June 15, 2010                        HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                  Vol. XLVI  No. 38


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today the following members' statements will be heard: the hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North; the hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands; the hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley; the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North; and the hon. the Member for the District of Kilbride.

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Rhonda Martin, a physical education teacher at Cloud River Academy in Roddickton, who received the Newfoundland and Labrador Coach of the Year Award at the School Sport Newfoundland and Labrador Annual Awards Banquet that was held in St. John's on June 4. Since the awards inception in 1975, Ms Martin is the first female to receive this honour.

Ms Martin who was nominated for this award by Alexandra Ellsworth, a student who on is on her girls three-time provincial winning volleyball team, coaches volleyball, softball, badminton and ball hockey at the Roddickton school. Ms Martin had always enjoyed the sport in high school, so becoming a high school physical education teacher and sports coach was just a natural progression.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Ms Martin on this wonderful achievement and wish her well in her future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to once again recognize the Summerside Rockets 4-H Club who travelled to Riverhead on Friday, June 4 for the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial 4-H Competitions.

Mr. Speaker, there was twenty-plus competitors from all over the Province competing in public speaking and demonstration competitions.

There were junior and senior public speaking, junior and senior single demonstrations and finally junior and single double demonstrations.

The Summerside Rockets sent the following district competitors to the competitions: Wilfred Bellows, single junior demonstration; Abigail Blanchard, junior public speaking; Brook Otto and Melissa Taylor, junior double demonstration; and Melissa Brake and Sarah Brake for senior double demonstration.

Mr. Speaker, all of the above competitors in each of these categories were the top winners for the Province. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all winners for a job well done.

Mr. Speaker, the club was formed fifty years ago when the rockets started flying out in space and the leaders and members of the club have been aiming at the sky ever since.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members here today to recognize the accomplishments of these fine young people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Ed Lawrence on being inducted into the Newfoundland and Labrador Hockey Hall of Fame on June 5. Ed currently resides in Pasadena and is an active member of the Humber Valley Senior Citizens' Club.

Ed Lawrence put an extremely impressive fifteen-year senior hockey career together as an extremely talented and effective defenceman who was universally respected for his exceptional sportsmanship for the Corner Brook Royals.

Mr. Speaker, he played a major role in four Herder Memorial Trophy provincial championships that the Royals won in 1962, 1964, 1966 and 1968. Twice selected as top defenceman, he won one sportsmanship and ability award, and was a standout Royals player in 1968 in the National Allan Cup series against Victoriaville, Quebec.

Regarded as the strongest player during his career, he drew his nickname "Diesel" because of strong skating ability that was often shown by his on-ice performances.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to his strong, solid skating and his great ability to get the puck out of his zone, he always displayed an impressive knowledge of hockey. His hard work in games and in practices, as well as the friendship he earned with teammates like Danky Dorrington, were important aspects of Corner Brook's successes in provincial hockey.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating Ed Lawrence on being inducted into the Newfoundland and Labrador Hockey Hall of Fame.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I hope you have slept well.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate and recognize Mr. Luke Neville, a teacher at St. Peter's Junior High School, on his recent achievement in being selected for a National Inclusive Education Award from the Canadian Association for Community Living and Inclusive Education Canada.

Mr. Neville teaches physical education. At the Volley Fest tournament in January of this year, he helped showcase St. Peter's inclusive nature by embracing the spirit of inclusion. His tireless efforts and dedication are to be commended.

Luke is well known to his peers as a leader who always does what he can to encourage and engage those students who are reluctant to participate. He constantly changes and modifies activities for students to ensure that they remain interested. His dedication to inclusion for all students is admirable and inspiring. His efforts have no doubt led to the success of many students in the area of physical education. By helping to develop positive relationships between students at St. Peter's Junior High, Mr. Neville has helped create an environment of mutual respect.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Mr. Luke Neville on this great honour and wish him all the best as he continues his efforts on ensuring inclusion for all students at St. Peter's Junior High.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, in April 2010, the Canadian Powerlifting Competition was held in Quebec City. Two young athletes from my district, Stacey and Stephen Price, a brother and sister team, represented this Province in their weight classes.

Stacey, a nineteen-year-old second year Memorial University student, won a medal at this event. She set a Canadian record for bench press in her weight category. Stacey was presented with the Premier's Award for Athletic Excellence on May 20. She currently holds eight provincial powerlifting records, and will represent our Province in the World Sub-Junior and Junior Powerlifting Competition in Prague, Czech Republic as part of the Canadian twenty-two person team in August of this year.

Stephen is an eighteen-year-old Level III student at St. Kevin's High School, Goulds. He plans to attend Memorial University in the fall to do a physical education degree. He currently holds eight provincial records in two weight categories and recently set a new Canadian deadlift record during the April Quebec Nationals. He too will be part of the Canadian team in Prague this summer.

Both of these athletes train in a homemade gym in their family shed. They have spent countless hours training and volunteering in their sport while holding down part-time jobs and excelling at their school work. Their story is another example of the quality of the youth in our Province.

I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating these two fine young people.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, the provincial government has demonstrated its commitment to developing the growing, $850 million tourism industry in this Province, and most people are aware of our investments in marketing Newfoundland and Labrador as a traveller's destination of choice.

I rise in this hon. House today, Mr. Speaker, to draw particular attention to our efforts to extend tourism activity beyond the traditional peak season.

I had an opportunity in mid-May to attend the opening weekend of the Trails, Tales and Tunes festival with my colleague, the Member for St. Barbe, which has become a signature event which helps kick off the tourism season on the West Coast of our Province.

While I was there, I was told on several occasions that our $14,000 support of this event helped increase visitation and provide an early boost to tourism operators and other local businesses. In fact, Mr. Speaker, one local business owner had sales in one day that would normally take one week.

We know this is true of the other season extension investments on the West Coast, which include the Feather and Folk Festival on the Southwest Coast, and the Humber Valley Spring in Your Step Festival, to which the provincial government has provided $19,000 and $10,500 respectively.

Mr. Speaker, there is great potential for further development of our tourism industry. To the end of April, we are seeing a 7 per cent increase in visitor traffic over the same period in 2009, and a 21 per cent increase in visits to our Web site, Newfoundlandandlabrador.com.

We hope and expect this will continue, Mr. Speaker, and that the 2010 year will be one of the best – if not the best – tourism season to date.

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 thank the minister for an advance copy of his press release and his ministerial statement.

We would certainly applaud the government in providing funding to the ones that the minister has noted. We also feel that there should be contributions made to the many other festivals we have here. For the small amount of money that one puts in, there is certainly a great return on it.

We have all kinds of these festivals around the Province which have taken on a life of their own in terms of generating revenue. We have the Labrador Straits Bakeapple Festival; the Burgeo Sand and Sea Festival; we have Mary's Harbour and Triton crab festivals; we have the Brigus and St. George's blueberry festivals. Every few dollars that these people get it comes back tenfold.

I have seen the minister put out press releases in the past that talked about not only attracting tourists from outside the Province but the interprovincial tourism as well. These festivals add greatly to it.

I know on the West Coast there are whole groups who have trailers, for example, who make a point now of travelling around each summer to different locations. Of course, they spend money, and that is what it is all about. In terms of tourism, it keeps the many people that we have who operate B&Bs, hotels, motels, service stations and food establishments and students employed in the summertime.

We applaud the money that is going in, and hopefully if we had a few more bucks to spread around to the rest of them it would be that much better as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I am glad to see that he was out at the Trails, Tales and Tunes festival in Norris Point. It is a great festival that Anita Best and others have worked hard on getting set up out there.

The minister talks about a 7 per cent increase in visitor traffic, and that is good, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering if we could have a breakdown some time – and I know the department has this – of visitors who are from in Province and those who are coming from outside the Province. Because while it is important to get residents in the Province to visit our own tourism areas – and a lot of people do not get around the Province and it is good to do that - we also get a lot of economic benefit from attracting visitors from outside as well.

I would like to recognize the recent government commission rental vehicle report which proved what the hospitality industry has been saying about rental cars. I do know, having heard the minister in the news, that he is working with Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador to help find solutions with regard to the rental cars. I am really glad to see that co-operation between the minister and the industry.

Other issues that I would like the minister to look at is more training for workers in the hospitality industry and attention to young workers who get hired in the summer, and how we can continue young workers in that trade in industry throughout the whole year.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, during the Finance Minister's Budget consultations, personal care home operators made a lengthy submission to government of some of the challenges that they face asking government to address their problems. The personal care association, Mr. Speaker, did an independent review on the impacts that changes of this government's board and lodging rates as well as the increase in minimum wage would have on their business. The report verified, Mr. Speaker, what the home owners have already known that the monthly subsidy increase for seniors in personal care homes were not sufficient.

