addition to the four health professionals from each of the designate groups that we have outlined, there shall also be three persons that are politically appointed who are not health professionals but those political appointments would be determined by the minister.

Mr. Speaker, the members who are appointed to the disciplinary panel, at least half of them shall be appointed for a two-year term and the remainder for a three-year term. The reason for that is to ensure that you do not consistently have a completely new group of people coming in at one time. So, it will ensure that there is some continuity within the actual disciplinary panel, which is important. Members who serve their two-year term or their three-year term do have the option to be appointed again, either by the designate college professional group that they represent, by the council, or by the minister.

Mr. Speaker, what basically happens here is that once an issue is referred to the complaints authorization committee, the committee has several options available to resolve the matter, including referring the allegation back to the registrar, conducting an investigation - they have the authority to do that - or appoint someone to do an investigation. So they have one or two of those options available to them. They can also conduct a practice review and they can require the respondent to appear before the committee, referring the allegation to the quality assurance committee. I talked about the quality assurance committee earlier and what the responsibilities of that committee are. Because, Mr. Speaker, you have to realize that this bill is just not setting up this one council, it is actually setting up a council, it is setting up colleges. It is setting up quality assurance committees with assessors that have a lot of authority to go into these professional offices to do the audits and to ensure that they are following the practices, that they are doing their work and so on, and that there is nothing happening there that should not be happening under the scope of that practice and the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to that – obviously, if an individual is to be disciplined, that is decided by the disciplinary panel that has been established here. A complaint is made and then is referred to a disciplinary panel, and then they have the option - say it is a case with regard to a midwife, well then they have the option, as a disciplinary panel, to resolve the matter in certain ways. They can send it back to the registrar, they can conduct an investigation, they have the authority to do that, or they can actually appoint somebody to do the investigation for them. They also have the authority to conduct a review of the individual's practice, and they can ask the individual - in the case as I am using now, the example of a midwife, they can ask that midwife to actually come before the committee. They can actually ask them to come before the committee, and they also have the option to refer it to the quality assurance committee in which they can use their assessor to do very detailed investigations of what is required there.

Mr. Speaker, if the committee feels "…there are no reasonable grounds to believe the respondent has engaged in conduct deserving of sanction," the allegation is dismissed. If there are reasonable grounds, then the allegation is considered a complaint. The committee may counsel the respondent; they may instruct the registrar to file the complaint and refer it to the disciplinary panel; and they may suspend or restrict the respondent's registration.

Mr. Speaker, allegations against these particular professionals that become complaints are then referred to a three person adjudication tribunal. That is the other section of the act that I talked about when I made my opening comments. As I said, Mr. Speaker, there are several groups here: there is the council, there is the college, there is the registrar, there is the quality assurance committee, there is the complaints authorization committee, there is the disciplinary panel, and then when an individual is to be disciplined, that is sent to the adjudication tribunal.

The adjudication tribunal, Mr. Speaker, they may hold a hearing in public but the tribunal may also exclude the public from a hearing. They have one or two options here. The health professionals may be represented by council; they do not necessarily have to represent themselves. Evidence is also admitted in those particular tribunals as they are being heard.

Where the individual, and again, I am using the example of a midwife. Where that midwife pleads guilty, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other options that are available to the tribunal. Including fines, suspension, and a number of other actions which are outlined, I think, in section 42 which I can actually highlight for you. If an individual pleads guilty, the individual may be required to give up their certificate of practice within the Province. They can have their name removed from the register, because as you know, if you are not registered in Newfoundland and Labrador you cannot practice anyway, and they may be able to see a fine imposed upon them, not to exceed $100,000, to be paid to the council.

There are some, no doubt, pretty stiff penalties, Mr. Speaker, some pretty stiff fines that could be outlined here if an individual is found guilty or if the individual pleads guilty. In fact, Mr. Speaker, when an adjudication tribunal finds a respondent guilty it has the power to carry out a number of options, as I just said, but in addition to that they must file their decision and the registrar must publish a summary of that decision in a newspaper. So, it has to be disclosed to the public.

If there is a midwife, using that example again, Mr. Speaker, if they are found guilty or they plead guilty under the act they can lose their certification as a midwife, or in any of these professions they can lose their certification. They can also be removed from the registrar list and they can be fined up to an amount not to exceed $100,000. All that disciplinary action has to be published. It has to be made aware - the public has to be made aware of it.

Mr. Speaker, the act also outlines other disciplinary requirements for de-registration and suspension; failure to comply; the re-hearing process, in order to get your licence back, get your certification back or your registration back within the Province. There is a process whereby an individual can do that. They also have the ability, again, to appeal to the Trial Division of the Supreme Court if they want to obtain their certification back or if they want to become registered again as a health professional in the Province, because without that they would not be able to practice in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, there are certain areas under the act where the minister has been granted authority as well. That is outlined in section 58, basically, of the act. Mr. Speaker, the authority for the minister to intervene – it does give the minister authority here. Even if you went through all of this process that I have just outlined, the minister, after consulting with the council or the affected college, if minister considers it to be in the public interest, he or she may appoint a person to review and make recommendations about the quality of the administration and management, including the financial management, of the council or a college.

At any time, Mr. Speaker, the minister can appoint someone to look into, do a review and to report back to them as the minister, recommendations regarding the council itself, meaning the body that represents all seven of these health professional groups or to do a review and report back to him with recommendations on any of the colleges which are the individual professional groups themselves.

Mr. Speaker, he has the authority to do that. He also can ask them to review the administration of the act as it relates to health professionals, the performance of other duties and powers imposed on the council and to look at the practice of the health professionals.

Mr. Speaker, the review itself that is authorized by the minister into these councils or colleges can also include a review into the exercise of power or the performance of a duty, or a failure to do so, the failure to exercise power in certain circumstances, or the failure to perform a duty under this act.

Mr. Speaker, the person appointed under subsection 1 - that is where the minister can appoint a person to do this - that person, in carrying out the review of the council or the independent colleges, has the power, the privileges and the immunities that are confirmed on any commissioner that would be doing a review in this Province, and, in fact, they would fall under the legislation of the Public Inquiries Act which has been adopted in Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is the duty that the minister has in any of these cases to ensure, I guess, that these councils and these colleges are doing as they should be doing. Mr. Speaker, any of those reviews that the minister carries out and appoints someone to carry out will have recommendations attached to them and the minister may, at the end of the day, accept or reject recommendations that have been given to them with regard to these councils or these particular colleges.

Mr. Speaker, basically that is what the entire legislation states. It covers actually four major committees, or panels, or tribunals that deal with seven particular groups that will allow them to self-govern themselves and it will allow for greater protection of the public who use those services.

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

I am quite pleased to stand this evening and speak to Bill 17, An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Certain Health Professions. As has been pointed out by the minister and also by the Leader of the Opposition, this act is a comprehensive act, an umbrella act covering a number of health professions. There are seven in all and they have been listed a number of times, but I will just list them once to put them on the record for myself.

This act will cover acupuncturists, audiologists, dental hygienists, medical laboratory technologists, midwives, respiratory therapists, and speech language pathologists. All of these groups of professions, of course, in one way or another deal with health and that is what the act is all about, it is for certain health professions. They are not all of the professions that are part of the health care system. We have had a number of other acts, professional acts that we have passed in this House and that we have amended in this House over the last few years dealing with some of the other professions such as nurses, for example, social workers who are both in and outside of the health profession, and with professional groups who are not in the health profession. For example, we dealt with an act dealing with architects today. This is not an uncommon thing to have legislation dealing with professionals.

When this act was first talked about, about a year-and-a-half ago, I had some questions with regard to the fact of having an umbrella act covering all of the groups that I have listed. Since studying the act and speaking to people from some of those professions, I think that I have come to understand why this act probably was necessary, this umbrella act covering these seven professions, because most of these groups of people are relatively small as compared, for example, to the number of social workers that we have in the Province or the number of nurses that we have in the Province. I think some of them would probably find it very difficult to manage on their own in forming a college and putting in place everything that would be needed to run a college.

As I have studied the legislation and looked at what has been told us by people who are in the professions, I have come to realize that this having an umbrella group, this having a group that is made up of seven colleges, will actually assist the smaller groups of professionals in being able to maintain their college because the individual colleges will not have to worry about the administration of a college, about the setting up of a structure that would be repetitious, number one, but that would be a heavy burden on the professions that have small numbers of people.

By having the council in which each college will have participation, they are going to be able to bring resources together in order to have an overall administrative group and then leave to the colleges the whole issue of defining who they are in a college, defining what the goals of their own practice is and setting the regulations for their own practice while the overall administration of a professional group will be done by the council in which they all will have participation.

It seems to me that this is making sense to me now. I have to say I have really moved on that one because a year-and-a-half ago I was speaking against having umbrella legislation, but on their own each discipline would have a pretty difficult time fulfilling all the duties and obligations of a professional act. However, putting all their resources together, they will have a much easier time doing that because some of the things in the professional act and what is in this professional act, the professional act of the council, is quite similar to what is in the other professional acts that have been passed in this House. Some of them require quite a bit of energy putting in place and maintaining even something as simple as the disciplinary process for example. That requires quite a bit of a structure, quite a bit of a system.

So, it does make sense to me now that we have this kind of an act which brings together the professional groups who are smaller in number than the others. It in no way means, in my mind and I am sure it does not in the minister's mind either, that these groups are less important because they are under an umbrella group. It is really because, as I said, their numbers are smaller.

For various reasons, one group that I could see actually growing because of having this legislation in place would be the midwives because we have quite a number of midwives in the Province who have not been able to practice because we actually did not - we had legislation, but we did not have regulations to cover them. They were not registered and they were not even seen as a professional group while we do have some midwives as part of the Labrador-Grenfell Health Authority, those midwives really were a combination of being nurses as well as midwives and they did not perform their midwifery practice outside of and do not perform it outside of the whole structure of the regional health authority.

When we now have legislation and a council that is going to enable a group like the midwives to put a college in place and to start reaching out to midwives both here in the Province and elsewhere, my dream would be that we are actually going to see quite a growth in the whole practice of midwifery in this Province. We need it; we need it desperately. I know that doctors, nurses, regional health authorities are asking for midwives to become part of primary health care teams especially in rural areas but the demand for midwives is also an urban reality as well.

So, having midwives who can become more and more the people who do normal deliveries so that doctors only have to be present at a birth when there are significant problems, it is going to be quite exciting because what we are going to have is a reestablishment of midwifery in Newfoundland and Labrador. It has been part of our history, and traditionally, it was almost just seen as something that women do. We do know in communities there were women who were considered midwives and they just learned it from another woman in the family, probably their mother or their grandmother who was a midwife in the community. They were really absolutely essential to the health of pregnant women and to the women after they gave birth, and to the babies as well.

However, things changed and we actually saw the death of midwifery in this Province. We had a resurgence of that in the 1990s by the midwifery implementation committee. That committee had representatives from the government and from the Association of Midwives of Newfoundland and Labrador – because we do have an Association of Midwives of Newfoundland and Labrador. That group did a lot of work in the 1990s. They worked on a code of ethics, operation guidelines, qualifications, classes of midwives, definitions, et cetera. Their work, the reports that they have done, the expertise that they have on that committee is definitely something that the minister is going to be able to call upon as they get into drafting regulations. This is probably a very exciting group to watch because of having this legislation in place.

I am sure that all the groups that are named here are feeling the same way. Over the past years, acupuncturists have started to grow in this Province. I would say about twenty-five years ago we probably only had one doctor who was recognized as an acupuncturist in Newfoundland and Labrador. Certainly, in the greater St. John's area, and not only here, but in other parts of the Province as well, the number of acupuncturists has grown. It is not a huge group, but it is a growing group. I am sure that they must be delighted. That is one group I have not spoken to, but they must be delighted about the fact that there is now going to be something in place to enable them to form a college. We will see that group growing as well because of having a college, because the presence of a college gives a sense of professionalism to a group of people. I am really glad that the legislation is using the word college for the groupings of each of the professions because it is a word that has been used traditionally to indicate a group of professionals.

I think it is a very, very exciting time, actually, to have this legislation. I think what will happen is that through the college, the groups who are larger than the others will be able to bring expertise to the table of the council and to share that expertise one with the other. The council itself, of course, is going to have the resources as a council to help the smaller groups figure out what they need to do to form their colleges, to get their goals in place, their vision statements in place as a college, as a group of professionals. They will not be alone in doing what they have to do. They will be there, along with their fellow professionals, albeit different disciplines, but fellow professionals in the same organization, in the same council and will be able to get themselves established.

Now, I was glad to hear the minister talk about the fact that they are going to try to find a way to have the legislation become operative, even though not every group will be able to form its college and to become involved at the same time. I suspect that is one of the reasons why the initial council will be appointed by government, because putting the council in place, I think, is what is going to help the colleges get formed. If the government or the minister were to wait until all of the groups got their colleges formed and got everything in place in order to then start the council, I think it would take a long, long time and we would see that the act would not actually become proclaimed for years.

I think going the way that the minister is indicating, if I understand the minister correctly, you have the council in place and slowly the different professions will get their colleges up and running. Of course, the one that has been mentioned already by the minister, who probably is the one most ready to start getting up and running, is the medical laboratory technologists. I think partially putting this council in place was moved along because of the response to the Cameron Inquiry which identified the need for medical laboratory technologists to be better regulated in this Province. I think that is true for any group. Any group that is involved in the health of people, not only in the health of people but in any way administering to people, whether it is through business as architects, for example, or whether it is through business as accountants, or whether it is through services such as health services, they do need to be regulated for the good of the people of the Province and for their own protection as well. That is what this council will do as well, and that is what the colleges will do. It will also bring protection to the groups that are forming part of this council.

Having said that, I have to say that I am supportive of this act and will be happy to vote for it, but there are a couple of issues that I wanted to bring up, Mr. Speaker, and one is regarding section 27.(3). Well, it is the whole of section 27. I would like to read it because it is about the duty to report. Section 27.(1) says, "A health professional who has knowledge, from direct observation or objective evidence, of conduct deserving of sanction of another health professional of the same profession shall report the known facts to the registrar.