I ask the minister today: Will government commit to granting an appropriate rental rate so that the personal care homes in this Province can provide the kind of service that is being legislated by government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government has invested over $200 million since its first mandate to address high priority needs within the system. Mr. Speaker, there has been $110 million invested in infrastructure and $103 million in home support wages and personal care homes. To put it in perspective, Mr. Speaker, there has been $38.5 million invested since 2005-2006 to increase the home support hourly subsidy rates. Since 2004, government has increased the personal care home subsidy rate from $1,172 to $1,717; increased by $584 a month, Mr. Speaker, since 2004.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: So I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the steps we are taking are certainly ones that should be seen as very positive, ones that are addressing the needs in the community, and ones that we continue to work on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister also knows that along with those increases came very specific legislation and requirements of personal care home owners that actually clawed back a great deal of what those subsidies were.

One of the challenges, Mr. Speaker, that they have is financing for small personal care homes. The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation offers long-term financing rates to larger personal care homes with fifty beds or more, however, the financing options for smaller homes are not the same.

We are asking the minister today: If government will assist with mortgage loan insurances, which the larger homes access though Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and make those kinds of programs allowable to small personal care homes through provincial revenues, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the situation that the member opposite talks about.

I recently met with one of the larger personal care homes and they are not even looking for increases in the amounts of subsidies. They are looking for ways that we can improve their ability to offer service, but, Mr. Speaker, let's look at - not only did I outline what we have done since 2004, let's look at what we have done in the 2010 Budget to deal with the issues of personal care homes.

Mr. Speaker, we put $8.9 million in this year's Budget for an increase in the home support hourly subsidy rate by an additional seventy-five cents on July 1, 2010. We, Mr. Speaker, invested $3.2 million to increase the personal care home subsidy rate and the number of portable subsidies to expand to respond to current personal care home wait-lists. So, Mr. Speaker, we have increased the personal care home subsidy by another $73, to $1,717 from $1,644, with a hundred new portable subsidies. Mr. Speaker, again I reiterate that since 2004 we have increased the personal care home subsidy rate from $1,172 to $1,717.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What the minister fails to mention, Mr. Speaker, is that over those same periods of time they have also forced additional costs upon these home owners for staffing requirements, Mr. Speaker, and new formulas that they have introduced into the system.

Mr. Speaker, the minister did not give us any assurances as to whether the provincial government will make available a program for small personal care home operators in the Province. I would like to ask him again, Mr. Speaker, because when government last addressed this issue they referred to the program under Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, but we know that that program, Mr. Speaker, has interest rates that are probably three times higher than what the federal loans program is that is afforded to larger operators.

I ask you, minister: Are you prepared to look at a program that will meet the needs of these home operators?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

As we have indicated on numerous occasions, and as I have indicated in this House and publicly, we are committed to providing the services required to allow our seniors to be treated with dignity and respect, but it does not mean, Mr. Speaker, focusing on one particular area. What we are looking at, we have increased the home care subsidy rates. We have increased the personal care home subsidy rates, but let's also look, Mr. Speaker, at what we are doing with our infrastructure. We have invested, Mr. Speaker, this year, $27.3 million for the continuation and development of long-term care in St. John's for 460 residents. We were in Corner Brook last weekend where we opened up a beautiful facility in Corner Brook. Happy Valley-Goose Bay, a facility is opening up. We have announced a facility in Carbonear that will house 250 people.

So what we are doing, Mr. Speaker, we are trying to deal with all aspects of providing services to our seniors, and it does not simply mean focusing on one particular area, such as smaller personal care homes. There is a much larger picture, and we are addressing that picture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but the minister chooses to confuse the issue. He is talking about apples and oranges.

Long-term care and personal care homes are two very different groups of people that are being served, minister, and people with two very different sets of needs, I say. A senior living in a personal care home has to give up their entire pension cheque and gets to keep about $150 of expenses for that month. In last year's Budget, government provided a cap on home care rates in the Province so that seniors would have to pay significantly less for home care services. However, they did not provide the same treatment for those who wanted or needed to go into a home.

I ask the minister: When will government put a subsidy rate in place for personal care homes that is on par with the subsidy rate for people who are choosing home care?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, it is not the minister who is choosing to confuse the questions; it appears to be the Leader of the Opposition who either does not understand or simply refuses to understand and thereby is confusing the issue.

What we are looking at is a continuum of care, Mr. Speaker. We want to keep our seniors in their homes as long as possible, so home care becomes very important there. What did we do last year? We increased the various rates there, Mr. Speaker, to assist in that respect. Then we continued to build our long-term care facilities. We are increasing personal care home subsidy rates. We are looking at, Mr. Speaker, the long-term care strategy, and as I have indicated, we hope to be doing consultations this summer.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are looking at that continuum of care. The smaller personal care homes are part of it, but it is a private business, Mr. Speaker, just as the bigger, long-term – excuse me, personal care homes. It is a business. What we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is provide the levels of care from level one to level four, but always allowing for our seniors to remain in their homes if they can do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will tell you what I am not confusing here, and that is the letter that was sent by the Premier, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, to a personal care home operator in this Province saying that the plight of personal care home operators were unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I am not confusing the fact that the seventy-five cents that the minister talks about in increases is also subject to clawbacks in allowances by the federal government. They are the only government, Mr. Speaker, that has done that since they have been in power.

In the last Budget, Mr. Speaker, personal care homes received an increase of $73 per person per month. We have spoken to the Personal Care Home Association that represents about forty of the smaller homes and eight of the larger homes in rural areas of the Province. No one from this association was consulted to determine the effect the increase would have for these homes.

I ask the minister: If you are not talking to this association or any of its members, why not, and who are you talking to when making these policy changes?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The member opposite refers to the letter written by the Premier referring to the plight of the personal care homes. I think we have addressed that and I have gone through this in great detail today.

Mr. Speaker, when you see an increase of $584 since 2004, that is a significant increase in the personal care home subsidy. When you see in this Budget alone, Mr. Speaker, an increase of $8.9 million for a seventy-five cent increase in the home support hourly subsidy rate, we are continuing to invest, Mr. Speaker, in our long-term care and community support services. We are, Mr. Speaker, continuing to build infrastructure. These are significant investments, Mr. Speaker, and one of the reasons we have to do it, because when this group was in government they did not do anything at all. They let these people suffer in silence. The Premier wrote that letter and we have addressed the situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I say to the minister, they are not suffering in silence now; they are making their views quite known.

Mr. Speaker, the preliminary work shows that personal care homes in this Province, compared to the rest of Atlantic Canada, has the lowest subsidized rate, I say to you, minister. The highest minimum wage, the highest staff to resident ratio and yet they are compensated the least by any government.

I ask the minister: Has your government completed a review to determine whether subsidies should be increased in our Province to closer match the rates that are being paid in other Atlantic Provinces?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Now, I do not know if I understood the hon. member correctly, but is she complaining that our minimum wage is too high? Is that what I heard over there, that we are paying too much money to our home care and personal care home workers? Is that what I heard, because that is an interesting position, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, we are actively engaged in dealing with the long-term care and community support services strategy. As I indicated during earlier sessions of this House, and during Estimates, we are aggressively attempting to put this strategy in place but we are not stopping while we are waiting for the strategy to be put in place, Mr. Speaker. We are investing significantly. We went out to Lewisporte recently and turned the sod for the new long-term care facility in Lewisporte, Mr. Speaker, which is an investment of, again, another $8 million to start that. We are going to finalize a long-term care facility in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. We will engage in consultations, Mr. Speaker, this summer and these smaller personal care homes, like home support workers, like family members will have their opportunity to present their case and be heard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Small rural personal care homes have their hands tied as a result of government's policies. No one is complaining about the minimum wage, Mr. Speaker, but accept the reality. These businesses have higher costs because of the minimum wage, because of the night security being added, because of the new models of staffing that the government has implemented. Yet, Mr. Speaker, their subsidies they are given does not measure up to compensate for all of those costs.

I ask the minister: Is he prepared to address this in some meaningful way and will he commit to include the personal care home association in formulating the long-term care strategy for the Province because at the current time this particular group of people do not feel that they are included.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that anyone in this Province or the people of this Province would consider a $200 million investment as addressing a situation in a meaningful way. Mr. Speaker, again $12 million in this year's Budget to deal with it.

I forgot to mention earlier that there was $1.5 million in this year's Budget to support the continued implementation of what is called the InterRAI suite of assessment tools for long-term care and home care in the Province. Mr. Speaker, the difficulty is, I understand from talking to people in the industry and my officials, is that someone who is classified as a level two can remain in a personal care home, but that line between level two and level three where you go into a long-term care facility is one that is sometimes difficult to determine and thereby can be very subjective.

So this InterRAI suite of tools will bring an objective assessment. It will allow us - and I have been in some of these larger personal care homes, I have to tell you they offer all the social amenities, they are doing a very good job and we are willing to work with all stakeholders in this system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If was asking about long-term care today the minister would be talking about personal care. You ask about personal care and he talks about home care and long-term care.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial government provided an update to the people of Hopedale last night related to contamination in their community. Concerns were expressed related to PCBs and other chemicals that were present, including near a residential areas, an issue that was raised in the community, I think, about a year ago, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Can you outline what problems have been identified and what actions will be taken to address these concerns?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, as a government we certainly take these issues very, very seriously and so signs, that is why today as we speak we have two ministers up at the site last night and held a public meeting. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, the Minister of Environment was there with the people on the ground in Hopedale.

Mr. Speaker, just to support the people of Hopedale, in this year's Budget, the 2010-2011 Budget, we committed $1 million to assist in the cleanup of Hopedale. Whatever we can do to assist, we certainly will.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of course the minister did not give me an answer in terms of what the problems were that were identified.

Mr. Speaker, there are concerns being raised that some of the residential areas of the town may have used contaminated soil as backfill for their houses. We know that government reacted when similar issues were identified in Buchans in residential neighbourhoods.

I ask the minister: What are the estimated costs of cleaning up these sites? Will government commit funding to immediately address the contaminated areas of Hopedale and when will this work be completed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, as a Province, I would just like to let the hon. member know, that we certainly have already done some remediation in the area and will certainly continue to do soil samples and air samples over the next few shorts months.

We realize there is a short time frame here during the summer construction season, but we are certainly there with the people. We assured them last night again, with a brief conversation that I had with my hon. colleagues, that we will certainly stand with them and clean up the environmental mess that unfortunately was left behind some years ago by American bases, not only in this place but throughout various places around our Province.

We have been left with this cleanup, Mr. Speaker, and as we did in Buchans, we will step up once again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: I thank the minister for his answer.

There have been some concerns expressed about the health impacts also associated with the years of eating wild berries that grew in the area before the scope of the contamination was known.

I ask the minister: We know that government plans to hire a toxicologist to review the environmental report, but does government plan on testing residents for the presence of any chemicals as was done recently in Buchans when these issues were identified?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I know that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs was in Hopedale last night. She was accompanied by the medical officer from Labrador-Grenfell. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding from the report that was provided by the environmental group who looked at this that there were no immediate health concerns. However, issues recently arose as to whether or not there would be or could be long-term effects.

So what we did, Mr. Speaker, is the same thing we did in Buchans. We hired an individual by the name of Dr. Ray Copes. I happened to be present in Buchans with my colleagues, the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment and the Minister of Environment, when Dr. Copes provided his report. He is a very confident individual, very knowledgeable and very experienced in this type of situation. Dr. Copes has been retained and will review the situation and will report once he has an opportunity to review all the facts of the case, Mr. Speaker.

So, the environmental report has been prepared, the remediation is ongoing, and we are examining the health concerns, Mr. Speaker (inaudible).

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.

Mr. Speaker, we understand that reshaping the fishery in the months and years ahead will mean that will likely be plant closures in our Province. The corporate sector will dictate the closures and the decisions will be based on a business model approach that that is their business. Our concern is that they will have little regard to sustaining rural communities.

So I ask the minister: Can he commit here today to ensuring that a regional plant concept and strategy will be part of the final outcome of the MOU process so that fish plants are left in rural Newfoundland to sustain these regions now and into the future?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: I am starting to see, Mr. Speaker, that they are warming up to the MOU process anyway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, the industry players who are sitting around the table in this MOU process are the ones who can make a difference.

Mr. Speaker, the one thing about it, if we do not do something within the next two, three, four years, we will see more of the communities suffer. So, the intention of us, as a government, is that rather than let people suffer through this painfully, we hope that the parties will all come together and develop a plan here that will certainly strengthen rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have discussed the MOU process many times in this Legislature, and while we support the spirit of moving toward long-term solutions to stabilize the industry, we recognize that the MOU, at the same time, has many shortfalls. One of these is the fact that it addresses the effects but not the cause of fishery problems. There is still a basic issue with the biomass of our resources. In particular, the fact the cod and shrimp are below historic levels.

So I ask the minister: How is he aggressively addressing the recovery of our resource with his federal counterpart?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I met with Minister Shea on Saturday, and two of the species, plus turbot, I will add, I spoke to Minister Shea about. I indicated to her the last-in first-out formula is not one that we definitely – we do not support it. Certainly, there is a huge impact on the Northeast and the North Coast of this Province. We have asked and she has committed to taking a look at that. We certainly hope, Mr. Speaker, that she will consider this strongly and that she will change for the future.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we outlined to her where we are within the MOU process. We said to her that we will have a progress report by July 11, and that she can expect that, early fall, we will be presenting to her a unified plan of action coming from the MOU process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, in a few years we will hit the twentieth year anniversary of the cod moratorium, and sadly there will be little chance that we will be celebrating that anniversary. Despite the establishment of the cod recovery team in 2005, and the strategies and action plans it produced, there has been little or no progress in rebuilding our resource. The recovery of our cod stocks, Mr. Speaker, is the single, largest legacy we can leave our children and grandchildren, and yet this government is not taking this responsibility seriously in the seven years they have been in government.

I ask the minister: How does he intend to support rural Newfoundland and Labrador if this government does not make the recovery of cod more of a priority?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, the member is missing one important point. It is more than cod that we have to protect, Mr. Speaker. I would say to the member opposite that one of the most important species right in this Province right now is the crab. If the bottom were to fall out of crab, this Province would be in the direst of straits.

So, Mr. Speaker, not only do we have to look at crab, but there has to research done around all the species. There is one thing he is right in, Mr. Speaker, if the resource is not there and it is not protected, there will not be a fishery. So that is where we have to start. We are looking at certain issues within our own government around research in that regard, Mr. Speaker.

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.

Because we asked a question about one part of the resource does not mean we recognize the other species involved, Mr. Speaker, and we will ask questions about these certainly.

The Government of New Brunswick is taking a leadership role, Mr. Speaker, in the fishery in several initiatives, though its fishery is smaller compared to our $1 billion a year industry. Just recently, the New Brunswick government responded to lobster fishermen's request for assistance by providing an $11 million loan to assist them through their challenges. Last week their minister, Rick Doucet, announced that he was inviting members or ministers from other Atlantic Provinces and the federal government to join him in a symposium to deal with the potential impact of oil spills on Atlantic Canada's seafood industry. Clearly, the minister of New Brunswick is concerned about this issue.

I ask the Minister of Fisheries today: If he has received this invitation, and if he will participate in this summit, and if so, can he tell us when and where it will take place?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did receive the invitation and will certainly be willing to attend any meeting. We will sit down with anyone to talk about issues related to the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, around the restructuring within this Province, the minister from New Brunswick acted in the manner that he did. In this Province, Mr. Speaker, we have much control over our own destiny. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I again go back to a process of restructuring that is required within this Province. It is going to take commitment and true grit on behalf of the people that are involved in this entire process, 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, there have been numerous housing announcements lately, but the minister in most cases is talking about money committed a year ago and allocated by last July under the Affordable Housing Initiative. Mr. Speaker, both the federal and provincial levels of government committed to three more years of that initiative, but we have heard nothing concrete so far this year.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister Responsible for Housing: Will he give us an update on the Affordable Housing Initiative and when the next proposal call will happen?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, in response to the member's question from across the House. Again, this government certainly have invested over the last number of years significantly in social housing, both in maintenance, in renovation of our units, and of course the construction of new units.

With regard to our Affordable Housing Initiative with the federal government, it is not a one year thing, but we certainly have over the last two to three years now, basically been involved in that Affordable Housing Initiative. When it is finished this year, and perhaps even a little bit next year, we will have put, Mr. Speaker, close to 1,000 units in the system, affordable housing for our seniors and people with disabilities.

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, affordable housing groups across the Province were hoping that the government would provide bridging funds until the next phase of the Affordable Housing Initiative kicks in. The minister did not say that there is another phase, but there is supposed to be. So, Mr. Speaker, these groups have projects ready and they are waiting for funds to build more affordable housing which they were told was going to happen. If they do not start soon they could lose the construction season.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Will this government allocate bridging funds so that new affordable housing projects can be planned now while they are waiting for the announcement on the Affordable Housing Initiative?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, once again, as I pointed out, we have an ongoing Affordable Housing Initiative that is continuing year to year, and it is up to this particular year and into the future. We, as a government, will continue to invest in this Affordable Housing Initiative to make sure that we are meeting the needs that are out there.

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.

Another minister who has learned how to not answer questions.

Mr. Speaker, the Community Coalition on Housing and Homelessness –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS MICHAEL: He did not.

The Community Coalition on Housing and Homelessness in Corner Brook says there is a serious lack of housing for seniors, students and people with disabilities and affordable housing in general. Mr. Speaker, Corner Brook has the lowest rental vacancy rate in Atlantic Canada at 0.4 per cent. Skilled workers and professionals that are needed in the Corner Brook economy are not moving there because housing is so unaffordable and scarce.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: When will this government recognize that the shortage of affordable housing is affecting our economy and do something about it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, I will pass over the fact that I am not getting up and answering questions. I believe that I have gotten up and answered the questions and clearly indicated –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: - the commitment that this government has put towards social housing. Now when you talk about affordable housing, you are in another sphere because you are talking about basically getting into rentals and that sort of thing. We are talking about, or at least I am talking about, the Minister Responsible for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing which is about affordable housing, social housing and for people with incomes less than $32,500.