"(2) A person who dissolves a partnership with a health professional based on direct knowledge of the health professional's conduct deserving of sanction shall report the known facts to the registrar."

Then, an extremely important subsection, and I wondered as I read subsection (1) and (2), well, what about protection for the health professional who steps forward and names somebody else? Subsection 3 deals with that. It says, "An action shall not be brought against a health professional, person, officer, partnership or association for the sole reason that the person, officer, partnership or association complied with this section."

To put it in simple terms, if somebody does take it upon him or herself, or a group takes it upon themselves seriously the duty to report something they see that should not be the way a certain health professional is acting, if they take that action then nobody should be able to have reprisal against them because they took that action. This begs, for me, Mr. Speaker, the question of where is this government's overall whistleblower legislation, because that is what this is about. It is not using the word and it is not saying these are whistleblowers, but in common parlance that is what it is, that these are people who are being told – these professionals are being told they have the duty to notify a registrar if they have knowledge from direct observation or objective evidence of conduct deserving or sanction of another health professional of the same profession. It has to be a peer. It has to be somebody that they – a profession that they are part of. So they have the experience and the expertise to make the judgement and they have a duty to report it if they see somebody not acting according to the way they should be acting in that profession. Section 27, rightly so, says that they have to be protected if they do that.

What I would like to see is if we are going to really get things going the way we want to get things going in this Province that that kind of protection become a universal protection inside of government bodies, inside of government agencies, inside of anybody who is covered by government legislation. The language we have for that, Mr. Speaker, is whistleblower legislation. I use the opportunity of noting this protection in this bill to say to the government that I am still waiting for the whistleblower legislation that was promised to us in 2007 in this Province. That is one of the things that I wanted to bring up, Mr. Speaker.

Another thing that I want to note is under section 14, and section 14 deals with Web site. It is a sign of the times that the legislation calls for a Web site. "The registrar…" of the college "shall maintain a website which shall be available to the public and shall include (a) the council's annual report; (b) the register maintained under section 13…" - which is a register of all the health professionals under the college. It shall also include "(c) copies of the regulations and by-laws made by the council; (d) links to the websites of the colleges established under this Act; and (e) the other information required by regulation." They have a subsection, and it says, "(2) A person may request and the council shall provide the information on its website to the person in paper form, and may charge a reasonable fee for so doing."

Mr. Speaker, I point out to the minister that that is punishment for people who do not have computers, for people who do not go on-line. If somebody cannot access information through a Web site because of computer illiteracy or all kinds of reasons that they may not be able to do that, they should not be penalized and have to pay for paper documents if they have to request paper documents.

I will leave my comments at that, Mr. Speaker. I see that my time is virtually up. I know that we will be speaking in committee and there may be a couple of other small items that I want to bring up in committee.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): If the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services speaks now he will close the debate in second reading on Bill 17, An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Certain Health Professions.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. members for their comments. With that, I will close debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 17, An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Certain Health Professions, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Certain Health Professions. (Bill 17)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 17 has now been read a second time.

When shall Bill 17 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Certain Health Professions", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 17)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bills 15, 20, 19, 18, 21, 23, 26, 17 and 24.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do now resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

CHAIR (T. Osborne): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, Bill 15.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Fatal Accidents Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fatal Accidents Act". (Bill 15)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

As indicated in second reading, we would like to propose an amendment to clause 1 of the Fatal Accidents Act, this Bill 15. I believe the Table Officer has circulated a copy of the amendment to the Government House Leader and the Leader of the NDP.

Mr. Chair, as this says, we are repealing, according to this particular piece of legislation – section 6 of the Fatal Accidents Act will be repealed and we are substituting it with a new clause 6. One of which says, "6.(1) In an action brought under this Act the court may award the damages it considers proportional to the injury resulting from the death to the parties for whose benefit the action was brought, and the amount so recovered shall be divided among those parties in the shares that the court directs." In subsection (2), to which the amendment is specifically directed, it says, "The damages awarded under subsection (1)" – which I just referenced – "may include an amount to compensate for the loss" – it says here – "of care…". What we are proposing here is that we would insert the words pecuniary and non-pecuniary immediately in that section 6.(2), so it would now read: may include an amount to compensate for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss of care, guidance and companionship that a person for whose benefit the action is brought might reasonably have expected to receive from the deceased if the death had not occurred.

The genesis of the amendment is from Mr. Ches Crosbie who is a personal injury lawyer in this Province, who played, first of all, a large role some years ago in the creation of the new class actions legislation that had here, but also in recent years, particularly as a result of the Cameron inquiry investigation, a major role in the compensation package that was negotiated. For anyone who followed the media, of course, it became quite obvious that we have an issue. We are one of the few jurisdictions in Canada that do not allow for compensation for non-pecuniary loss. By leaving it here, his concern, and he represents – I use his name in the singular sense but he, of course, represented I believe it was 100 per cent of the people involved in the Cameron inquiry - I am not certain, but I think it was – which was literally hundreds of people who were impacted themselves, but also of course, their families and their loved ones who were impacted as well. So, there are literally thousands of people from that case alone in this Province who was impacted by this missing link that was in our legislation. What he is proposing is let's not be uncertain.

For those, of course, who might not be familiar, the difference between pecuniary and non-pecuniary, albeit it might sound sophisticated, it is not really complicated. Pecuniary loss is something, for example, if you lost your wages. It is easily identified. If you made $300 a week and you ended up in a fatal accident and the court had to look at compensating your family, they have some definitive, quantifiable amount that they could look at and say, this is what we are going to award the family of that person as a result of the pecuniary loss. You might also have a loss, for example, that is identifiable in some equipment needs or the surviving families might need and so on, things that are quantifiable as opposed to non-pecuniary which are not easily quantified. Of course, because it is not easily quantified does not mean that you should not do it. There are in fact jurisdictions in this country which do it.

The way it is worded right now, it is does not use the word pecuniary or non-pecuniary. So the concern was that if we are not certain as to what is here, somebody is going to argue – if the defence lawyer is in a courtroom arguing for a case, someone is going to suggest: Well, if they had meant non-pecuniary, they would have put it in there, therefore it only means pecuniary. What he is saying is they grappled with it under the old law. They could not change it when they were doing the Cameron inquiry settlements because the law was the law and they had to deal with the law as it existed at that time. They could not change the law regarding pecuniary and non-pecuniary right in the middle of that particular class action.

So what he suggested, and that is what I believe was the impetus for the legislation in the first place, was what happened in the Cameron inquiry we did not want to see that happen again. Without having that specific clause in here, it is better to be injured than it is to die in terms of compensation. That is grossly unfair. Someone could lose an arm, for example, in an accident. The court might look at it and say: Well, because you lost your arm you cannot be a carpenter any more. You made, as a carpenter, X number of dollars per year, you had X number of years left to work in your career, therefore we do the math on it and we can come up with an easily quantifiable amount that we are going to pay you.

If the person was killed, quite often, they could not put – what about the spouse, for example, the wife who no longer had the companionship of her husband who had gotten killed? There was no compensation in our jurisdiction for those types of non-quantifiable losses that the surviving spouse might have felt and had. It is a pretty obvious thing that that is an obvious by-product of when somebody dies. There is anguish in the families and people suffer from these things. Other jurisdictions do compensate.

All he was suggesting here - and I think it is a very reasonable thing - is let's not leave it any more to lawyers to be arguing in the courtroom about what is or is not acceptable if we can simply – we either want to do this or we do not. If the government is of a view that non-pecuniary losses should not be compensated, they should come right out and say in this legislation pecuniary and leave it at pecuniary. If the government position is that it should be pecuniary and non-pecuniary, they should have the gumption to come out and say it. Why leave it to be uncertain and leave it to the courts to decide whether we do? The courts always ask, and the Minister of Justice knows this, the courts always say we look to the debate even in the Legislatures when laws are passed to find out what was the intention of the legislators because that is one of the ways that judges have to help them interpret what the laws are.

There is no need of the Minister of Justice in this Province or anyone else saying tomorrow: Well, we do not know what they meant. Or, in the case if, God forbid, we ever have another Cameron type inquiry people are going to say: Well, what did the Minister of Justice of the day mean and the government of the day mean? It will not be said on this watch anyway any more or it will not be said: Well, we are not sure what they meant because it is going to be pretty clear, there are only three options here. Either the government is going to leave it uncertain, which is a pretty wishy-washy thing to do or they are going to say it is pecuniary or they are going to say it is non-pecuniary. Those are the three options. You can be definitive one way or the other instead of being wishy-washy.

After this debate is over on this bill people in this Province are going to say: Yes, this government looked back on the Cameron inquiry and this government felt that non-pecuniary losses ought to be included. I do not think there is anybody in this Province who thinks that they should not be, that we are due to come in to the modern age.

It is not good enough to say leave it to the judges. The judges do not make the laws, with all due respect; the judges interpret the laws. We are here to make a law. It rests on this government to decide that when we have victims like we had in the Cameron inquiry, are we or are we not going to stand up and say that they ought to be compensated for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary?

I do not know about all of you here, I do not know about the current Minister of Justice, but I sat with the husband of the lady who was one of the principal spokespersons during the Cameron inquiry as to what had happened to her in the testing. Unfortunately, I never got to speak to her because she died. I got to speak to that father and I had a real, real appreciation of what he was going through with his two kids.

It is when you see something like that it sort of gives you a definitive answer as to where you come down on something. Do we take a wishy-washy approach and say: No, we will let the judges decide that? By the way, anybody in this Province who understands the legal system and the judicial system as this minister does, you cannot take the cop-out answer and say we will let the judges decide because guess what? He knows the judges cannot decide. It is not the place of the judges to interpret. It is the place of governments to say what the law is going to be and the legislators who are here to say what the law is going to be.

This is an important enough act, this is not only this particular member standing up to talk about this, there are lots of people in this Province tonight, albeit the late hour, watching this amendment and they are going to want to know where this government comes down. Now, it might be for judges and should be for the judges to determine what the amount of the non-pecuniary loss should be. That is fair ball. That is fair ball for a judge in this Province who is involved in any kind of case of a fatal accidents case again to say: What are the facts? Let me decide. Let me see the circumstances. What are we talking about here? Then that judge can apply his or her reasonable mind and legal mind to decide what is fair, but we should never box the judges in, in this day and age, to say that a judge in this Province can never, ever consider what non-pecuniary losses, if they should be covered. Right now, we do not know.

This practitioner of the law who did the most important case in this Province to date, he has made it quite clear, and he made it clear in writing on his blog that that is the amendment he would like to see here. It makes sense. He has gone through this with these hundreds of families and victims. He knows why it should be there. By the way, he is not the only practitioner. If the minister had consulted with anybody, which I am sure he has in this Province, there is not a lawyer in this Province who has not found him or herself in the situation where you defended families in those cases. We were always hamstrung before. I applaud the government for having the courage to at least tackle this. We have not seen the piece here in this sitting about the necessary amendments to the Survival of Actions Act, which is a companion piece, which ought to have been here possibly, probably. The minister himself said that when we debated this thing before. The question was asked and the comments were made by the current minister that there are two pieces that you have to look at together. You do have to look at them together. We do not have them here together, but that does not mean you cannot look at the one we do have here properly and appropriately.

I just want it clear for the record that I do not frivolously propose amendments in this House for the sake of proposing amendments. There is usually some thought that goes into it and rationale as to why it should be there, but that is part of being an Opposition member is to propose amendments. Sometimes government take it upon themselves to say: Yes, it makes sense and we are going to accept it.

I cannot recall the exact wording of this minister last week when we did second reading on this bill, but I do believe he made comments to the effect that we leave it to the judges. Well, I do not think that is appropriate. I do not think that is appropriate at all. This is not a case where the government has not had an opportunity to size up the ramifications of it. For example, who are we protecting here? Who are we standing up for and who are we protecting? I would like an explanation if we are going to vote against such an amendment as to why would you vote against it? Why would you vote against such an amendment? Ninety-nine per cent of the time when we are dealing with these types of cases of fatal accidents it is insurance companies involved.

Are we supposed to be here, as legislators, to be the protectors of insurance companies, or is our mandate to look after the grievances that the residents have, the damages that they suffer, the grief that they have and that we need to compensate for? That is the question. Who are we protecting if we do not do it? The reason that has been put forward is it removes any uncertainty. Why would we continue to have a situation that is uncertain and leave out these words?

So, Mr. Chair, that is my initial comments on this particular amendment. I understand some of my colleagues also wish to discuss same.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly want to speak to the amendment that has been put forward by my colleague the Member for Burgeo & La Poile.

Mr. Chair, Bill 15 was brought into this Legislature for a specific purpose and it was brought in to ensure that those who were involved in fatal accidents that their families would be compensated appropriately. In fact, Mr. Chair, it is stated right in the explanatory note, "The Bill would amend the Fatal Accidents Act to allow for the award of damages for the loss of care, guidance and companionship."

Mr. Chair, last week I sat in the House of Assembly and I listened to government members who spoke to this particular bill in second reading. In fact, those who spoke, one after the other, stood in the House of Assembly and they talked about the importance of bringing this bill in, the importance of ensuring that compensation was being provided to the spouses, to the children, to the families who would be affected in cases like this.

Mr. Chair, if that is the real reason as to why we are introducing this particular bill, and the government members who spoke made it quite clear that they felt that it was necessary, absolutely necessary to amend this legislation in order to provide for the greatest compensation for these individual families and individuals who would be affected, then we see no reason why they would not accept the amendment that is being proposed this evening. To not accept it, Mr. Chair, is to really leave the decision to that of the courts and of the judges to determine if these individuals should or should not be compensated, and that is an unfair amendment at this stage when you look at what has happened in our Province. When you look at what happened with the Cameron Inquiry in Newfoundland and Labrador, you look at the people whose lives were lost and the families that were impacted, and you look at the fact that our legislation did not allow for compensation, and these individuals had to take their case to the lawyers to form a case to take to the courts. In fact, Mr. Chair, if the real purpose here is to allow for compensation for compassion and loss to these individuals, then the amendment that my colleague has put forward should be accepted by government members.