Now, if we want to go further, I will refer to the Minister of Education and talk about the thousands of units that are going in place for Grenfell and Memorial University when we talk about that. We will also talk about other ways that this government is certainly investing in the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and I will stand on my feet any time and…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I clearly, throughout each of my questions, talked about the Affordable Housing Initiative which this government is part of and he is the minister responsible.

Mr. Speaker, tenants across the Province are seeing their rents doubled and tripled, since he wants me to talk about rental housing, and some are being evicted without just cause by landlords who want to renovate and charge high-end rents. The Residential Tenancies Act allows landlords to do this while other provinces have placed limits on rent increases and evictions when rents start to go through the roof.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Will his government commit to making changes in the Residential Tenancies Act in order to bring us up to standards in other provinces with protection for renters?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

First, I would like to inform the hon. member that the Residential Tenancies Act is under total review, with the view of bringing it in line to current practices and best practices across all jurisdictions, but as well, we are having a look at rental control.

I have to correct the hon. member, there are very few provinces today have actually rental control legislation in place. They certainly found challenges in regard to that in the private sector but we are a government that researches our legislation, researches our opportunities. We recognize the need, we recognize that there are challenges out there in the market. Certainly, we will have a look at it over a period of time in a consultation process. We will take that period of time and then we will have a look at it over that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Report by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to table the Embalmers and Funeral Directors Board annual activity report for 2009.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move Motion 4, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today on Tuesday, June 15, 2010.

Further, Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 5, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today on Tuesday, June 15, 2010.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock p.m. on Tuesday, June 15, 2010.

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 p.m. on Tuesday, June 15.

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, from the Order Paper we will go through a number of third readings.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 1, An Act Respecting The Care And Protection Of Children And Youth, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 1, An Act Respecting The Care And Protection Of Children And Youth be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Care And Protection Of Children And Youth. (Bill 1)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 1 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Care And Protection Of Children And Youth", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 1)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, that Bill 4, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 4, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991. (Bill 4)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 4 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 4)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General, that Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act, be now read a third time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act. (Bill 7)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 7 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 7)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General, that Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act, be now read a third time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act. (Bill 8)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 8)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General, that Bill 11, An Act To Amend The Small Claims Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 11, An Act To Amend The Small Claims Act, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Small Claims Act. (Bill 11)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 11 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Small Claims Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 11)

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Fatal Accidents Act, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Fatal Accidents Act. (Bill 15)

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

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

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Government Services, that Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act. (Bill 16)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 16 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that Bill 16 do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 16)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 17, An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Certain Health Professions, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 17, An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Certain Health Professions, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Certain Health Professions. (Bill 17)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Certain Health Professions", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 17)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Government Services, 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 third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 18 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The 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: Bill 18 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that Bill 18 do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

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 third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 18)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Government Services, that Bill 19, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 2, be now read a third time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 19 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that Bill 19 do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 2", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order paper. (Bill 19)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 20, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Social Work be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 20, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Social Work be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Social Work. (Bill 20)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Practice Of Social Work", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 20)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Government Services, that Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 21 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that Bill 21 do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Government Services, that Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Securities Act be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Securities Act be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 23 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Securities Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 23)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General, that Bill 24, An Act Respecting Court Security be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 24, An Act Respecting Court Security be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 24 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Court Security", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 24)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Government Services, that Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Architects Act, 2008 be now read a third time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 26 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Architects Act, 2008", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 26)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call Order 19, second reading of a bill, Bill 27, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.

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 27, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 27, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act". (Bill 27)

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

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

There are a number of amendments that I am proposing here on the floor of the House today in regard to the Highway Traffic Act. It mainly concerns increasing the investigative powers to our peace officers, mainly the RNC and the RCMP. It has some amendments in regard to blood alcohol levels. It also has an amendment in relation to driving in school zones. It also reflects an amendment in regard to texting or using programmable technical devices while driving as well, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, up front, I would like to say that driving in Newfoundland and Labrador, driving anywhere in Canada, driving anywhere in the world is a privilege, it is not a right. Certainly, when you are driving as a privilege, you have the responsibility to drive safely, not only for yourself but also for the travelling public at large and also for pedestrians who may be walking on the shoulders of the road on any of our provincial roads and highways. It is your responsibility. As soon you as you enter that vehicle, you are the person who is behind the wheel; you are the person who is in control of that particular vehicle. So it is your responsibility to drive and operate that vehicle safely. It is in your best interests, and more importantly, it is in the best interests of the public at large.

So, I say that up front, Mr. Speaker. I will also say that most collisions – and I say most, not all – are preventable because really, people must make a choice between driving responsibly and driving in a dangerous behaviour. Certainly, when they drive like that it affects their driving ability and it also affects all the people who are around them in regard to the other people who are using our public highways on a daily basis. Strengthening the enforcement against these unsafe driving habits will help to educate people about the dangers of impaired driving and careless driving. We hope that will reduce injuries and deaths on our roads.

As the Minister of Government Services, I feel a responsibility, not only to strengthen the Highway Traffic Act in regard to the enforcement provisions provided under that act and the penalties that are provided under that act, but I also take the responsibility of trying to communicate to the people, the travelling people, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the people at large, that it is their responsibility as well to adhere to the law to the best of their ability and make sure that they keep, not only their own lives in respect to their driving habits but also in regard to the other people who may find themselves driving on that particular day, that they might be using our public highways.

This piece of work here, Mr. Speaker, was an ongoing piece. As the Minister of Government Services - I have been the minister now for some three years. We own 160 pieces of legislation, approximately, in the department, which really reflects about one-third of the total legislation in government. One of those is the Highway Traffic Act. We have an ongoing process within the department of a review process. We review the legislation to make sure that it is reflective of what we find in society today. We make sure that it is what it is, other than we can strengthen the legislation as well to reflect what we are trying to achieve. In this case here, there is a consultation process as well that we might enter into in regard to any piece of legislation. We consult with industry in some of the other pieces of legislation that I have tabled here in the House and spoken to in the House in recent days, but also, we consult with various groups.

In regard to the Highway Traffic Act, we have consulted with the RNC. We have consulted with the RCMP and police officers at large. We have also consulted with various groups. One in particular, Mr. Speaker, is MADD. They have lobbied hard. I have had a number of meetings with them over the last three years or so. I am at various events in regard to their participation as well and I always welcome their remarks in regard to how we can strengthen our legislation to make sure that we have the proper provisions and penalties in place as deterrents to people who might drink and drive, text while driving or just driving in a behaviour that is unbecoming in regard to our provincial roads.

I must commend these three particular organizations, in regard to our police forces, and MADD in particular, in regard to me, as the minister responsible, and my department being able to achieve those kind of results that we are going to discuss and debate here on the floor of the House today.

Certainly, I also have to say that as this bill reached first reading from notices of motion, it has generated a fair bit of media attention. I have done a number of interviews this morning in regard to this particular bill. I believe that they see it as very progressive. They see it as I see it, that it is a need that we need to do these kinds of things in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I was upfront in regard to speaking to this legislation too in that it is not really rocket science, we are not really leading the way. We are certainly in the top end of the jurisdictions in Canada and the U.S. in regard to having our legislation up-to-date and reflective of what we are trying to do, but we are certainly using other jurisdictions that also have legislation in place in regard to the amendments that I am proposing here in the House today. So I cannot take credit that we are developing new amendments, new legislation, a new way forward, but we are certainly keeping up with current practices and best practices and safety standards across Canada and North America.

Just to reflect, as well, specifically, the amendments that are sought here where one of them is to authorize the use of random stops by peace officers. Another is to expand upon a peace officer's power of arrest without warrant for offences under the act. We are also proposing to provide for - actually change the twenty-four hour suspension and the ninety day suspension for a driver who fails to comply with a demand for a blood sample pursuant to section 254 of the Criminal Code of Canada. We are also proposing to introduce a seven to fourteen days administrative suspension for persons impaired by alcohol, drugs, or a combination of alcohol and drugs. We are also proposing to amend the legislation to reduce the blood alcohol levels to 0.0 per cent from the current 0.05 per cent BAC for accompanying drivers. We are also proposing amendments which will ban texting and the use of iPods and GPSs and other similar electronic devices while driving, with limited exemptions for emergency situations, and police, ambulance and firefighter personnel. We are also proposing amendments in regard to doubling the fines for speeding through designated school zones, and apply, certainly, associated demerit points as per other speeding infractions.