Mr. Chair, Newfoundland and Labrador have learned its lesson in a very hard way. If there is any jurisdiction in the country today that is going to tighten its legislation and make amendments to it, to afford for compensation to be paid out to individuals that are affected, then we should be the ones who are doing it right and getting it right. Mr. Chair, other jurisdictions in Canada do allow for damages to be paid out in non-pecuniary circumstances and their legislation speaks to that very clearly. Our legislation is not speaking to these particular damages. In fact, it is leaving it really open for interpretation and we feel that it should be not open to interpretation; it should not be left to uncertainty. Certainly, it is for the courts to determine and for judges to interpret what the ruling should be.

We feel, Mr. Chair, that based on the speeches that were made in this House of Assembly and the information that was put forward by the government members, that they would have absolutely no reason in accepting this particular amendment. Mr. Chair, this amendment is not coming forward just because the Opposition feels that it needs to be done. This is coming forward on the recommendation of individuals in this Province who practice in the field of law, who feel that this is necessary.

My colleague outlined one such case in Mr. Ches Crosbie, who was the legal counsel for many of these families and individuals who were affected by the faulty hormone testing in this Province, and in which there was a full inquiry conducted into those particular cases. He was the legal counsel who represented these individuals and these families. My colleague talked about meeting with one of the spouses of one of the individuals who unfortunately died as a result of that faulty hormone testing. I, myself, met with that family and other families as well that were affected.

Mr. Chair, I think if we are going to do anything to serve justice to those individual families who were impacted, it would be to get the legislation right, to ensure that we are not just going to compensate them for direct losses that can be quantified in terms of their paycheque, in terms of actual dollar figures that are hard and fast numbers, but we also have to compensate them for the things that cannot be qualified. That is the lasting impact that it has on a family, the lasting impact that it has on the children they leave behind.

Mr. Chair, we have all seen the stories, even in the news, in the public airways in the Province, of one woman's dying wish to attend her daughter's graduation and to be able to be there to watch her children grow as long as she possibly could. Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, that lady did not live to watch her children grow. In fact, Mr. Chair, she got to fulfill very few of her dreams because of what happened with faulty hormone testing in this Province. Should those families be left and not compensated appropriately? Shouldn't that have something attached to it in terms of how these individuals are compensated? We feel that it should, and we feel that it is our responsibility in this House of Assembly, in light of the circumstances that occurred in this Province that make those laws, that it is our responsibility to ensure that the law is adapted and passed appropriately to allow for the compensation in matters like this.

The legislation as currently outlined, Mr. Chair, does not speak to this particular issue. That is the reason why my colleague, the Member for Burgeo & La Poile, has brought it forward today. I can only say, Mr. Chair, that if government is of their word in the speeches they made in second reading in this House of Assembly, that there is absolutely no reason why they would stand and reject this amendment.

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

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

I do want to stand and speak to the amendment that is being proposed by the Member for Burgeo & La Poile.

If the minister remembers, it was an issue that I brought up in second reading because I was quite concerned about the fact that section 6.(2) of the bill did not specify the non-pecuniary loss of care, especially because when the minister himself stood and spoke to this he made it very clear that that was one of the major points, that it meant pecuniary and non-pecuniary. He made that point when he presented the bill.

My question to the minister was, in second reading: If he made that point so clearly then why wasn't it in the act? I have to say that I was not satisfied when the minister stood at the end of second reading and spoke to the issue. It was like he just did not hear what was being said. If it means pecuniary and non-pecuniary then put it in, because as a lawyer the minister has to know that words that are omitted can mean an awful lot in the law court. You cannot prove in a law court that if a word is not there that it was meant to be there. That is the concern I have and that is the concern that he should have as a lawyer, and there are other lawyers in this room who should have the same concern because they all know as well as I do, if a word is not there you cannot prove that that is the meaning.

They are not going to go to Hansard and pick up on the fact – and I said this already in the House, but I will say it again because I really think the minister has to respond to this. You cannot say: Oh, we are going to go to Hansard and see what the minister said at the time when he presented this in the House of Assembly. Oh, that is what he meant. Well, that is what it is going to mean. That is not going to happen in the law court. That is not going to happen at all.

One of the things that is going to happen is that we are going to find people who have gone through the trauma of their loved ones dying from an accidental cause, whatever the cause may be - the original cause of concern for us here in this House, as we know, is that of women who died as a result of the ER/PR testing fiasco. We are expecting families who have gone through all kinds of pain to then have to go into court and to have to fight for what should be their right. They should not have to fight for it. I really was disturbed by the minister's response, and I made that point in second reading. I found the minister's response to what I said very uncaring, actually. It basically, what the minister said: well, you know, this is the way it happens. Let them go into court and let them fight it out in court, that is the system – but it does not have to be the system. We can say specifically in this piece of legislation, specifically that it means non-pecuniary and pecuniary. If that is what this government means, then they will not have to go into court and fight it out. So I want to know: Who is influencing the thinking of this government to not say it is going in? Who has your ear that you are listening to? That is what I do not understand.

In the year 2000, the Manitoba Law Reform Commission – and I said this before but it bears repeating – reviewing their own legislation, the legislation is Manitoba on this matter suggested that claimants should not be subjected to the indignity of establishing the quality intensity of the relationships with the deceased. Even the Manitoba Law Reform Commission, the commission of lawyers, recognized that people should not have to go through this. They should not have to prove: Well, how much was the loved one worth to them? How much was that loss worth? That you can actually set sums of money, you can actually make decisions that there are enough commonalities in the loss of a loved one that you can say a certain amount of money for certain losses, for children, for parents, for spouses. Other places do it. This is one example, again, of where this is something that is tested. It has been looked at in other places, and yet this government is persisting on saying: oh, no, we really do not need to do that. Well, we do need to do it.

If this government really meant everything that it said during the Cameron Inquiry, about its care for the women and the families who went through what they went through, if it meant everything that it said to those families, the statements that were made publicly, both by the Minister of Health and Community Services, by the Premier of the Province, if this government really meant what they said when they said they cared about what was happening, then you would make sure this piece of legislation put in pecuniary and non-pecuniary. I cannot tell you how disappointed I am going to be if you do not show the people of this Province, and those in particular who have suffered because of what happened with ER/PR testing, that you really will put your money where your mouth is and show them that you really care.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Again, this is important enough a matter and an amendment that it certainly requires further elaboration. I appreciate the comments made by the Leader of the NDP because I have now had an opportunity to read as well the comments that the Minister of Justice made in second reading. To me, you cannot have it both ways. If you are going to say in second reading, and I can quote for the minister his comments of June 1 in this House on page 1541 when he says: "Section 6 addresses pecuniary damages suffered by loved ones, by the death of a family member. It is compensatory, and those making a claim under this section may be awarded damages for such things as the loss of the deceased's income," which is pecuniary, "loss of care and loss of guidance." – which is what we are talking about in non-pecuniary.

So, the minister uses the words to describe exactly what non-pecuniary and pecuniary are. He goes on in the very next paragraph and talks about how these things are quantifiable. Yet, when he clued up second reading and he knew - because I had said when I first addressed it in second reading that we would be proposing this amendment. When he came to shut down second reading and close it off, he made comments to the effect that he was equivocal, he was not sure of what he wanted to do. Like the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi says, if you are going to say it on the one hand, we know you mean it, you ought to mean it, but why would you find some wiggle room after to leave any uncertainty in the courts? That is the whole thing here about removing the uncertainty.

This is not called the Donna Howell amendment for no reason by Mr. Crosbie. This woman was the spokesperson for this whole debacle that we suffered through in this Province and hundreds and hundreds of people suffered through it. Are we going to get here today and be uncertain about where we stand? It is pretty simple, we either agree with it or we do not. The guidance, the care and the companionship of loved ones are priceless, and our courts here have been told for years and years under the Survival of Actions Act that you could not compensate for it.

All we are suggesting here is when are we going to get out of the dark ages and get into the modern era, where it is compensated everywhere else, we know we want to do it, we tried to do it in the Cameron Inquiry, we could not because of the law. We know what we need to do to get to where we need to go. The minister stands up and says he agrees with compensating for guidance care and companionship which is non-pecuniary loss, but you will not pass an amendment to that effect. I do not understand the logic of the resistance. Why would you say that you agree with something and yet you will not agree to put the words in there to remove the uncertainty?

As the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi said, some lawyers are going to have some fun playing with this because the words are left out. Why should anybody in this Province be in the courtroom arguing for the next number of years, what did they mean? Did they mean it or didn't they? They can go to the speech of the Minister of Justice of the day and find uncertainty. He says on one page that he thinks we should compensate for that kind of loss and then he turns around later and says he is not sure. So, which is it? You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Is this important enough to accept an amendment that addresses the issue or not? I would trust that everybody is mature enough in here and wants the right end result that we are not going to get hung up on something that we do not know, and because we do not know we are not going to agree to it. That is the whole purpose of having debate. Hopefully, something can be said to add to the debate and encourage someone to do it, particularly when that very same person says that it is right.

We had a case in this Province, by the way - when you talk about how important words are, that are in the Legislature - all of us here were around back in the time of Premier Peckford, when we had the debate that took place in this House on the Water Rights Reversion Act. Let's not talk about what judges will do or disregard or pay attention to. Those words got fed back to us on a platter by those who wanted us to lose on the Water Rights Reversion Act of Premier Peckford. They took his words from Hansard and shoved them down our throats and said: Do not tell us what the intent of this legislation is; sure we have the quotes from the very Premier of the day in this House. They used it against us. That is a case where the words that we, as legislators, said were used against us in a courtroom, and that is the whole point here.

Why would we let anybody use words against us if we know what we mean, we know what we want? Why wouldn't we do it? We are going to have some lawyer – we have a disaster like we had in the Cameron Inquiry and we are going to have somebody down arguing: Well, we do not know if we should compensate that family or not. We do not know about that. We are still not certain after two centuries whether we want to go, or do we have the gumption as legislators to say we knew what the Cameron Inquiry was about. We know where we want to go and we are prepared to go there.

So, Mr. Chair, I am not going to belabour the point any more. There have been smarter heads than mine that recommended this. There are a lot of common sense people out there who understand the logic of this. There are hundreds of families who have been impacted by this, and the minister of the day, so far, has not given one logical reason why he would not agree to put this amendment in. Absolutely no reason whatsoever. In fact, to the contrary, he says he agrees with compensating with that kind of loss, but he does not want to use the words. Now that is pretty wishy-washy I say.

I would go a step further, that if you have concerns with the words non-pecuniary being too broad, why would you not even agree to put in your own words that you used, that we should compensate for loss of guidance? That is even a comment - if you want to go that far. If you are saying I do not want to use non-pecuniary because it is too broad, too general, too undefined, why would you not even use your own words of we should compensate for loss of guidance and companionship? That will remove a lot of the uncertainty that is out there. That will let some judge know that, well it is not a case that I cannot do it. That will keep any lawyer out there from arguing whether you can do it. Use the words you want to use. Use your own specific words. Do not use words you have a hang-up about, if it is non-pecuniary that is causing the hang-up, because it might be interpreted another way. You know what you mean, you have said it. We would be accepting to using your own words, without question.

That is all I have to say, Mr. Chair. I do not think it is – it is not rocket science. It has been explained. We have no doubt what the minister said. We have no doubt where people of this Province, we think, would feel more comfortable and most comfortable in going. We see no reason why we should never, ever go there. We are in the Dark Ages if we do not make these changes. Do we want to stay there or not? It is as simple as that. I think in view of the Cameron Inquiry, as Mr. Crosbie says, we owe Donna Howell and people like her a lot more than this.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Chair, the hon. Opposition House Leader keeps saying that the minister has not said one word as to why he is opposing this amendment. The minister has not had a chance to speak to the amendment yet. The amendment was only just put. I was not going to speak to an amendment last week when the amendment was not put.

Mr. Chair, we are not voting for this amendment, let's get that upfront. I resent the comments of the Leader of the NDP who says this minister is uncaring by taking that position. This government brought in this amendment for the first time in decades.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: That government did not bring in the amendment, or any previous government did not bring in the amendment, it was our government who brought in this amendment. So do not tell us we are not caring, because that is why we are doing it. We have done something here that no other government has done in the history of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. F. COLLINS: We brought in an amendment that allows for this claim that has never existed, that has been spoken to for years, has been requested for years, has been wanted for years, and now we have done it. We brought it in-line along with all the other jurisdictions in Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: The members over on this side of the House in second reading, yes, spoke on how important this bill is. This is one of the most important bills ever brought to this House from the Department of Justice, and is a bill that receives a positive approach from all members of the legal fraternity. It is one that they have been looking for, for years and now they have it.

Mr. Chair, they keep referring to the Cameron report, the Cameron issues, and the Donna Howell amendment. Nobody on this side of the House does not feel for the Donna Howell's of the Cameron report, that is why we are putting this amendment in. There is nobody over here who is taking a frivolous or a cavalier attitude to what happened in the Cameron report. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that. The father that the hon. member refers to, if this amendment had been in place at that time could have made a claim for loss of companionship, which he could not make because the law was not enforced. Had it been enforced, he would have been able to do that.

There is no uncertainty, Mr. Chair, in this bill. Damages are both pecuniary and non-pecuniary, and this act does not specify damages. They talk about damages; it can be either pecuniary or non-pecuniary. There is no uncertainty in that.

This proposal, Mr. Chair, does nothing to limit the discretion of judges to make an award deemed appropriate for the loss of care, guidance and companionship. Historically, this act only allowed recovery of claims that were pecuniary. The big complaint was that non-pecuniary damages, loss of companionship, could not be claimed.

Well, Mr. Chair, we have now but it right into the act. Section 6.(2), "The damages awarded under subsection (1) may include an amount to compensate for the loss of care, guidance and companionship that a person for whose benefit the action is brought might reasonably have expected to receive…" To put in - Mr. Chair, I am only going to speak to this once. I am not coming back and responding every time somebody gets up over there. I am going to make my point and (inaudible) why we are not speaking to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, if the words - talk about uncertainty, with regard to uncertainty, the proposed amendment is very clear in providing the court with the discretion to make an award for the loss of care, guidance and companionship. We are not allowing for grief, grief is not compensable. We are not allowing for loss of sorrow, sorrow is not compensable. We are not allowing for loss of mental anguish. These are non-compensable. If you put in the word non-pecuniary, it opens up the argument for all of these things and that was not the intention of the act. We will let the courts make these decisions and the case law it would involve to support the direction.

Mr. Chair, I am going to close by quoting Mr. Crosbie from a further edition of his blog, further to the editions suggested by the hon. member. He says, "…and I am particularly pleased that the government of Premier Williams announced in December 2009 that it would reform the law of wrongful death. As one MHA stated in the House of Assembly during debate:

"The Supreme Court of Canada has condemned the wrongful 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.

"Hear, hear!

"Now finally, the laws have been reformed. As of 2010, the legislature passed the following clause into law as an amendment to the Fatal Accidents Act.

"6.(2) The damages awarded under subsection (1) may include an amount to compensate for the loss of care, guidance and companionship that a person for whose benefit the action is brought might reasonably have expected to receive from the deceased if the death had not occurred.

"The law of our province has finally been brought into step with modern conception of fairness and justice."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Those are the words of Ches Crosbie, Mr. Chair.

We will not be voting for this amendment.

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

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

I am not getting into quoting Mr. Crosbie from one part of a blog and another part of a blog and I am not a lawyer, but one thing I do know, that there are lawyers who disagree with the minister and like anything else, lawyers can argue things all they want. He cannot make the statement that every lawyer in this Province agrees with the government, because every lawyer in this Province does not agree with the government.

I still go back to what I heard the minister say in this House on June 1, when he came back and said: I am really sorry; it is too bad that they might have to go into court and fight for this in court but that is our system. Other people have to fight, let them do it. Well, that is not good enough, Mr. Chair. To me, I will not define the minister and what his motives are, I will not do that, but I will say that speaking that way, that kind of language did not come across to people as caring language. That is the point that I am going to make.

If you put non-pecuniary in front of the loss of care, guidance and companionship, sorrow and grief do not get considered. The language becomes extremely clear. It is the non-pecuniary loss of care, guidance and companionship. You cannot get any clearer than that, and leaving it out makes it unclear. He has not given an explanation. All he is saying is: I think it is all right. Well, I do not think it is all right. That explanation does not wash with me, and there are lawyers for whom it does not wash either.

I really am calling on this government to tell the people of this Province that you do mean what you said you mean by putting in the word. You said it in the House; you said it in your presentation. Put the language in exactly as you said it in your presentation.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is obviously a case where government is saying one thing and doing something that is not reflective of their comments. There is no doubt about that.

Mr. Chair, the bill that we are debating today, and the amendment that my colleague has put forward from Burgeo & La Poile, is done to meet the objective that the minister claimed for this bill from the beginning. That objective, Mr. Chair, was to ensure that we not only compensate for those damages that we can quantify in the case of a fatal accident but also for those damages that we cannot.

In fact, Mr. Chair, when the members of the government side spoke in the House of Assembly their message was very different than the one that the minister just brought to the Legislature. The minister just said that we will not allow for the compensation of grief and sorrow and mental anguish, all of which are emotions.

Certainly, Mr. Chair, when the Minister of Labrador Affairs spoke, this is what he said: "Currently, a loved one can only claim for a financial loss, such as the loss of income, the loss of guidance, and the loss of care. However, now we are allowing the courts to take into consideration loss of companionship in the unfortunate event of the death of a loved one, an award compensation for the emotional loss."

Well, Mr. Chair, what is emotional loss, if it is not grief, if it is not anguish, if it is not sorrow that a family goes through upon losing a loved one in circumstances where fault is found? What other way is there to describe what these individuals go through if it is not emotion? So, Mr. Chair, if the government's intention, if government members stood in this House on June 1 – and I listened very carefully that day because there were two or three of them who stood up with scripted notes and read their notes into the record of Hansard, the very record that I have here now. Mr. Chair, every one of them left the impression that this government was bringing forward, in this bill, compensation for damages that could not be quantified in adding up the sums and amounts of money like you would the loss of a paycheque. Every one of them left that impression, but the legislation is not affording for that. The legislation is leaving it entirely to the courts to decide, and to decide on what grounds these individuals should be compensated and to what degree.

Mr. Chair, if there is any jurisdiction in this country today that should be rising up above that and having very definitive legislation to respond to the needs of these individuals and these families, it should be this Province. After what we have gone through in this Province in the last two to three years with the Cameron Inquiry, the individuals that were affected, the lives that were lost, the suffering that families went through, how can we possibly stand here today and pat ourselves on the back saying that we are bringing in progressive legislation when we are bringing in legislation that is not even going to measure up to the standards that are set in other jurisdictions of Canada? There are other jurisdictions that allows for that. In fact, Mr. Chair, what is even more appalling, that I find more appalling, is that the government is trying to convey a message out there in the public that they are bringing in compensation for these things without actually writing it in legislation to guarantee it.

This is what the minister said, Mr. Chair, when he closed his debate in second reading on this bill. He said, "So far in this Province, Mr. Speaker, the common law has not evolved to any great extent, but now with non-pecuniary claims allowed, courts will have access to the common law of other jurisdictions and will make their decisions." We should not have to look to the cases of other jurisdictions, I say to you minister. If we are serious about doing this, why not make our own laws so definitive, so certain, as to provide for the compensation that we are leaving the public to believe we intend we want to happen?

Mr. Chair, it also goes on to say that "…common law will evolve from that over the years so that they can give proper direction to the courts in making the decisions.

"Mr. Speaker, that is the position that we have taken and we will let that position evolve. We have recognized the fact that litigation can be painful and plaintiffs going into court having already experienced the trauma of losing a loved one have to go through the process again." The minister says, "Unfortunately, that is part of normal procedure as far as litigation is concerned."

Well, Mr. Chair, fortunately the minister has the ability to ensure that these things do not happen by making our legislation very clear, very concise, very decisive and to the point and by allowing under law that individuals and families be compensated for non-pecuniary damages. He has the authority to do that and write it right into this bill.

So to stand in the House, Mr. Chair, and to say that you know it is going to be painful for these families and you know it is going to be difficult for them and there is going to be a trauma associated with it but unfortunately that is what we have to do. It is not good enough, Mr. Chair. It is not good enough and it is not acceptable. If the real intention of the government is to amend this legislation, to bring it into the modern age, to ensure that there is proper compensation for these families, then write the legislation in a way that allows you to do that and do not leave it open to the courts to have these families go through more pain and more suffering.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Chair, I was not going to speak again, but just to reiterate, that the intention of this legislation was to add loss of companionship to the Fatal Accidents Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: It does that.

MR. F. COLLINS: And it does that. That has not been done - it was never done before. It was recognized by Justice Barry in the McLean v. Carr Estate and it was a big deficiency in that act. What we have done, we have brought it in line with other jurisdictions in Canada where – the only jurisdiction that I know of is Nova Scotia. The other jurisdictions do not mention or specify between pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages because it is up to the courts now, up to plaintiff's lawyers and defence lawyers to make the claim to the courts for loss of guidance, care and companionship. That is the intent of the act. It is not the intent of the act to go beyond that. It is not the intent of the act to open this up so that plaintiff's lawyers can try to get claims for everything under the sun as far as grief and solace and mental anguish is concerned. These are not compensable. God forbid, if a child is killed. There is no greater trauma or sorrow for a parent, but the loss of a child is not compensable. The loss of a child will be under this act, but the grief, the sorrow and the mental anguish is not compensable. Courts have ruled on that.

So, we do not want to open up the arguments here for plaintiffs' lawyers to get into arguments on looking for everything under the sun with regard to claims under this act. We are looking for care, guidance – which has already been approved in court – and companionship, which all of the other jurisdictions have done. That is what we are doing and that is what this act does, Mr. Chair, and that is what has been agreed to and approved by Mr. Crosbie.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I was not sure if the minister was up or down there for a moment.

Mr. Chair, I did not intend to address this again but it does call for one final comment. The minister is absolutely wrong. He chooses not to compensate for grief, for sorrow, or emotional loss or suffering. There is nobody in this land can prevent you from doing that when you want to do it.

Look at the legislation in Alberta; look at the legislation in Manitoba. They use the word grief. It is in there. If we make a decision as a Province that we do not want to do it that is one thing. If you do not want to do it and you want to come out definitively and say: We do not want to compensate somebody for the suffering they go through when there has been a fatal accident – that is fine. Say it, but do not do it under the guise that it cannot be done. That is whole the purpose of making the legislation. You choose to put a definitive limit on what you want to be recoverable, minister. That is your doing. That is not a court doing it; that is this Legislature doing it. They can do it elsewhere. They have called to have it done here and there is no reason why we cannot do it here.

So, we cannot hide behind these little shell games about you cannot do something. This Legislature can do whatever they want. I would prefer to give anybody in this Province the right to do that and have a judge decide what it is going to be, if it should be even awarded, than I would to come down on the side of having a government say that you can never, ever consider it. That is the whole problem we have. That is the problem of the uncertainty. We are in a situation now where we cannot even address it if the judges wanted to. It could be the most unfair circumstance in the world that happened and we are saying we cannot and will not be able to compensate for those things. I would feel more comfortable as a human being allowing it to be compensated. It is done elsewhere; get part of today's society.

I am not concerned about whether some lawyer is going to get up and sue somebody and that person has to defend themselves. I would rather come down on the side of the person who alleges that he or she had the suffering. Let the judges figure that piece out. That is the role of judges, what the amount should be. It might be $1; it might be $1 million. The judges will hear the facts. This Legislature is not hearing the facts of what the suffering was; the extent of it or the emotional upheaval. That is for a judge to be the trier of fact, and based upon the circumstances decides whether he should or should not be compensated. That is the whole point of this, but for this Legislature to put themselves in the position of the judge and say upfront: not on, not doing it, I do not think that is a step where this Legislature should go.

When we get these catastrophes again in the future, the same people who suffer these tragedies are going to be bound by the same strings now when it comes to those things in the future. Who is this Legislature to decide that someone should not be compensated for their suffering? That is a pretty big step. We have been there since 1916 when we passed the act in the first place. I thought that was what we were trying to get out of. I think it is pretty shallow to suggest that we are going to save and do A, B or C, but forget suffering, forget emotional disturbance we cause you, forget grief. I think that is the whole purpose here.

Anyway, we all know where this is going to end, Mr. Chair. I have had my say. It is recorded for the record. We are just about at the stroke of midnight and we will have a vote on this I guess.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the amendment to clause 1 of Bill 15 as moved by the Opposition House Leader?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Those against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Defeated.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

CHAIR: Division has been called.

CHAIR: Are the House leaders ready for the vote?

All those in favour of the amendment, please rise.

CLERK: Ms Jones, Mr. Kelvin Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Dean, Ms Michael.

CHAIR: Order, please!

All those against the amendment, please rise.

CLERK: Ms Burke, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Felix Collins, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Ridgley, Mr. French, Dr. King, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Denine, Mr. Dinn, Mr. Davis, Mr. Baker, Ms Perry, Mr. Dalley, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Pollard, Ms Sheila Osborne, Mr. Peach, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Verge, Mr. Young, Mr. Harding, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Kent, Mr. Forsey, Mr. Buckingham, Mr. Cornect, Mr. Sandy Collins.

Mr. Chair, the ayes five, the nays thirty-two.

CHAIR: I declare the amendment defeated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, amendment defeated.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fatal Accidents Act". (Bill 15)

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Fatal Accidents Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Bill 20.

CHAIR: Order, please!

We are now debating Bill 20, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Social Work.

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Practice Of Social Work". (Bill 20)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Opposition Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly want to speak to a number of the clauses in this particular bill.

Mr. Chair, Bill 20, An Act Respecting The Practice of Social Work, basically, what the bill does is it incorporates new discipline procedures and governance arrangements for social workers within the Province and looks at some recently adopted statutes, I guess, that were applied to other health professional organizations as well.

Anyway, this particular bill which has, I think, forty-six particular clauses, and it outlines essentially, the legislation itself, outlines or is lining up all of the regulatory professions with the same procedural structure. Social workers are amongst the last of the regulated professions to have their legislation changed. In fact, Mr. Chair, what this particular bill will do, as it means for the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers, is that there will be some internal procedural changes that will take part in this as a result of this bill. There are a number of clauses in the bill, Mr. Chair, that actually speaks to that and we will have an opportunity to discuss them as we go through the different aspects of the bill.

It will provide for a more public presence, and I think that is very important and necessary. The legislation, Mr. Chair, will retain the title and clearly identify an outline scope of the practice does not change. Mr. Chair, the title of the bill will still be An Act Respecting The Practice Of Social Work.

So, Mr. Chair, first of all there is no denying that it takes a very special person to be a social worker in a profession which can be a very challenging one. It is certainly one of the reasons why we need to bring in legislation like this to regulate those particular professions because of the profile that they have, because of the responsibility that they carry and because they work in a profession that is very challenging.

Mr. Chair, social workers play a vital role in our health and our community services systems. They help individuals and families right across the Province in areas ranging from support of those impacted by addictions to ensuring the protection and the safety of our children.

Mr. Chair, we all know, and we have all dealt with social workers. In Newfoundland and Labrador there is an Association of Social Workers. What this bill does is actually establishes that particular association and outlines, in part one of the bill, exactly what it is that this social workers' association, how it will be set up, what the structure will look like.

Mr. Chair, social workers are counsellors, administrators and they are developers of policy. Their presence is important in our communities, in our hospitals, in our organizations, mental health clinics, long-term care homes, correctional and justice systems and within the provincial government. Mr. Chair, never underestimate or undervalue the work that they do within that particular profession.

In the association that is being set up here, right now in Newfoundland and Labrador the Association of Social Workers, there are 1,342 social workers in this Province. Mr. Chair, under this legislation if you were to transfer the active registrants right now, the number of social workers who are already registered within the Province, what you would find out is right now, today, there are 1,270 active registrants in this Province who have the registered social worker designation and are practising in the profession. There are seventy-two who are not practising members but are eligible to practice but they have either retired, or are on maternity leave, or they are on other forms of leave. All of these individuals will have the option to become a part of the association which is being set up under this particular piece of legislation and this particular act.