Some of the provisions that are included in this act, as it sits today are as follows: We regulate the licensing of drivers in regards to the various classes. There is a process of education before you receive a driver's licence, then you go through a road test and all of that kind of thing and then you receive whatever type of driver's licence, your regular one or some type of a class that you are after in regard to heavy equipment and that kind of stuff. That is actually under some of the provisions that are included in the act. We regulate the licensing and registration of vehicles themselves. We establish rules of the road and we also establish motor vehicle insurance requirements under the act.

The proposed amendments, Mr. Speaker, section 60.1 of the act, which increased the roadside suspensions to seven days. Currently under the act, if you are stopped by a peace officer out on our provincial roads and highways and you are tested and you have a blood alcohol level of 0.05 per cent to 0.08 per cent you receive an automatic twenty-four hour suspension. Under the proposed amendment, that twenty-four hour suspension will be increased to seven, and then it will be, for a subsequent offence, increased to fourteen days. It will be graduated upwards in regard to the number of subsequent offences, to the point that if there are a lot of offences then a court, a judge, can actually lift the licence for a longer period of time reflective of the different offences that the person may have offended in regard to this act.

We believe - I believe, that this is very, very, very important because the twenty-four hour suspension was a deterrent but a seven day suspension is much more of a deterrent. People have to understand that it is not acceptable in our society to drink and drive. It is their responsibility to have control behind the wheel. In regard to alcohol within your system it certainly decreases your reaction times. It decreases your attention spans and your focus in regard to what you are doing which is driving. We do not condone - I do not condone, as the minister responsible, that anybody should be out drinking and driving. The acceptable levels these days 0.05 per cent to 0.08 per cent, then after the 0.08 per cent, well then you are into impaired driving and that is not acceptable as well in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The most recent data that we have in regard to fatalities and drinking and driving was done in 2006. It was concerning to me when I saw it because it showed that there was a 2.8 per cent increase in fatalities for drinking and driving in Newfoundland and Labrador. This really concerns me. Also, in 1996, we will go back as far as that, the Traffic Injury Research Foundation indicated that drivers with blood alcohol levels in the 0.05 per cent of the 0.08 per cent range are seven point two times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than a driver with 0 per cent BAC.

So, I see this - the Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which I referenced before, recommended that the Province increase its twenty-four-hour administrative roadside suspension to seven and fourteen days for first and second offences. I certainly concur to that. I think it is a worthwhile amendment. We certainly have to communicate it to the public that this is going to be in effect in Newfoundland and Labrador shortly, once this bill is passed in this hon. House and gazetted and proclaimed. If I were them I would start practising that now because these are going to be the penalties that they are going to be subject to in the very, very near future. There is nothing like starting today and not putting off today what you can do tomorrow, or whatever way you say that, Mr. Speaker. I believe in going upfront and I want people to be aware of this. As I reference as well, other jurisdictions have implemented similar impaired driving measures.

There is also a provision in the amendment in regard to blood demands. What happens sometimes in a serious accident where a person is severely injured they may very well not be able to give a breath sample, that breath sample will provide the necessary information to our peace officers in regard to the blood alcohol levels, but sometimes they cannot give that. There was no provision within the act in regard to licence suspensions for those people who would refuse giving a blood sample, so we have closed that loop in regard to that, in regard to this amendment, and section 60.1 will also be amended to permit a seven day administrative suspension when the driver provides the blood sample under section 254 of the Criminal Code and the results certainly would indicate that the blood alcohol level of 0.05 per cent or more, and then an additional ninety day administrative suspension where the results indicate that the blood alcohol content of 0.08 per cent or more. The seven day suspension will begin on the fourteenth day following the person's receipt of a copy of the blood analysis report, and ninety days will begin fourteen days following the expiry of the seven day suspension. The blood analysis report will be provided to the driver by the peace officer.

Blood demands, like I said before, are generally due to the person not being able to provide a blood sample. Now we are going to amend that. That if they do refuse, well there are suspensions and penalties they are subject to if they do refuse. Alberta, British Columbia, the Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Ontario, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan all have legislative provisions for the demand of a blood sample and associated administrative suspension.

Section 6.(2) of the act increases the roadside suspension to fourteen days within twenty-four months for impairment of alcohol, drug, or a combination of drug and alcohol. Other jurisdictions have implemented similar impaired driving measures as well.

In Ontario, as of, I believe May 1, 2009, drivers with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08 per cent will have their driver's licence suspended for three days on a first occurrence and seven days on a second occurrence within five years, and thirty days on a third or subsequent occasion, plus the requirement to complete a remedial alcohol treatment program and an ignition interlock condition will be placed as well on their driver's licence for six months. P.E.I. has a seven day administrative suspension for the first occurrence and thirty days on a second within two years as well.

Also, we had some consultations and some discussions with MADD in regard to this particular amendment as well. So, we see this as very worthwhile. We will be moving forward with this and hopefully get concurrence and support from my hon. colleagues across the House.

Mainly, Mr. Speaker, we can drill down, I guess, in regard to the various amendments and the various sections in act, but in regard to that suspension period, it is pretty straightforward. Mostly what we are doing is increasing the twenty-four hour roadside suspension from a twenty-four hour to a seven day and then to a fourteen on a subsequent offence and that kind of stuff. It just bodes very, very well in regard to what we are trying to do in deterring people from drinking and driving.

As well, then, we are also going to address the issue in regard to driving under the influence of alcohol. People who would have a serious accident or whatever and refuses to give a blood sample, now they will be subject to certain penalties and certain suspensions as well.

The other piece too, Mr. Speaker, is that we also had some consultations; we had some lengthy discussions with the RNC and the RCMP. We proposed under these amendments to increase, by amendment, their investigative powers.

One of the areas that we will amend, and which we will allow, is our peace officers to do random checks. In other words, in a random check they can pull you over for no reason. They have the right to ask for your driver's licence, they have the right to ask for certain information. They have a right to ask you, have you been drinking on that particular day or evening or whatever it may be. They have a right to test you for a blood alcohol level if they suspect that you have been drinking. This gives the - and I think this serves as a huge deterrent because now under the act they have to have a reason for pulling you over, be it mechanical or be it whatever it is. I think, I may be corrected, but lawyers probably know this better than me, there have been certain cases where peace officers have brought people before the courts in regard to their blood alcohol levels and because they did not have a reason to pull over that particular vehicle, well then it was thrown out of court.

So we wanted to strengthen that piece. We wanted to make sure that people did not fall through the cracks. We wanted to make sure they were subject to the suspensions and penalties and we certainly wanted them to know that we meant business in regard to a deterrent in the blood alcohol level and we do not condone people drinking and driving at any point in time.

In regard to that as well, there might be some concerns I guess. I should say too that if a person, a citizen believes they are subject to abuse in being pulled over, there is an option to file complaints through a number of channels, including the RNC Public Complaints Commission, the Commission of Public Complaints against the RCMP, or the Office of the Citizens' Representative. You can probably even commence a civil action in the Supreme Court Trial Division.

A citizen's rights on a random stop is protected too. I believe too that most, if not all, the jurisdictions now in Canada have this provision under their legislation. We were probably one of the last to do this. I think it is absolutely needed. I think having a peace officer trying to find some mechanical reason to pull over a vehicle, or driving erratically, or whatever it may be, to determine if the person is drinking and driving, it is just not up to today's standards. It is not up to what we find in our society today. So I think they have to have that power.

We are also proposing another amendment to expand a peace officer's power of arrest without warrant for offences under the act. This is an area here that broadens those powers and would assist police in apprehending impaired drivers and those driving while suspended or without insurance or repeat offenders. This is noted in regard to our consultations with the Department of Justice, that there are occasions when it is not in the public interest to release an offender. In these cases, the offender needs to be arrested without warrant. So if the police have somebody stopped, they have to make a professional decision. Under the act now, they have to let the person go because they cannot apprehend the person without a warrant, but now they will, after this amendment is discussed and debated and passed in this hon. House. Some of the areas where power of arrest without warrant would be used, and it tended to be exercised, is when police need to establish the identity of the offender. Secure or preserve evidence is another example of where they would use that.

Also, as well, some of the legislation in other jurisdictions, British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, contain provisions on particular driving offences of which an arrest by a peace officer without warrant is available. So we are not leading the way here, as well. I think this is very, very important in regard to enabling our peace officers to have the tools to actually do the job that they are expected to do in protecting our public highways, and yes, it is in the best interest of all the public that we make sure that people who might entertain drinking and driving or anything like that, that we have the proper deterrents in place under the legislation, and the police have the proper tools in place as well, Mr. Speaker, in regard to being able to do their job.

We discussed, Mr. Speaker, the increase from the twenty-four hour to the seven, I think that is pretty clear. One of the other areas, Mr. Speaker, we are proposing under the amendment, in regard to this bill, we are proposing that the current 0.05 BAC, that is blood alcohol level, for drivers accompanying a novice driver to be reduced from the 0.05 per cent down to 0 per cent. In other words, the person that might be on the passenger's side who is accompanying a novice driver, they are the person who is teaching that novice driver how to drive. Not only do they have the responsibility to be alcohol-free, but they are a role model in my mind. They are the person who is teaching that young person to drive, that will form habits in regard to that process there. Certainly, I believe that if they suspect that person is having a beer before they go out and actually start the process in regard to teaching the person to drive, well then, I think they are giving a bad example. Here you are sitting at a table watching a person have a beer before they actually go out, so then it is acceptable for them to do the same.

I think that half of the battle in regard to drinking and driving certainly is centred really on our young. I think if we do a really good job in regard to educating our young people, putting the proper deterrents in place, making sure that they understand the deterrents, understand the implications of drinking and driving, understanding the value of life, I think we can actually make some great strides in regard to people drinking and driving, not only at a young age but at a middle age and an older age. Once your habits are formed, they usually stay with you all of your life. If you establish those habits when you are young, then I think they will stick with you most of your life. There might be a few that might stray from that, but I think we will be very, very successful in regard to what we are trying to do, the responsibility we have as a government, and the responsibility that we have as a society. I think we would be a lot more successful if we started in that area and worked ourselves up. That is a part of doing this because I think that person who is teaching that person to drive has a responsibility, not only to teach him the best practices and safety standards in regard to their driving habits and their driving education, but I think they have to show a role model as well. They have a responsibility of that as well. That is the reason why that it is not going to be acceptable any more in Newfoundland and Labrador to have any alcohol in your bloodstream in regard to an accompanying driver with a novice driver.

Another one, which is now really covered in the act, it is covered in a section of the act I think that deals with distractive driving. It is kind of a grey area. You can be charged under it. It is not used very often in regard to the act, not to my knowledge anyway, but we want to clarify in Newfoundland and Labrador – and I really believe that this is warranted. I think it is actually probably more prominent. I probably think it is more dangerous than actually talking on a phone in regard to a cellphone, and that is texting while driving. The use of other electronic devices, such as iPods and GPSs too, and any handheld device really, is reflected here.

What I mean by that is – and I do not want the public to be really concerned in regard to their iPods and whatnot. They can still use their iPods in their cars or whatever it may be, and plugged into their radio or whatever. What we mean is that has to be in a one touch mode. In other words, you might be changing the channel no differently than you are changing the channel on your radio – that kind of a thing. If a peace officer observes a person driving for a period of time continually using their iPod, well then they can be charged under this act because that is programming. That is not just a normal use of an iPod while driving; that is a programming feature.

So that is where we are going to be centred and focussed into, but then as well in regard to the texting piece, it is a big issue. I know some of the hon. members in this House, across the House, on government side, will say to me today, and I have also been challenged in the media today: Well, I drove to work today and I saw five people between a kilometre and they are all on their phones and they are doing it. Yes - and maybe they are. I know that we had good results when we brought in this legislation.

I, as the minister, have been trying to communicate to the public that it is not acceptable; it is against the law in regard to driving while on a cellphone. I will be communicating to the public as well in regard to the texting and the use of iPods and other electronic devices. I will do my best to communicate that because I believe it is a two-pronged approach. I believe that we will never, ever, ever, in my lifetime or anybody's lifetime for that matter, have enough resources to enforce the legislation and the intent of the legislation that we have that down to a zero.

We have had speed limits posted in – not only Newfoundland and Labrador – this world for as long as there have been vehicles on earth, just about. Each and every day we can go out on our highways and people are breaking speed limits. You can only have enough resources out there to try to keep most of the public, the larger portion of the public safe. I said that when we increased our fines, doubled our fines, in regard to construction zones. That was very, very successful. We see a vast decrease in those violations and that was due to communication and education, not by enforcement.

I just wanted to reflect on that because I am sure it is going to be referenced in regard to some of the other people who might want to comment in regard to this act. We have invested in resources over the last number of years. We have invested heavily into the RNC in regard to our Memorial University program. We have also invested in the RCMP and we will continue to invest. Like I said, you can invest and invest, but I do not think you will ever have enough resources to actually bring it down to a zero.

I certainly will be, as the minister responsible, communicating to the police force that we want to increase their surveillance. We want to hopefully increase, in regard to bringing that down, in regard to what I see and you see, in regard to our public, we will be charging under the act and we will try to charge more. Certainly, this is an area that the police forces will be concentrating and focusing on and, hopefully, with my communications we can bring it down, I was going to say to an acceptable level, but there is no acceptable level. The acceptable level is zero. That is what we are trying to achieve. So, we continue to try to achieve that. Hopefully we can get it down there, and hopefully, some time in the future, it would actually go down to zero. I cannot see it ever happening because, as I just referenced, I think you can have as many resources - we have had highway traffic violations, speeding, and that kind of stuff, as long as cars and vehicles have been on our public highways.

Last, but not least, in regard to the amendments that are proposed here today deals with speeding through designated school zones, and then to apply the associated demerit points as per other speeding infractions. So that is reflected in the act.

We are also looking at amending the fines as well from $100 to $1,500 as reflected in speeding in construction zones. I should have a look at that, Mr. Speaker, to just make absolutely sure of that in regard to the actual monies amount. Yes, the existing fines for speeding ranges from a minimum of $50 to a maximum of $135 now on the first offence for up to ten kilometres over the speed limit to a high of $750 on the third or subsequent offence for thirty-one kilometres or more over the speed limit. Doubling the fines would now have them range from $100 to $1,500 and also the loss of demerit points will be reflected there too.

Drivers, in regard to texting - I might want to just reference that as well. In regard to texting, it will be the same as talking on your cellphone. Drivers convicted of a violation will be subject to a minimum fine of $100 to a maximum fine of $400 and the accumulation of four demerit points, which I believe is a significant number. We only have twelve over the - over the twelve months, but we have fairly good, substantial penalties in place in regard to deterrents.

I think with a good piece of communication, a good piece of education, I think we can educate the public and hopefully move them in the right direction. I believe that if we communicate, communicate, communicate, give the right leadership in what we are trying to achieve and how important it is to the public, and not only to the person behind the wheel but also to the persons who are also availing of our public roads and highways, but also to the pedestrians that these are very, very important. I think it reflects what we need to achieve and what we see in society out there today.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to take my seat in the House. I think I have covered just about all the amendments – or not all the amendments. I welcome any remarks by my hon. colleagues. I suspect, I would not want to put any words in their mouths, but I think they are going to have – I suspect support. I expect support, not only suspect support I expect support in regard to these amendments because they are very, very important to the public of Newfoundland and Labrador. I see my hon. colleague there trying to get me down as quickly as possible because I think he believes that this legislation and those amendments are very important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to take my seat in the House and listen to his comments and if they have any questions I will try to answer them either in second reading or in committee stage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before the Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave, the Chair would like to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. the Opposition House Leader yesterday, June 14, with respect to the adjournment proceedings of June 10. There is no point of order, as a point of order must be raised when the disorder occurs. However, there appears to have been some confusion on Thursday with respect to the adjournment proceedings. Perhaps this is attributable to the informality of the way in which the adjournment of the debate has traditionally been carried out in our Legislature.

The member speaking just before 5:30 p.m. should actually move that the debate be adjourned rather than just say: I adjourn the debate, or I will continue later. While the House has acceded to this practice, the adjournment should actually be put from the Chair and voted on. If the motion is carried the member then has the option of continuing his or her speech the next time the matter is called for debate. This does not constitute a second speech as the member is merely continuing his or her speech. However, the member must stand first when the matter is next called or he or she loses the right to continue to speak on that particular matter.

If the member who has the floor does not move the adjournment of the debate at 5:30 p.m., the Speaker leaves the Chair until 7:00 o'clock in accordance with Standing Order 9 as the business of the House is not concluded. The Speaker will continue to ask for direction if a member has control of the Chair at 5:30 p.m. and ask if it is the wish of the House to have the clock stopped or if it is the wish of the House to return at 7:00 o'clock, and at that particular time either the debate will be either adjourned or the House will return at 7:00 o'clock.

I hope that this brings some clarity to some of the confusion that might have happened here in the past at 5:30 p.m. So when a member looks at the clock and sees that the clock is at 5:30 p.m., the member has every right, if he or she has control of the floor, to continue with debate and have the House return at 7:00 o'clock or else to put forward a motion to adjourn the debate and then the House would decide if they want to accept that particular motion or have the motion defeated.

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

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

It is a pleasure today to be able to stand and make a few comments with regard to Bill 27, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. I guess for the response to the minister, yes sir, I will say right from the outset that I agree with the amendments that are put forward in this act. However, there are a few comments I would like to make.

Mr. Speaker, according to this bill that is being put forward, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, principally, in the provisions related to licence suspension, arrest without a warrant, the random stopping of vehicles by peace officers, and the use of cellular phones and communication devices. I have to say from the start, the minister has gone through each of those and made a very, I think, valid explanation to where this piece of legislation is coming from. The proposed amendment, as we understand it, is to come into force on October 1, 2010, with the exception of the proposed section 110.(5) of the Highway Traffic Act, which is to come into force on, I believe, September 1, 2010.