So, all together there are 1,342 social workers in the Province according to the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers and every one of them will the authority and the option to be a part of the association that is being set up here. I think when my colleague speaks he is going to talk a little bit about the association and how it is established.

When Bill 20 was introduced, I understood from the minister's remarks that he made in second reading that there was a great deal of consultation done on this bill especially with the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers. We think that is important because they are the individuals who will have to be governed by this legislation. They will have to be the people who live with it, every single clause that is in the bill, every single component of this bill will make up the act and the regulatory process by which they will carry forward as an association, and how they will practice and perform as health professionals within the Province.

Mr. Chair, the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers also has a board of directors and has a number of committees who were involved with input on this bill and consultation was done with these committees throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. They have said themselves that the legislation will bring a great deal of value to their association and that the new legislation is more detailed and allows more guidance for the board and the association.

I am not going to get into that at this time because I know that my colleague is going to address this particular piece of legislation in committee as well, but the new legislation provides more protection for the public and it allows the public to be aware if there was a suspension, for example, the old legislation protected the social workers but the new legislation protects the public. So, the onus and the responsibilities are a little bit different, how the law is enacted here is somewhat different, but the new legislation is designed as it is for all the other health professional pieces of legislation that we have in the House of Assembly and we have passed. I think we have probably passed similar legislation now for almost every other health professional group. I think the social workers are probably one of the last groups who are out there.

Mr. Chair, the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers do not feel that this legislation will change the front lines of social workers. Social workers currently follow the guidelines that have been set out for them and the legislation will just offer a more detailed approach. So, this particular act will not change the way that social workers do their job or how they deliver services on the front lines. Mr. Chair, it may provide some more detail in terms of how the regulatory body is set up, in terms of how their associations function and so on. It does not change necessarily the scope of work that they do on the front lines. They are still the counsellors. They still work in all aspects of our health care profession, Mr. Chair, whether it is in long-term care facilities, or in hospitals, or in penitentiaries, or even within government. Those things do not change. The responsibilities do not change as part of this particular act. It is really just carrying over a lot of the things that they would have been doing under the old legislation, but it is certainly establishing it in a little different approach. That is basically what the act is doing; it is just lining it up as a profession, streamlining it in terms of how they will operate and so on.

Mr. Chair, of course, social workers are not without their challenges as well. I remember even earlier this year when we had people in the media from Eastern Health, social workers who were graduating from MUN were basically talking how Eastern Health was going to hire so many students, then they said that they were not hiring any graduate students. That was an issue, Mr. Chair, and a week later I think Eastern Health issued a statement saying that it would be hiring some of the graduating class but certainly not as many as previous years. They did hire some social workers and are going to be hiring some but not to the degree that they had in other years.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her time for speaking has expired.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words on Bill 20. I did not get to comment when we did this in second reading. I usually like to have a few words on major pieces of legislation, normally to ask questions because there is certainly a lot that I do not understand and I would like to feel comfortable when I am voting, what I am voting for. Therefore, in order to reach that stage, you can read it, but there are things even when you read it that you do not understand and why things are placed in certain areas.

I guess in this particular piece of legislation I would start on the first page. I apologize in advance if I missed anything because I was not available to hear it in first reading when the minister gave his explanation. For example, there is provision in this particular legislation that is being brought to the House today, at least for the initial creation of it to pass it to become a law, it is under the name of the Minister of Health and Community Services. Yet, I just assumed, in fact, when I looked I was somewhat surprised, I would have thought it would have been under the Minister for Child, Youth and Family Services, and I am sure there has to be a valid reason for that.

MS BURKE: (Inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I say to the Government House Leader, that is why I posed the question, because she has a social work background and I do not. That is why I am wondering why it would be under Health. I would have assumed that the vast majority of people in this Province who are social workers will be involved with her Department in Child, Youth and Family Services - and even the statistics on that; that is the kind of stuff I am asking for. I would feel comfortable knowing how many social workers we have and how many work with her department versus the Department of Health, for example, and even some indication of the interplay between them.

Of course, it is a pretty detailed piece of legislation too. It is pretty easy to grasp what the general motives here are and what we are trying to do. We have had a lot of professions in the Province over the last five or six years that we have seen updates and reviews and assessments and consultation processes in order to bring them into line. A lot of them did not have bylaws, a lot of them were not corporations, a lot of them did not have – they were self-regulating, but they did not have regulations, they did not have authority to make regulations and so on. So, over time we have seen a lot of these agencies, these professionals come through the House, and now we are, of course, dealing here today with the social workers.

I notice even in, it is called the Social Workers Act - and people might ask: Why are we going to have a social worker association versus a social worker board? We have both of it here. The association is defined in section 2.(a) it "means the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers continued under section 4". So then they flip you to another section, section 4, and tell you who the association were. So that is one group, and I would assume that everybody who is a social worker in the Province is covered off as part of an association – form members of the association.

Then, of course, you have a board. I believe it is section 10 here which outlines the composition of the board. So, if you look at the two definitions I am just reading, it says, "…‘association' means the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers continued under section 4".

It says in section 5.(1), "The association shall act in the public interest and the objects of the association are..." So they tell us there is an association. There was obviously an association before that has been continued under 4. They tell you what the objects of the association are in 5, and pretty clear, "(a) establish and maintain standards of professional conduct, knowledge and skill among its members and to ensure to the general public the proficiency and competency of the practice of social work in the province and to serve and protect the public interest; (b) promote, increase and improve the knowledge, skill, efficiency and proficiency of its members in all matters relating to the profession and practice of social work in the province; (c) regulate the practice of social work in the province and to govern the professional according to this Act; (d) promote public awareness of the profession and practice of social work; and (e) enhance public protection through the operations of the association."

It is pretty broad, general type of objects and they exist in many professions, but again, I would like to be educated. Does that mean that the Association of Social Workers - are they synonymous, for example, with the Law Society of Newfoundland? Everybody who is a lawyer in Newfoundland, you have to do a Bar exam, for example, become a member of the Law Society in order to practice your profession. I am assuming that this association we are describing here, its equivalency would be like the Law Society, for example, that – or is the board going to be that group? The board may actually, from what I am reading over a bit further, be the group that licence the social workers. So that explanation would be much appreciated.

Just a curious comment that was stuck into clause 5.(2), and it says, "Notwithstanding subsection (1), the association shall not undertake individual advocacy for members." I am wondering if somebody could explain that. I am sure the minister will explain that. They are all supposed to be and will be a part of this association. It tells us what the objects of the association are, but yet you cannot advocate, I take it, for an individual social worker. I am assuming that has something to do with the union connection here, that if there is any advocacy, what kind of advocacy? There are all kinds of advocacy. So when it says "…shall not undertake individual advocacy…" is that advocacy in sense of their labour rights, their union rights? Is that why that particular subsection is here?

In clause 6 they tell you who the officers of the association are; a little bit confusing because they have not told you at this point who the board is. They start in section 6 to tell you that, "The president of the board shall be the president of the association and shall preside at the meetings of the association." Up to this point, they have not told us anything about a board. So now you have to go find out who the board is going to be. So, you flick ahead, you come to clause 10, and then clause 10 tells you who the board is going to be. The board - and hopefully at the end of this I will have some idea of the distinction between the board and the association.

In clause 10 it says, "(1) The board shall consist of (a) a president; (b) a president-elect; (c) the immediate past-president…(d) 7 persons who shall be directors of the board; and (e) 4 persons appointed by the minister under section 12.

"(2) The persons referred to in…" those paragraphs "…shall be elected by a majority vote of the members in accordance with the by-laws and the position of president shall be assumed by the president-elect."

I am assuming the association existed before and is being continued, but the board is a new creation. They tell you now what the composition of the board is going to be. It tells you how long a member shall be elected for; how many terms you can be elected for; if you are going to resign, how you resign; where you resign or you die, what happens; what happens if your term expires. It says that you have to be elected and it says that you have to be elected by a majority vote of the members. That are members, I take it, of the association.

To tie in again between when you become a licensed social worker in this Province, what group do you become a member of? Is that the NLASW referenced in 4.(2)? Do the members of NLASW, that is the members who they are referencing when they say who votes, make up the composition of the board that is referenced in section 10?

I have at least another forty or fifty questions, Mr. Chair. I do not want to complicate things and then we will not find our way back to the answers and my speaking time on this occasion is up, so if someone wants to inform me now, that would be much appreciated. Otherwise, we can continue on with the various speaking –

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am just going to address a few questions posed by the Opposition House Leader. He commented about there are just over 1,300 social workers in the Province. There are 312 social workers in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, which would be less than one-quarter of the social workers in the Province. So, it would not be logical to put the legislation under Child, Youth and Family Services. What we offer, as far as social work and the field of social worker would be a very narrow field compared to the field in which people would practice.

I just want to speak a little bit about the different areas and the different fields because of the assumption that most would fall under Child, Youth and Family Services. Social workers certainly work in child welfare, they also work in addictions and mental health, long-term care, home supports, justice, community development, corrections, working with seniors, mediation, program evaluation, family counselling, individual counselling, research. What is also noted, we talked about who would be excluded from this act. People who would be excluded from this act, and it is outlined in the act when it says, "This Act does not affect the rights, powers or privileges of a person under another Act or under a registration or licence granted under that Act." So you could hold a licence for another profession. It also says, "This Act is binding upon employees of the government of the province who practise social work in the course of that employment." So we have certain positions designated as social workers in the Province.

Who it does not apply to would be somebody who is studying in university to be a social worker, the clergy. Also, what is interesting is it would not cover a person who practices social work or who has a social work designation and works for the federal government, nor would it apply to social workers who teach at the School of Social Work. The professors at the university who teach social work are exempt from this act as well. They would be the exemptions and the ones excluded from this particular act.

The bottom line is that not everyone who holds a BSW actually works in a social work position. A lot of times people with a social work degree may work in a position where they use their skills but not in a designated social work position. In those cases, they may not register and they would not have to abide by the act because they would not be registered professionals. Again, when I describe all the fields of social work, not all these fields would designate that the workers would have to be a social worker.

One in particular that comes to mind would be in corrections. Many people who work in corrections, whether it is the adult probation system with the Department of Justice or classification officers may hold a BSW but their positions have not been classified as social worker positions. So somebody who would have a degree in psychology or criminology or a similar type of degree would be able to work in those positions. If you are in a position that is actually called social worker, you have to have this designation if you work with the provincial government. There would be other positions in the Province that would be defined as purely social work positions, and they too would have to abide by the act.

The act specifies, and it was also mentioned that "…subsection (1), the association shall not undertake individual advocacy for members." What that means is, in essence, the association is a licensing and a registration of social workers and often takes on advocacy or promotion of social issues, or issues that are relevant to social work or social work research. It is not a union. Like the NLTA would be a union. To be a registered social worker some people are in unions, some people are not, but they would not advocate on behave of individual social workers. They would advocate, or they would promote, I guess would be the better word, and it is written here in the act as well.

It says, "(d) promote public awareness of the profession and practice of social work; and (e) enhance public protection through the operations of the association." They often put forward issues that are relevant. We often seek their opinion in different areas of social work. For consultation they would have members who would have the most current research, who would be able to offer opinions on social work related matters but would not necessarily be an association that would advocate for the individual members.

So, I would hope that clarifies. The people who would hold social work degrees, who would be excluded from this act, would be anybody who holds a social work degree but is not in a designated social work position. Anybody who works with the federal government, that legislation supersedes the provincial government. Anybody who has their PhD, I guess, or masters or BSW who teaches at the School of Social Work would also be exempt from this act.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I appreciate the Government House Leader's comments. It has probably left me more confused because now I understand that the association is, in fact, the licensure board for social workers as well, whereas I thought the board was what actually did that piece. Anyway, that is what this is all about, is making sure that what we think is and if it is not, to clarify those situations.

I take it we have – despite the association and despite the board we also have a union involved that represents each and every one of these workers as well. So, that is a third party. We have a pretty complicated scenario here. We have an association which does certain things, a board which does certain things, and the social workers are – in addition to all of what is outlined here in the Social Workers Act, members of a union which deal with certain issues on their behalf as well, which is unusual, because in a lot of professions, for example, you do not have the unions involved.

I know in the medical profession you have a licensing board that is operated by the Province that decides what criteria you must have to practice certain facets of the profession here. If you are a heart surgeon or a brain surgeon or whatever, you have to meet certain qualifications to practise medicine in the Province, and that is done by a board. Of course, you have associations of doctors; the NLMA have their own medical association. Their associations in those contexts are usually their unions. Like the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association right now, as I understand it, are in the process of negotiating with government, Treasury Board. In those cases of professions, you have the association that represents both the licensing piece. What you need is basic criteria to become a member of the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association but that medical association also goes off then and negotiates whatever benefits you are going to work for your employer, for example, Treasury Board.

Similar to the Law Society, they put certain requirements in place. You have to pay a certain fee to get your licence each year. You have to write an exam when you first graduate to see if you are going to get to be a barrister solicitor, you get called to the Bar, and so on. They set certain rules as your Law Society or your association of lawyers, we call it. In that case, there are no union negotiations of course because most practitioners practice on their own in a private practice, or else you work for an employer. You are on your own; there is no negotiation piece that takes place. Obviously, different groups of professionals have different setups when it comes to the memberships, their educational qualifications, what they must do in the workplace, their union coverage and what they do or do not have covered when it comes to the unions.

Now, that brings me back to clause 10, which is the composition of the board. I do not know if I heard the minister say or not, that the members of the board that we talk about being elected, I am assuming they do come from the association. I am certain as well, I guess – I was not here, but I guess you could be certain that the minister did some consultations here with social workers. We are not here today dealing with this multi-page document, thirty pages, and there was no consultation with social workers. So I am sure there must have been.

Now, it also allows for committees of the board. "(1) The board may appoint committees" – and I am looking at section 11 now – "from among the membership of the association to carry out the duties and functions directed by the board. (2) A committee of the board shall be chaired by a member of the board, but the membership of committees is not limited to board members."

Then it talks about the minister appointing four members to the board in section 12. I am just wondering again why would it be necessary to have government – what is the thought process behind why government would have four members on the board? If they are a self-regulating group, it is not usual that you would have government automatic appointments to that particular board. I am just wondering if, in the case of social workers, there is a particular reason.