Under the licence suspension part of it, the bill would amend the act to provide for a longer suspension of a driver's licence, changed from a twenty-four suspension to a seven day suspension. Mr. Speaker, I think that is very important with the many stories and scenarios that we hear, not only from the Mothers Against Drunk Driving but many other individuals throughout this Province. I am sure they are going to be pleased to see this twenty-four hour suspension increased to a seven day. Under the licence suspension, it also goes on to say: where a driver fails. What brings this about is where a driver fails to provide a breath sample, where an analysis indicates a driver's blood alcohol level of 50 mgs or more, where a peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the ability of the driver is impaired by a drug or a combination of drug and alcohol, and where the driver fails to refuse to comply with the demands under section 254 of the Criminal Code.

Mr. Speaker, the bill also provides for more progressive increased suspensions, where a driver, within twenty-four consecutive months, incurs a second seven-day suspension, that seven-day suspension will be increased to fourteen, with the third offence it will go to two months, the fourth offence it goes to four months, the fifth offence goes to a six-month time frame. Mr. Speaker, I know that is quite a change from what we have today, but many people, I think, will still ask: If someone carries out the same offence five or six times in a period of twenty-four months, is that really strong enough to send a clear message to those individuals?

The bill would also amend the act to provide for zero tolerance on novice and accompanying drivers. I think this is very, very important. As the minister stated, if you have a novice driver, number one, who is out just learning to take control of a vehicle, the first time on the road, preparing to write for their licence or just after getting their licence, and they have to be stopped by a peace officer and it comes to the point that they were impaired to whatever level, I think that is a terrible offence. I can understand where the government and the minister are coming from with that particular piece of legislation.

I also totally agree with the part – and probably stronger - where the accompanying driver, someone like the minister stated, whether it is a friend or a family member, who is willing to sit on the passenger side of a vehicle with a young driver who is out training, and a peace officer is able to pull those people over and determine that they do have an alcohol content in their blood. It goes on to say that their driver's licence will be suspended. I do not know if it is listed for how long, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, I think it should be suspended for a tremendous long period of time. If someone is willing to get in a vehicle with a young person out training and to be under the influence, I think it is a terrible offence.

Mr. Speaker, also in this piece of legislation it mentions arrest without a warrant, section 202 of the act, which provides: a peace office may arrest without a warrant a person who he or she believes on reasonable grounds has committed an offence other than one for which a penalty prescribed in the sections of the act would be repealed by this bill.

Mr. Speaker, we all know from time to time, and I think there were different callers on Open Line this morning who had questions about the random stopping of vehicles by peace officers. I do not know about anyone else, but when we have Safety Week here in our Province, or coming up on some of our festive times of the year, even like Christmas, we all know that the peace officers of our Province have roadblocks set up. I can tell you, I do not know about you, but when I go around a corner and see them, I think it is a welcome sign to know that they are out there and have the concerns of the people of this Province first and foremost.

Anybody who wants to go and celebrate, I do not care what type of celebration they are involved in, I think there are many ways that they can take care of themselves, whether it is going in a cab, whether it is having a designated driver, rather than to getting into a vehicle knowing that they are under the influence and probably not only take their own life but the lives of others.

Mr. Speaker, also under this bill is the use of cellular phones and other communication devices. I have heard of many incidents. I know of one individual in my own district who was using the cellphone, whether it was a call or he was on a BlackBerry texting, but I can tell you he came very close - not only causing tremendous damage to the vehicle, but probably extensive injuries to himself.

That is how simple it is, Mr. Speaker. We know that this is going on constantly. It is like the minister said: You drive around this city or you drive the TCH, and I would say every second or third vehicle that passes you or that you see coming toward you, someone has a cellphone up to their ear. It is not the one where you just push the button; it is hand-held and it does not mean one thing to them. They are just whipping out the TCH, going at high speeds, and they think they have everything under control; but, let me assure you, the least little thing can go wrong, and what happens? We have a major accident on our highways and many lives will be lost.

I think the minister – I stand to be corrected, but - I thought he said the fines for those who are caught, unless they have a hands-free mode, the penalty at the present time is $100, and in the future that has been increased to $400 and also you will lose so many points – points will go against your driving record.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that we have heard much about the Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the tremendous job they do to educate the people of this Province, and not only in our Province but right throughout Canada, of the dangers that people encounter on our highways. Too much cannot be done. The more education is put forward – and that is like this piece of legislation. Like the minister said, one thing is to bring this in, but the people have to be made aware of it.

I know probably before it is implemented I think there should be a tremendous campaign advising the people of this Province of the new penalties that will be put forward if you are prepared and you want to go on the highways under the influence. I have an article here that I know was printed in our local paper, where it says: Like moose, drunk drivers are loose on our highways.

That is a very strong statement for an editorial, but, Mr. Speaker, I think he was referencing one individual who had been convicted, had fourteen convictions for drunk driving. I cannot imagine. I do not believe he had a licence; he should never have had one, anyway, after you get twelve or fourteen convictions like this. Probably this individual did not have one, but it was like the minister said: Once you go so far, the rules and regulations, you have to have the laws there, that the judges have the responsibility and have the power to bring down sentences that hopefully will enlighten the problems within our people.

As I stated earlier, I know there were several calls on Open Line this morning. I did not hear them all, but I know it was mentioned to me that one issue was random stopping. I do not know, but probably the minister, when he closes debate - there are probably other issues that he heard where people think that maybe this is going too far, that some of the issues in this piece of legislation are going too far. My personal opinion is that it has not, but I guess we have to listen to the opinions and views of every individual.

Mr. Speaker, like I said, the promotional part, I think, is very important. There are many good sections in this piece of legislation. As we go about carrying out the rules and bringing in new legislation, as we do from time to time here, I know the hon. Minister of Government Services has brought in quite a number of pieces of legislation, all important, but none any more important than what this piece of legislation is.

I think that the people who want to go and have a good time, if you drink, I think the message should be that you should never drive. All too often we hear of so many incidents, what can happen. Because anyone who is under the influence, whether it is only minor or major, I do not care what anyone says, you are not in the right state when you go behind the wheel travelling at, whether it is 80, 100 or 120 kilometres an hour. It is bad enough travelling those speeds when you are in a good state of mind, let alone under the influence of any substance, whether it be liquor or otherwise.

Mr. Speaker, with those few comments I just want to say, as I stated from the outset, that I think Bill 27, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, is a good piece of legislation. It outlines not only the penalties that will be imposed if you do not abide by the laws and rules of our land, but it also gives extra strength to the peace officers so that they can, whether they take random checks or whether it is roadblocks, the ones that we hear announced from time to time, by whatever means, Mr. Speaker, hopefully when this legislation comes into law, that it will instill in the people of our Province to make sure that if they want to enjoy themselves, have a good time, make sure that they do not drive. Hopefully, the enforcement of this law will bring about what we all want to see on our highways is a safe highway. When you are travelling, whether it is the Trans-Canada, or on some city street, or in some town, the vehicles that are coming toward you, you want to make sure that everyone is in control of those vehicles. The key to it all, as the MADD group is all bringing about and asking us to do, is to make sure that we do not drink and drive, and for every life that is saved by promotional, along those lines, I believe this bill will help to enforce what we all want to see.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Member for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale.

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a delight and a privilege to stand in this hon. House today to say a few words on Bill 27, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. Here lately it has garnered a lot of attention for good reason because it is a very important piece of work. Before I go any further, Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Minister of Government Services, Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Education for using a collaborative approach and using their officials and their departments in making these amendments to the Highway Traffic Act. They all did a marvellous job, Mr. Speaker, and they are to be commended. It certainly strengthens the act and adds clarity, and like the minister said earlier, it is a progressive piece, it is a proactive approach, it updates the legislation, and it stays current. So, I applaud his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, from my understanding, the Highway Traffic Act was passed in 1990 and governs all laws related to driving vehicles. It provides details on everything from the definition of a car to the penalties for breaking traffic laws. It has been amended several times, recently as 2009. That brings us to where we are today, Mr. Speaker. I would like to read the explanatory note that is in the bill. "This Bill would amend the Highway Traffic Act principally in the areas of the provisions related to licence suspension, arrest without a warrant, the random stopping of vehicles by peace officers and the use of cellular phones and other communication devices."

Mr. Speaker, these amendments will enhance enforcement against impaired driving, against distracted driving and speeding in school zones. These amendments to the act are part of our government's ongoing commitment to raise awareness of unsafe driving habits with the ultimate goal, Mr. Speaker, to protect the public, to reduce injuries and to prevent accidents on our highways. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, all too often we all hear of tragic incidents or tragic stories that may or that could have been prevented if the driver opted to choose safe driving.