I am assuming that everybody who is a member of the association is a member of the board structure as well in the sense that they vote for everybody on the board. We have a president, president-elect, past president, seven persons who are directors of the board, so that is ten. Then we have four extras appointed by government.

I am just wondering what the rationale is and the logic behind having four government appointed members on this board, everybody else has to get elected to the board, but yet we have government having four members on the board. I could see if we had a situation like CNA, for example, there are lots of government financed and government funded boards where government is paying the buck, government expects to have a voice, whether it is the board of regents, for example, at Memorial and so on. The government automatically does and should have a voice there. They are putting the bucks out to pay for these agencies, so they should have some say in them.

I do not understand here, if this is an association of just social workers and from that group and that association they pick a board, why would we have to have government appoint four people to the board? I pose that question to the minister as well.

"The board shall appoint a person as registrar who shall, by virtue of the office, be a non-voting member of the board." The board may pay the registrar and then it says what the registrar shall do: keep and maintain the records that the board may direct; maintain a Web site for the board. That is obviously a new reflection upon our modern times. I have never ever seen that kind of direction in a bill before that a registrar must maintain a Web site for the board and act as a member of the board.

Even the language here, it says he is a non-voting member of the board but he shall act as a member of the board. I just do not understand the logic again of why you would have that kind of language. In section 13.(1): They shall appoint a person as registrar who shall, by virtue of the office, be a non-voting member of the board, but he shall act as a member of the board. Again, the wording is befuddling to say the least.

Mr. Chair, my colleague has some things that she would like to say, so at this point I will take a break as well.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to have some questions with regard to Part II, which deals with the registration of social workers under this particular act.

Obviously, like most health professionals in the Province, you need to register in order to be able to carry out your duties or responsibilities within that profession. In fact, in all of the legislation that we have passed for these health professionals and the various groups, social workers are just one of them. Certainly, in that particular profession the legislation as written here is not unlike what it is for other professions within the health care sector.

Mr. Chair, under the registration it says, "The registrar shall evaluate applications for registration, and where the requirements for registration have been met, register the applicant." So, when you talk about 1,300 or 1,400 social workers in the Province, they would all have to register under this particular legislation. Under that registration, I guess, there are certain conditions that a person has to meet in order to register. The bill outlines what they are. It says they may apply to the registrar and a person –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS JONES: Mr. Chair, there is a lot of noise behind me. I am having trouble trying to hear myself, to be honest with you.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Chair, under the particular act it says, "A person who wishes to be registered under this Act shall apply to the registrar and a person shall be registered under this Act where that person…" - and this is where it talks about the requirements to be registered as a social worker in the Province. It basically says that they shall hold a bachelor's degree, a master's or doctoral degree in social work and be from an accredited educational institution and be approved by the board. It also states, "(b) where required by the board, maintains professional liability insurance of a type and in an amount acceptable to the board".

These are the same kind of conditions that you see outlined in most of the bills. In fact, earlier tonight we did another bill in the House of Assembly, one that pertained to health professionals, Bill 17. Mr. Chair, again in that bill the same kind of language is used in outlining the legislation. In this particular case it also has required fees that are set and they must comply with other requirements for registration as prescribed by the legislation.

Mr. Chair, in terms of this particular legislation, basically what it does is it provides for protection of the public, but it also provides for social workers within their profession. Now, once a social worker retires, it is my understanding under the legislation that they no longer remain as a member of the association. I am not sure if that is correct or not, but maybe the minister can clarify that for me because, as you know, in this Province there are a lot of social workers who are coming up for retirement.

We have been told, in fact, that over the next decade that on an annual basis you will see anywhere from twenty-five to forty-five social workers who would be retiring on an annual basis. What the numbers are really projecting is that those retirements will be steady and in 2020 they expect that there will be something like forty-five social workers retiring on an annual basis. After they retire, it is my understanding that they cannot continue to be a member of the Association of Social Workers. I am not sure if that is the case or not, and maybe the minister could indicate that to us when she does speak because I understand from the legislation at this stage that really it only provides for those people who are in the practice of social work.

So, Mr. Chair, that is one of the things. There are also clauses here that basically outline temporary registration. These are people who are employees of the government through the Province or employees of a regional health authority who practise social work in the course of that employment. So, Mr. Chair, in cases like that, they can also register but they must be employed in a region of the Province where a person is registered. They cannot be recruited to practise social work. Again, they have to have the proper education requirements, hold a bachelor's degree, certificate or diploma, and must be enrolled in the Bachelor of Social Work program, comply with continuing education and practical experience. These are all of the same things that are outlined for people who are permanent registers within the social work field.

So, Mr. Chair, like in all of the bills that we have passed regarding this, there is an appeal process, so any time that the individual is not accepted by the registry, they would be able to appeal that. That is pretty standard. There are also disciplinary approaches in here under the act, and again, they are the standard practices that we have seen in almost all of these bills. Again, there is a disciplinary panel appointed.

Mr. Chair, this is very important, because what the disciplinary panel will do is that if there is a case, for example, if there is a report regarding a social worker, and a complaint made, and that complaint needs to be investigated. The individual that the complaint is about either agrees that they have been in violation, or commits to that, then of course, that is one incident in which the disciplinary panel would be used. Other than that, Mr. Chair, under the act, there are other situations, under other situations -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was having trouble trying to hear myself talk in the House of Assembly.

MR. DENINE: I could not hear you either.

MS JONES: Even the member, Mr. Chair, for Mount Pearl South was having trouble listening to me just across the floor.

Mr. Chair, under this particular act, I think it is very important because in any occupational field we have in health care or any other occupational field it is important to know what the process is in terms of when complaints are brought against an individual and how those complaints are treated. Well, in the practice of social work, Mr. Chair, the bill does outline similar processes, and that is that once a complaint is filed, with regard to a social worker, there is obviously an investigation into those particular complaints and the complaint is investigated.

I guess the complaint can come in a number of forms. There could be complaints about the professional misconduct of the social worker. It could be unprofessional conduct. It could be professional incompetence. It could be conduct that is unbecoming of a social worker. It could be questioning their capacity to practise as a social worker. It could have to do with any breaches within the act. Mr. Chair, all of these particular things can constitute a complaint and all of these things are then investigated. They are investigated and they are looked into by the disciplinary panel. If the individual, of course, is guilty, pleads guilty or is found guilty, it is the disciplinary panel that then deals with the particular case.

Mr. Chair, the disciplinary panel is set up. It is a board and it has appointed at least three of its members, at least one of whom is a member appointed –

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her time for speaking has expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

The Leader of the Opposition I am sure has much more to say. Apparently, she did not have an opportunity last week when this matter was in second reading to get to speak to the bill, so I understand she would like to do that. That is why, of course, in order to do so in committee there must be an intervening speaker. I do not think she thought she would be given leave if she asked, so that is why we are having the intervening speaker.

Mr. Chair, this act is broken up into different parts, as we say. I ended it off talking about the appointment of the registrar. Again, as I say, it was kind of befuddling because he is a non-voting member of the board, but he must act as a member of the board. So that left me with some confusion.

Mr. Chair, now under the Part III section of discipline – excuse me, I jumped ahead here; I meant the registration section. The registrar is the person, of course, who looks after the registration of all board members, and like most professional groups it tells you right in that section 18.(2) what it is you have to do. Of course, in order to register, you must hold a bachelor's, a master's or a doctoral degree in social work from an accredited educational institution approved by the board. So, you just cannot go off and get your bachelor's degree anywhere at all. It has to be from an institution that is accredited by the board. Where required by the board, you must maintain professional liability insurance of a type and an amount acceptable to the board, and you must pay the required fees, and you must comply with any other requirements that are set down for you.

I notice, as well, they talk then, it is not in the section of discipline, but it is put in there under the section of registration, under section 21, and I would have thought it would have been in the section on discipline. It says what you can call yourself once you are accepted and registered. You can call yourself a social worker or a registered social worker. You can use the designation RSW, and you can engage in the practice of social work for a fee, commission, direct or indirect payment, or a profit. So, now that you are registered, those are the things that you can do. Then is says in subsection (3) of 21, that a person other than a social worker cannot hold him or herself out to be a social worker unless you are registered in accordance with this act, and you cannot practise social work unless you are properly registered. You cannot use the title of a social worker if you are not, or use a name, title or designation or act in any manner as if you were a social worker if you are not a registered social worker and hold the proper certificate in order to practise social work.

I do not know of any circumstances - it is very rare, I guess there are people who do impersonate people, but I am not aware of any circumstance were we have much impersonation of social workers in the Province. I am sure it is pretty well regulated and monitored for example. Most of them work for governments in this Province. There are some people I am sure in private industry, but the offence section that I alluded to earlier, section 22 it says, "A social worker who provides opportunity for another person not qualified to practise as a social worker to practise, or leads others to believe that that person is authorized to practise as a social worker commits an offence."

I cannot, for the life of me, imagine what kind of circumstance would it be when a legitimate registered social worker would provide an opportunity to someone else to act as a social worker? I am just wondering if there has been any particular incident in the Province where we have had that. It just seems so farfetched. Why would we perpetrate that someone can go act as a social worker who you know not to be a social worker? Then, of course, that leads into the discipline sections. I have noticed in comparing that particular section for social workers, it is pretty well synonymous and equivalent to other disciplines in the Province. There has to be an allegation made. The allegation needs to be in writing. It has to make some kind of professional misconduct or unprofessional conduct or professional incompetence against you or conduct unbecoming of a social worker and once that allegation is made, of course, it goes off to a complaints and disciplinary panel that is set up. Like most self-regulating groups, the panels and the persons appointed to the disciplinary panel are members as well. The board shall appoint the chair the panel, a vice-chair of the complaints authorization committee from the persons appointed under subsection (1). That committee consists of three of its members, at least one of whom is a member appointed under section 12 to constitute a complaints authorization committee. That registrar who I referenced earlier, he is not allowed to be one of those members.

Mr. Chair, I am suffering here the consequences of a terrible head cold today, so I am going to have to take my leave at this point and allow the Leader of the Opposition to have a few words on this particular bill.

Thank you.

CHAIR (Kelly): The Chair recognizes the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Of course a few other issues that I want to address in this bill before we would conclude it, Mr. Chair, because as you know there are forty-six clauses in the bill, so it is not a small bill. In fact, it is a very comprehensive bill because it deals with all of the regulatory process that will basically govern social workers in the Province.

Unfortunately, my colleague for Burgeo & La Poile is suffering from a bit of a head cold this evening but did a remarkable job so far. I think he is holding up. I think he might be getting a few more Tylenol and then he will be in fine form again.

Mr. Chair, under this particular act that deals with social workers –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS JONES: Mr. Chair, there is an awful lot of noise in the Chamber.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

At this hour in the morning, at 12:50, when the government wants to talk about regulating social workers in the Province, it is kind of hard to do when you have forty people all talking at the one time in the House of Assembly.

Mr. Chair, under this particular act, as I was saying, there are oftentimes when there are issues that will arise around social workers, complaints that will be made either with regard to how they conduct themselves as a social worker, or around professional misconduct, or questioning their capacity to practise as a social worker and so on.

Whenever complaints like that are made, Mr. Chair, they are very serious allegations that are made against professionals. There is a process, as outlined in this act, which would be followed in determining if there is a disciplinary action that would or would not be taken. In cases like that - I have had people who have alleged to me about how certain social workers have handled particular cases. It is very interesting that we are doing this legislation right now because it is only a couple of weeks ago that I actually had a case that was alleged to me in terms of a client and how they were being treated, or how their case was being handled by a particular social worker in the field. In fact, it was a very serious case.

I was going to refer to the act, Mr. Chair, in terms of looking at how an individual, a private citizen, who felt that there was some issue how it could be dealt with. In doing so, I was reminded by my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, that there were amendments coming to the Social Workers Act and that we should wait for the bill and see what those amendments were to see how this particular case would be dealt with because there are oftentimes when it will be deemed that disciplinary action needs to be taken against social worker.

Mr. Chair, when that happens, there is a process that is outlined and that would be followed. First of all, there has to be a disciplinary panel set up. That is what this bill does. It actually sets up that particular panel of individuals. The individuals would include the appointing of a chairperson and a vice-chairperson of the complaints authorization committee. Then it would be a number of individuals who would actually constitute the disciplinary panel. Similar wording that we have seen in other bills here.

That would include six members who are not members of the board, all of whom shall be appointed by the board. These are individuals who will make up the disciplinary panel. One person appointed by the board shall be appointed to serve as the chairperson, and at least four persons who are not members who are registered under the act. So, it does not mean they cannot be social workers, but they cannot be social workers who are registered under the act. There would be four of those individuals who would be appointed by the minister to represent the public interest. As I said, they can be social workers who are not registered under the act, but they can be people in any other profession, any other facet of society. Mr. Chair, they would be appointed by the member.

Again, Mr. Chair, as we have seen in other disciplinary panels that have been appointed under this legislation or similar legislation in the House, the terms that they sit as a part of this panel is staggered terms. Again, that is to avoid having everybody being removed from the panel or replaced at the same time.

Mr. Chair, when an allegation is made – and you will have to forgive me for yawning, but it is 1:00 o'clock in the morning. This is an important bill, and if we do not take the opportunity to speak to this bill at this time, then we will lose that opportunity because government has the right to exercise their power in the House of Assembly and to shut down legislation whenever they feel that they want to. So unfortunately, Mr. Chair, if we do not get to make the points tonight or early this morning, if we do not get to make the points then, then we do not get to make the points on the bill.

Mr. Chair, to section 25 of the bill when an allegation is put, and this is in a case, as I said before, where a person feels that a social worker is not acting in proper conduct or is not upholding their responsibilities and duties as a social worker, then an allegation can be made to the complaints commission and filed with the registrar. The complaint must be made in writing and it must be signed by the complainant. The registrar of the board may on his or her own motion make an allegation and file it, and that is one of the process. Anyway, where the registrar has been informed that a respondent has been convicted of an offence under provisions of the Criminal Code there are penalties that can apply. One of them means that they can be suspended by the governing body, in this case being social workers, in another province or territory of Canada or another territory or country for reason of professional misconduct, unprofessional conduct, conduct unbecoming of a social worker, professional incompetence –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS JONES: Mr. Chair, there is a lot of noise in the House of Assembly.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. member. Respectfully, I ask you for your co-operation.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I refuse to yell in this Legislature because there should be a level of decorum in order to be able to speak to any bill or any piece of legislation that is passed here. I think the Speaker ruled on that actually several times last week, so maybe members will remember that.

Anyway, Mr. Chair, in filing an allegation, of course, under this act, "…a certified copy of the record of a conviction or findings made or the action taken by the external regulatory body constitutes proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, of the conviction or findings made or the action taken by that body, without proof of the signature of the convicting justice or person purporting to have signed on behalf of that body." Mr. Chair, this is why it is required under this particular act that the person, who makes the allegation, actually signs the allegation or the complaint when it is being made.

Mr. Chair, these are very important processes that are outlined in this bill that govern social workers. While we realize that there is a significant responsibility that they have a tremendous job to do, a very challenging job to do, we also realize that there are oftentimes when their profession and people in their profession will be called into conduct as well. It is not unusual and it is not abnormal. When they do, there needs to be a process by which that can be dealt with. What the bill does under section 25 and section 26 is outline that, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I want to start first with one of the points made by the Member for Burgeo & La Poile in terms of section 5.(2), "…the association shall not undertake individual advocacy for members".

Well, Mr. Chair, I am looking at the legislation there and I go to the previous sections. What we have is the heading here, 5.(1): The association shall act in the public interest and it outlines the objects of the association. You can see with each one of them it talks about establishing and maintaining standards of professional conduct, promoting, increasing and improving the knowledge, skill, efficiency and proficiency of its members, regulate the practice of social work in the Province, and then promote public awareness and enhance public protection. So the common word that we see here is the word public in terms of public interest, public awareness and public protection.

So what we have in this particular act, as I indicated last week when we talked about this, is that what we are looking at here is trying to institute greater public accountability by ensuring appropriate public representation and in effect protecting the public interest. So then when you look at section 5.(2), it says, "Notwithstanding subsection (1), the association shall not undertake individual advocacy…". The way I read that, and I am just looking at using the plain language rule here, is that this is a public interest organization in terms of pursuing and furthering public interest, public awareness, and that if an individual, they can have their own issues, but the association shall not undertake individual advocacy for members.

It seems to me, Mr. Chair, that what we are talking about here is the association acts as a whole to protect public interest. It does not say that an individual cannot advocate for themselves, it says the association shall not undertake individual advocacy for members. I think that distinguishes there between the individual and the public.

Mr. Chair, the next point I want to make is the issue of the Opposition House Leader referred to the fact of why is the government appointing board members. Mr. Chair, earlier tonight when I dealt with the Health Professions Act, you will see the clauses are if not identical, very similar. What we see in section 9 of the act deals with appointments by the minister. It says - this is the Health Professions Act - "The minister shall appoint as members of the council persons who are not members of a college who are suitable to represent the public interest."

Mr. Chair, when you look at the section of the Social Workers Act, "The minister shall appoint as members of the board 4 persons who are not members of the association who are suitable to represent the public interest."

Again, Mr. Chair, we have this parallel between acts in terms of members outside of these organizations who are suitable to represent the public interest and are appointed by the government. I think the Opposition House Leader would be aware that the Law Society also has on its benchers a number of people who are appointed outside of the legal fraternity. They are called lay benchers but they are members of the public.

Mr. Chair, the general thinking or philosophy is that we have to ensure that by having members of the public there, then we can prevent against the society, the association, as being perceived to act in its own interests, whichever group it may be. If I remember correctly - and I know the Minister of Government Services will, I am sure, confirm this - we have brought in a lot of these pieces of legislation where the government appoints members always with the principle that by having this outside overview or outside involvement by members of the public, it allows for greater openness and transparency. It is not saying that any organization or association will not act in the public interest, it is simply saying by having a number of members from the public there they can look at, they are not attached to the profession, they are not attached to the individual, they are there to make sure the public interest is protected, which again, Mr. Chair, brings us back to the basic principle of all of these acts is what we are trying to do is to streamline, co-ordinate the procedures so that there is consistency across the professions who are self- regulating.

So, Mr. Chair, it makes very good sense here from what I can see to appoint members, and someone has to appoint them. What happens - and I explained this to the Leader of the NDP who asked: Who or where are they going to come from? As I indicated the other day, and I am sure that the member opposite will remember from his days as the Minister of Justice, that there are a lot of appointments to boards, they can be recommendations. I know that in the health department there are numerous boards appointed. There can be names submitted by the boards themselves as to who they would like to see there. There can be names submitted by MHAs. I have seen names come in from the members of the public nominating someone else and I have seen members of the public say: I would like to serve on that board. Mr. Chair, we have numerous boards in government.

I knew this at one point while I was in Treasury Board, but I do not know if it is 170 agencies, boards and commissions, but there are a huge number of boards, and one of the difficulties is trying to find enough people to sit on all these boards because they are all volunteers. I do not think in this particular act, Mr. Chair, that there is anyone paid for acting on these boards. There may be some per diems. I know, for example, all the individuals who are appointed to the boards of trustees for the regional health authorities, they are not paid. Their expenses may be paid somewhat, but they receive no per diem in terms of fees and we know how much work they put into it.

So, Mr. Chair, again the general principle of someone outside of the profession looking at what is going on, if something is not happening, they will deal with it.

Mr. Chair, then as we continue here, I have to tell you I do not see the same concerns about the registrar, although I think it is very helpful here. I hope we can continue this for the rest of the night as the member opposite raises questions. We will do the same thing with the Health Professions Act and we will go as long as necessary to deal with these.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Chair, I do think that in legislation, and the Opposition House Leader who know this, is that we have to get this right at this point because once the legislation goes in the court will look at well what is the wording, what is in there and that is why every word can be important, the disjunctive or, the conjunctive and, the mandatory shall, the permissive may. Each one of those words in the interpretation of a piece of legislation can be very important. So, I certainly welcome the comments and questions by the members opposite. It is important that we get this right now.

However, having said all that, as to what the registrar does, I mean it is pretty straightforward. Section 14 says, "The registrar shall maintain" – not that he may, he shall, or she shall maintain –"a register of social workers in which he or she shall enter (a) the names of all social workers registered under this Act". I cannot remember when the Opposition House Leader – I know he has been a lawyer longer than I was, but we signed a little roll, and that roll is maintained in the Law Society. I forget what my number was, but it keeps the roll right down through every lawyer who is admitted to the Bar.

So, Mr. Chair, what we are trying to do here again, there is the consistency, the Social Workers Act - and I do not dispute for one second or disagree with the Leader of the Opposition as to the important role that social workers play. This new Child, Youth and Family Services Act is an example, Mr. Chair, of a piece of legislation that this government is bringing in to further protect the youth and children of our Province, and that is primarily done through social workers.

As pointed out by the Government House Leader that is not the only work they do. We have social workers throughout the Province who are engaged in numerous activities. Also, we have the association; we have the board. I do not know if this was pointed out, but there is no one union of social work, for example. They can be members of NAPE, CUPE, I think, whatever union happens to be present in that particular area in which they were. You can have social workers, Mr. Chair, they work with addictions, they work in mental health; they work throughout our system and perform a very vital role.

So, any time we are dealing with an important act like this and there are sections here that affect, as I went through the other day, their reputations, and I talked about the rules of natural justice, I talked about the right to know the allegations against you, and the right to be represented by counsel to have your case heard. One of the things I really liked about this act, as I pointed out the other day, Mr. Chair, is that there is a type of alternative dispute resolution which allows for matters to be resolved without having to go through the rigorous process of a hearing, which can have adverse effects on not only the person who feels aggrieved or is aggrieved, but also on the individual social worker.

So, Mr. Chair, I feel that this act has a good balance. It is an act that streamlines the disciplinary procedures and it is certainly an act I have no problem with supporting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 46 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 46 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 46 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act Respecting The Practice Of Social Work.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Bill 19, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

We are now debating Bill 19.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 2". (Bill 19)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 7 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 7 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 2.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Bill 18, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

We are now debating Bill 18.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Accident And Sickness Insurance Act, The Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act, The Insurance Contracts Act And The Life Insurance Act". (Bill 18)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 21 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 21 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 21 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Accident And Sickness Insurance Act, The Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act, The Insurance Contracts Act And The Life Insurance Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Bill 21, Mr. Speaker.

CHAIR: Order, please!

We are now debating Bill 21.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act". (Bill 21)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 4 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 7 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Bill 23, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

We are now debating Bill 23.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Securities Act". (Bill 23)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 10 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 10 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 10 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Securities Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, Bill 26.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 26.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Architects Act, 2008". (Bill 26)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 7 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 7 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act to Amend The Architects Act, 2008.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, Bill 17.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 17.

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Certain Health Professions". (Bill 17)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 60 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 60 inclusive carry?

CLERK: Oh, we have an amendment.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 59 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 59 carried.

CHAIR: We have an amendment. Bill 17, An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Certain Health Professions.

Clause 60 of the bill is repealed and the following substituted:

"60.(1) This Act, or a section, subsection or paragraph of it, comes into force on a day or days to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

"(2) This Act may come into force for one or more health professions listed in the Schedule."

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to speak to the amendment that has been put forward, mostly, Mr. Chair, to get clarification on the amendment because, as you know, this particular bill deals with seven particular health professional groups. Those are: acupuncturists, audiologists, dental hygienists, medical laboratory technologists, midwives, respiratory therapists and speech language pathologists.

Mr. Chair, obviously, what the government is doing in this amendment is, first of all, saying that this particular act can come into force for one professional group at a time. It indicates that in some cases it may not come into force for others until much later and probably not at all; we do not know the answer to that. That is the question that I would pose to the minister, is first of all if he can give us any particular timelines around when this bill would be proclaimed and when he sees it being proclaimed? Also, some timelines around the seven particular groups here that make up the colleges and the professional organizations of Bill 17, if he can outline to us which ones of those he would see coming into force under this act immediately and which ones he is indicating through his amendment that may be much later coming into force? Because we certainly feel that that is important, especially in the case of midwifery, Mr. Chair, which is one of the groups in this Province that have been lobbying for quite some time to have legislation to cover the profession of midwifery in Newfoundland and Labrador.

In fact, Mr. Chair, they have made their case several times to this House of Assembly and I think it is important to realize the history that is around this particular profession, because Newfoundland and Labrador has had a very rich history of practicing midwifery. There have always been midwives. Aboriginal people had midwives and so did the settler people for many years. In fact, even going back to 1892 in this Province when Sir Wilfred Grenfell came and set up the first hospitals – Mr. Chair, there is awful lot of noise here.

Mr. Chair, even when Sir Wilfred Grenfell came and set up the first practices in the northern region of the Province, one of the professions that was included and started in that time, in fact in 1893, was the practice of midwifery on the Northern Peninsula of the Province. Mr. Chair, over a period of time midwifery legislation developed. It was actually passed in Newfoundland for the first time in 1920 when the government appointed a midwives board to examine and provide midwives with a licence to practice. Nurses who were midwives were recruited at that time from mostly the United Kingdom. They came to Newfoundland and worked in Newfoundland and at that time in Labrador, in a lot of the outport communities. They basically started to lay the groundwork for aspiring midwives. A course of instruction was given at weekly meetings; the examinations were set by the midwives board. All of that took place as early as the 1920s in this Province. The Newfoundland Outport Nursing and Industrial Association, as it was known at that time, Mr. Chair, was established to assist the outports to pay the midwives and the nurses, to supply the drugs and the equipment to many of these communities.

So, Mr. Chair, when the minister brings in this amendment to the motion I am somewhat concerned, because I would not want to see any of the scope of practice or the regulations around midwifery delayed in this Province. As I said, it is a profession that has been around for well over 100 years, since 1892 in this particular Province.

Mr. Chair, to give you a little more history around it, when the Commission of Government was in Newfoundland it took on certain health reforms. At that time it was introduced by Leonard A Miller who the Health Sciences Centre, I think it is, is called after today. The cottage hospitals at that time in the Province were being built in different regions of Newfoundland and government assumed the responsibility for outport nursing. A program of midwifery education was established, and at that time it was being done through what we would call the old Grace hospital.

Mr. Chair, when Newfoundland joined Canada, Canada as a country in 1949 did not recognize midwives. As a result of that, midwives who were previously established under legislation, under Commission of Government in Newfoundland at that time, were no longer valid or their licences were no longer recognized.

Mr. Chair, in 1958 there was a hospital insurance plan for free hospitalization and a bonus for physicians who were treating patients in a hospital rather than as outpatients. As a result of that, women now did not have to pay to give birth in a hospital; they could actually give birth for free. It was in 1963 in this Province when the last midwife was actually issued a licence. After that, nurses were admitted to the midwifery program part of the outpost nursing diploma program. Mr. Chair, that was discontinued due to small class sizes in 1986.

In 1990, the Northern Childbirth Workshop was held in Makkovik. It recommended that traditional and southern midwives return to practice in communities. What you have to remember, Mr. Chair, is that back in those days, in the early days, in the Aboriginal communities in a lot of the outports midwifery was a standard practice. Mr. Chair, in those days, in particular, that was the custom. We have all heard the stories in our own communities about midwives delivering children. There would always be one particular woman in a community who would be specialized as the midwife. They may not have necessarily had any training, may not have had any formal education to do the job but they did it. There are women in our history in this Province, in small outport communities and regions, who borned hundreds of children.

In fact, Mr. Chair, I just finished reading a book by Donna Morrissey, who is a Newfoundland and Labrador author, a book that she has now published called Sylvanis Now. Mr. Chair, it talks about outport living, from prior to Confederation right up until into the 1980s and 1990s in this Province. Not only does it speak about the transitions in the fishing industry for outport regions but it talked about things like the midwifery. It talked about women in rural outport communities who were having children. People would have to go by dog team or by boat to nearby communities and villages along the coastline of Newfoundland to get a midwife to come and to born a baby or child in the next community. In fact, in her book she certainly documented very well what the challenges were in a lot of these communities and the vital role that midwives did play. So, Mr. Chair, it has been a long part and tradition of our history in this particular Province.

Mr. Chair, under this particular bill –

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that –

MS JONES: - I would ask the minister if he could give me the information with regard to any particular professions that will be omitted or delayed for a period of time.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I went through this earlier but I have no problem repeating it again. I had indicated during my earlier comments that the regulation of the medical laboratory technologists under the act is something that arose under Cameron, is consistent with the recommendations contained in the Cameron report, and it demonstrates our commitment as a government to ensuring high-quality standards are put in place in laboratories throughout the Province.

As I indicated earlier, Mr. Chair, this will be among the first professions regulated under the act. It is our intention to have this work completed in the coming months. Now, those are the same words I said earlier. So in the coming months we will deal with these medical laboratory technologists.

Mr. Chair, we will then look at the other professions that are outlined here: acupuncturists, audiologists, dental hygienists, midwives, respiratory therapists, and speech language pathologists. The reason we brought in this particular amendment is that the act will come into force on a day proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. So before the legislation can be proclaimed, Mr. Chair, regulations respecting the relevant professions must be developed – which again, what I said earlier – and which will require extensive consultations and collaborations with those professions, which is what I said earlier.

So, Mr. Chair, as for putting time frames on them, we cannot. It is going to be a question of – the midwives, for example, is one that could possibly be done earlier. It depends on the ability to consult and put the regulations in place. You have to go back to the structure that is outlined in the act, in that there will be – each self-regulating body will have a college. The college will then feed into the quality health council. So, what we have to do is meet with each one of these groups individually. I cannot look at these groups here now and tell you which group will take place within a certain period of time. What I will say is that we have indicated that the medical laboratory technologists will be first.

What is important about this amendment and about this bill, Mr. Chair, is that it allows for continued evolution as professions complete the work required to establish their colleges. So it will apply to different professions at different times. It will also allow – there are a number of groups right now who are not in a position at this point to become part of this quality health council but they may very well be at a subsequent time. We consulted with a lot of these groups.

Mr. Chair, what we are doing, is this amendment, section 60, simply states: "This Act, or a section, subsection or paragraph of it, comes into force on a day or days to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council." Subsection (2), "This Act may come into force for one or more health professions listed in the Schedule."

We will make efforts, Mr. Chair, to proclaim this act as quickly as possible, or certain sections of it, but what we have to do is consult with these professions. They are the ones who know. They know their professions, they know the ethical considerations; they know the professional considerations. We will deal with them, Mr. Chair, in terms of trying to put the legislation and regulations in place, because if you look at the various sections of the act, and I come back for a second to the issue of the council. Under section 7 is that "The council shall act in the public interest and the objects of the council are..."

So, what we have, Mr. Chair, again, is the public interest referred to throughout this act, as in the Social Workers Act. "The duties of the council are to…" - in subsection (3) – "(a) regulate the practice of each health profession designated in the Schedule…(b) monitor compliance with and enforce standards of academic or technical achievement…(c) monitor compliance with and enforce standards…(d) develop, establish and maintain programs…(e) promote the council's relations with the colleges, members of the health professions and the public; (f) promote inter-professional collaboration among the colleges".

Mr. Chair, what we have is then the council consisting of the chair of each college established under this act. One member appointed under section 9 representing each college established under this act. Mr. Chair, we have to ensure that the colleges are in place before we can proclaim the act, and that is what we are trying to do here.

Then it says under section 9, "The minister shall appoint as members of the council persons who are not members of a college…" Mr. Chair, certainly, that is something that can be dealt with in an expeditious way. What we will try to do, Mr. Chair - I am aware of the importance of this piece of legislation. Midwives is something that we discussed with them and something I understand they are very pleased that we are bringing this in.

I also understand, Mr. Chair, that the acupuncturists are another group who have certainly welcomed this legislation and who want this brought in - the dental hygienists, the audiologists. We will consult with these people as outlined. We will then look at when we can bring in the legislation, but without this amendment, Mr. Chair, my concern would be - when you look at section 60 of the act as it now stands, it says that this act comes into force on a date to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Now, if I am sitting there as a lawyer arguing that in court for whatever reason, I would say: Well, the act as a whole has to be proclaimed and the act as a whole cannot be proclaimed until all the colleges are in place and the council is in place and we are ready to go.

What we are trying to do here, we do not want to slow the process down because we made a commitment that the medical laboratory technologists will, again, coming out of the Cameron report, be one of the first professions we will deal with but it does not mean we cannot deal with the other ones. What this section does, this amendment of the act allows us to bring in each group as they are ready, to consult with them, to have their input, put the college in place, put the regulations in place and then move logically and organizationally through the establishment of the act as it is outlined here.

So, Mr. Chair, again, this act is consistent. I have already pointed out the consistency between the appointment of the public members, the consistency with the disciplinary procedures. This act is consistent with the other acts that we – again, my colleague, the Minister of Government Services, has brought in numerous pieces of legislation with this that have these similar disciplinary procedures. So we are ensuring consistency. What we are looking at, Mr. Chair, is trying to again allow these professions to have the input into how they are going to govern themselves, always recognizing that there has to be accountability. That as a government we have an obligation to protect the public interest as best we can while giving the greatest latitude possible to these self-regulating bodies. The disciplinary process is obviously one that is of major concern to people who feel aggrieved, or who are aggrieved by the process, but it is also important to the members of these professions that they have the ability to defend themselves, to protect their reputations from being sullied and to ensure that they have their day, for lack of a better term, in court. So what we are trying to do, Mr. Chair, is, as outlined I think in my earlier comments, talk about or try to ensure the White Paper, the disciplinary procedures are outlined throughout.

Mr. Chair, the purpose of this amendment – and, again, I appreciate the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. I can tell her that as soon as we can bring these groups into the fold - they are anxious, they all want this. It is a good thing. It protects the public. It ensures openness and transparency, which are two of the main themes of this government that we have promoted from the date of election, and we continue to be open and transparent and accountable. We recognize that as a government, that is something that you have to do. Also, Mr. Chair, as professions, they also have to be open, transparent and accountable to ensure that the public sees that they are being protected.

So, Mr. Chair, I would suggest that this is a very sensible amendment. It is one that allows us to take the steps that need to be taken. Again, I will reiterate, that we will deal with the medical laboratory technologists and I am sure before tomorrow or whenever this bill passes, that the other groups will be calling our department saying we would like to get together, we are anxious to have this legislation, and I am sure that the midwives will be one of the first groups to do that.

Overall, Mr. Chair, I think the legislation is something that - it is a very good piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that the Opposition parties have actually asked for on a number occasions in this House: When would it be brought in? This amendment will allow us to bring it in as each college is prepared to do so.

So those would be my comments, Mr. Chair, and I can assure you, I will be supporting this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Shall the amendment carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CLERK: The schedule.

CHAIR: Shall the schedule carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, schedule carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Certain Health Professions.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 17 as amended by the repeal and replacement of clause 60?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you.

Mr. Chair, Bill 24.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 24.

A bill, "An Act Respecting Court Security". (Bill 24)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 10.

CHAIR: Clauses 2 to 10.

Shall clauses 2 to 10 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 10 carried.

CLERK: Clause 11.

CHAIR: Clause 11.

Shall clause 11 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I have a few words with regard to this amendment being proposed here. In second reading, what we are dealing with here is the Court Security Act. As indicated earlier, government had passed the original court security act back in 2004. It had not been proclaimed and now we find ourselves in a situation where they are repealing what was brought in, in 2004, bringing in a whole new act but with three areas added to it. The amendment is directed toward clause 11.

In the old bill, when you talk about court security, there are a number of facets to it. One, for example, is what areas in a courtroom should be off limits or restricted? What type of screening devices might be used in terms of court security? You might also have an issue, for example, of what kinds of searches are permitted in a courtroom? Under the old act it was quite clear that all of those areas, all of those facets of court security were dealt with, discussed, decided by a rules committee. The rules committee was established under the Judicature Act which governs the court structures in the Province, and that is what we are talking about here. It is called court security. They changed it now. It might seem like a minor change but I think it is quite substantial in the sense that they have frozen out the judges. They have frozen out the lawyers who might want some say into these areas. First of all, they broke it out.

For example, instead of the committee looking at all the facets of court security, the government has now deliberately, and quite deliberately, said we are going to break them out. We will let the judges, "…the Chief Justices of the Court of Appeal and the Trial Division, the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court and the High Sheriff, may make regulations…" designating about the space, what part of a building or other space as a court area, designating the parts within that court that are restricted, and respecting a person or class of persons who may enter a restricted zone.

Then they, on the other hand, said: we are going to reserve onto the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, or Cabinet, the right to make regulations with respect to the other areas, such as what "…person or class of persons already authorized to possess a weapon under another Act who may or may not be authorized to possess a weapon in a court area; …the weapons that an authorized person or members of a class of authorized persons may possess in a court area;" what screening and search methods that may be permitted to be used by security officers in a court area; and any other matters necessary to the court.

So, we have gone a step now, that not only have we separated it out as to what areas the judges can have some say in, we have also now reserved the screening methods. I already alluded earlier to the concerns about the screening methods. We have gone past electronic monitoring; we are going to allow physical frisking of persons now. They even used the word frisk in the legislation. I just simply think that is wrong. If we are talking about court security, I do not see why any facet of court security should not have some input from the judges. Why would you not want it? Do you think they are not capable of making the decision? Do you think they are too tardy in getting into discussions to contribute to the decisions? There has to be a reason here. You just do not take what was a section 12 under the old act, which you are scrapping, and split it out here, and single or freeze out the judges from having any say into those areas of security in their courtrooms. They can designate what is a courtroom, they can designate the restricted areas, but they have no say now as to those screening devices, the screening methods, and the search methods that are used in their courtrooms. So it can be none other than that government does not want the judges fiddling in the security issues, and there has to be a reason for that. Why would somebody not even consult with them to see what they think?

That is why the amendment is framed that way. It is not framed as: You shall consult before you do anything or before you make a law. The amendment basically says that you shall consult prior to making the regulations. That does not prevent you from making the regulations, and that is quite clear. Governments will still reserve its right to do exactly what they want to do under section 11 – everything. Government may make the regulations, no doubt about it, it is up to them whether they do or they do not.

All the amendment is suggesting is that before you make the regulations that impact any of those areas, at least you shall consult. You do not have a situation then where anybody, judge or anyone else – the sheriff's office, the clerks of the court, the lawyers who use the courts, or the judges themselves – who might come back and say: What are you doing make these rules that we do not know anything about and you never even consulted with us? That is what the rules committee is there for, and that is exactly what it says here, is that it requires the government to consult before you make the regulations. I think that is a pretty prudent thing to do, and it is so important.

The reason I put forward the amendment is because, it is one of two things: either it was an oversight by government in the way that they drafted this or it was a deliberate attempt to freeze out these bodies and these stakeholders. I do not think that is good enough. So if the intent was to – accidentally they excluded them. Well, there is an opportunity to make sure that they are going to be consulted. If the intent is to definitely exclude them so that government does not have to talk to anybody – we are going to do what we want, we do not care too much about what anybody else says, even the stakeholders who live in that environment – it is obvious that the amendment will be defeated.

So, that is the premise that the amendment is put forward on. It is quite obvious there has been a drastic change from the former act that is being repealed here. So, it is put forward in that sense, Mr. Chair, and I think it is very valid and ought to be given support.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Justice.

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

Mr. Chair, this act, the Court Security Act, is a very proactive, as I mentioned earlier, piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that is welcomed by all who use our courts. It enhances the safety of our employees and the public. Its measures are not draconian, they are not invasive, they are not overbearing, and they are not over the top, as was suggested earlier by someone from the other side. It is necessary and welcomed, and a very balanced response to a very well defined need.

Mr. Chair, with respect to the amendment, we will be voting against the amendment. We will consult with the Offices of the Court; we have consulted with the Offices of the Court. We have consulted with the Sheriff's Office; we have consulted with the three Chief Justices, Chief Justice Orsborn, Chief Justice Green, and Chief Judge Pike. We have consulted with the Women's Policy Office; we have consulted with agencies and departments of government. The consultation has been done.

Mr. Chair, we have been requested, it has been requested by lawyers and judges to look at the security issues in the court. The authority has been removed from the rules of court committee and the Judicature Act because those people have no expertise, Mr. Chair, in court security. The expertise is with the Sheriff's Office, with the people who are trained in security measures; not with judges, or not with lawyers. To resort back to having lawyers and judges take responsibility for security issues will get very little support from those people who are protected by this act.

Mr. Chair, we will not be voting for this amendment. We feel that the jurisdiction for court security is where it belongs, with the Office of the High Sheriff.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Shall the amendment carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The amendment is defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CLERK: Clauses 12 to 15 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 12 to 15 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 12 through 15 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act Respecting Court Security.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you.

I move, Mr. Chair, that the Committee rise and report Bills 15, 20, 19, 18, 21, 23, 26, 17 and 24.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bills 15, 20, 19, 18, 21, 23, 26, 17 and 24.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Member for Humber Valley and Assistant Deputy Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bills 15, 20, 19, 18, 21, 23, 26 and 24 without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bills 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24 and 26 carried without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said bills be read a third time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bills ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Chair of Committees.

MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters referred to them and have directed me to report Bill 17 with some amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 17 with amendments.

When shall the report be received?

MS BURKE: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the amendments be read a first and second time?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services, that the amendments be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said amendments be now read a first time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: Clause 60 of the bill is repealed and the following substituted, "60.(1) This Act, or a section, subsection or paragraph of it, comes into force on a day or days to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

"(2) This Act may come into force for one or more health professions listed in the Schedule."

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

MS BURKE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister Health and Community Services, that the amendments be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said amendments be now read a second time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: Clause 60 of the bill is repealed and the following substituted, "60.(1) This Act, or a section, subsection or paragraph of it, comes into force on a day or days to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

"(2) This Act may come into force for one or more health professions listed in the Schedule."

MR. SPEAKER: When shall Bill 17 with amendments be read a third time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, amendments read a first and second time, bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General, that the House do now adjourn.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

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

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