Our government has taken some proactive measures to improve road safety. Just an example what is in the amendment - and the minister and the member opposite both did an outstanding job in explaining the amendment, so I will not go into any detail, but, one, just doubled the fines for speeding through the school zones. We know the safety of children is very important. As a former school teacher, I do realize that safety around the school parking lot and highway is very, very important. I believe Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan and the North West Territories have all doubled their fines as well, so we are following suit.

Also, the amendment on banning cellphones or iPods or other electronic devices, text messaging, for example, is also a good move, because we all know that these practices are very distractive to the driver. In fact, if we engage in these kinds of habits I think we become oblivious to our immediate surroundings and I think our safety is compromised.

Mr. Speaker, raising penalties for offences, raising the likelihood of detection by authorities, hopefully, will act as a strong deterrent against unsafe driving practices that ultimately will result in loss of life. What these amendments do is it fosters responsible driving habits for the general public and as individual drivers.

In conclusion, I just want to say I concur with these amendments. I think it is very positive, very progressive amendments put in the legislation. With that, I will take my seat.

Thank you very much.

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 very pleased to stand today and speak to Bill 27, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.

I think this is an extremely important bill and has taken some very important steps in trying to make our highways safer.

I would like to see a couple of things pushed a bit further than they are in the bill, and I will speak to those. At the moment, the bill as it stands has some very important things in it. The minister has, of course, gone through the bill and the speaker from the Official Opposition, the Member for Port de Grave, has certainly pointed out a lot of things in the bill, but there are other points that I would like to make as well.

You have to excuse my voice. We all know why my voice is like this today, after all of us being up until 2:00 o'clock in the morning.

I think one of the things that I am most pleased about in the bill is the zero tolerance for Blood Alcohol Content when it comes to novice drivers and drivers who are accompanying novice drivers. I think that is where we really have to start. The minister made a very important point when he said the habits that we start off with, in the beginning when we first start driving, are the habits that often remain with us. So, getting a message out to people who are supporting young drivers that they have to be role models and that there is a zero tolerance with regard any blood alcohol level at all is extremely important. I am really glad to see that in the bill.

I am also very glad to see the administrative suspensions being upped for all categories. That, too, is extremely important. I was struck today – I was listening, or had Open Line on in the background, and there was reference to: Isn't this a bit of an imposition on the way we are used to socializing, a bit of an imposition on what we are used to doing culturally? I was a bit shocked when I heard that because, number one, whether we are talking about 0.05 or point 0.08, or we are talking about a shorter or longer suspension the ultimate goal is the same. It is to not have people out there driving with unacceptable alcoholic content in their blood.

I thought that one of the things that was starting to happen, although statistics are saying we may be backing back a bit in this Province, but certainly you do see more evidence of people realizing: Well, if we are going to go out and socialize, we do not drive; there is a either a designated driver or we use taxis. Even events, for example, like wine tasting events in this city, or any events that are focused on alcohol. Last fall there was a Scotch tasting event, and what happens is when you buy your ticket for the event there actually is a voucher to go towards your taxi so that the message is: Do not come to this event - where you are going to be enjoying wine and tasting wine - in your car. If you do not have a designated driver then here is a voucher to go towards your payment towards a taxi to come and go, to go home from the event. I guess to come and go to the event.

There are a lot of things in our society that have started changing over the last, I would say, fifteen years or so with regard to recognizing that if we are going to out and socialize and have a nice evening, enjoy some alcohol, as a lot of us do, then you accept the responsibility for doing that and recognize that there are other ways of dealing with mobility. As I said, either having a designated driver or using taxis.

I am sure the taxi industry would be very happy if more of us started using taxis when we go out to socialize in the evenings. They would be very happy to see more of us using taxis. I think we have to just build a whole different mindset to the mindset that we had in our culture. When I think back to my years of growing up, that was never even talked about, just like with smoking. We all had parents, or most of us, a lot of us had parents who smoked in the home, had relatives who smoked in the home. We have managed to change that. People now do not even smoke in their own home. They will go out on their deck. I know a person who lives by herself but she smokes outside her house because her grandchildren come to visit her and she does not want any second-hand smoke in her house. We have gotten that far with smoking and I think we have a long ways to go in this Province with drinking and driving but we can get there. I think this bill is going to help us get there.

I would like to talk a little bit, before I talk to some more details in the bill. Certainly, the reason why we have the bill I think is because the minister and his ministry recognize that we do have a long ways to go here in this Province. The latest study that was put out by MADD - which I am sure the minister does have - from 2009 gave Newfoundland and Labrador a C+ grade and ranked us eighth in the provinces and territories with regard to our performance as a Province in the area of drinking and driving. That is not acceptable.

They looked at many aspects. It just was not how many people are out there drinking and driving. They looked at our legislation. They looked at the level of our suspensions, for example. They looked at all kinds of aspects of what the attitude here is in the Province, both in terms of our culture as well as our legislation. Putting it all together, we came pretty close to the bottom. I would hope that with this new legislation we can start changing the culture.

Now, having said that, there is an area that I really do think is weak. I am surprised, based on the changes that have been made with regard to the suspensions related to blood alcohol levels and based on the fact that the legislation has zero tolerance with regard to blood alcohol content in novice drivers and those who drive with them. Based on all of that, I was really surprised when I came to the section dealing with progressively increased suspensions – or to put it in common language for people who might be watching: How do you deal with repeat offenders?

There has been one change to the section in the act, the current act, that deals with that but for the most part it has remained unchanged. So what we have is that: "The registrar shall suspend the driver's licence or driving privileges of a driver who within 24 consecutive months has incurred a 7 day suspension (a) for a second time, for 14 days". So if they get a suspension a second time in two years, they get fourteen days instead of seven days. If they repeat within a two year period, a third time, their suspension will be two months. If they repeat a fourth time, the suspension will be four months. If they repeat a fifth, or however many more times in two years the suspension will be six months with each repetition.

What I wanted to see was: Well, when do they stop being able to drive? When is it taken away for life? That does happen in other provinces and it is not there. I have to say that I was really disappointed. I think we had an opportunity here to really come up with a piece of legislation that would have moved us way up that line in terms of where we stand in relationship to other provinces.

I say to the minister, I am not sure what the reasoning was with regard to not going further and saying there has to be life suspension, and there are times when that has to happen. When you get somebody who is repeating to the point that he or she has been picked up a fifth time or a sixth time or a seventh time then, I am sorry, a six month suspension - I do not care how often they get it - is still not enough. That if they get to that point, then it should be, it is over, you no longer are permitted to drive. So this to me is one of the weaknesses in the bill, Mr. Speaker, and I really would have liked to have seen it.

Another thing that I would have liked to see in the bill – and this is something that has been spoken to by MADD, by the way, and that is why I am sorry to see that it is not there to the degree that I would have liked it, and that has to do with the alcohol interlock program. Now, it is true that we have a small alcohol interlock program, but I know that MADD, with whom the minister consulted, and I am using their document, their 2009 report, that they spoke specifically to the alcohol interlock program in Newfoundland and Labrador. One of the things they say is that the minimum interlock period should be one year for a first offence, three years for a second offence within ten years. So in other words, if within ten years you have another offence, you would get three years of having to use the alcohol interlock, and five years for a third offence, if a third offence happens within ten years.

According to MADD, what they would like to see is that once the minimum period ends, the interlock order should remain in effect until the registrar is satisfied that the offender does not pose a significant risk of re-offending and has overcome any underlying alcohol problems. Now I think those two things together become very important. Having the alcohol interlock program and also having a – it is not a re-education, it is the person going into some kind of therapy so that they recognize they have alcohol problems and they have to be dealt with. This would be one way of certainly strengthening the bill as well, Mr. Speaker, and it is something that I certainly would like the minister to look at. I mean, it is quite possible - I do not know - it is quite possible this could be brought in without being actually in the legislation. It could be regulation, or the minister could rethink and we could see, down the road, in the fall, maybe, even before the bill is gazetted, an amendment brought to the floor with regard to the two issues that I am raising. Maybe the minister thinks there needs to be more discussion, maybe he thinks there needs to be more consultation on these issues, but if he did consult with MADD, which I am sure he did, and with the RNC and maybe the RCMP, I think that looking at stronger, stronger, regulations with regard to the alcohol interlock program, and looking at the potential for somebody, repeat offenders, losing their licence for life, I think, are logical ends to where this bill is going.

The minister has indicated he is not quite sure when it will be gazetted, and I would really encourage him to continue getting reaction, now that we have the bill, to continue talking, continue getting reaction to the bill, and bring in more amendments before the bill is gazetted. We know that can certainly happen.

Another issue is strengthening the vehicle impoundment program for driving while unlicensed, suspended, disqualified or prohibited. According to MADD, what they would like to see is an impoundment period of forty-five days for a first occurrence and ninety days for a second occurrence within three years. They also go on to say that police should be required to impound for seven days the vehicle of any driver who, one: fails to submit to any test for impairment required by federal or provincial law. They also say that they should be taken away from somebody whom the police have reasonable grounds to believe, based on a breath, blood or urine sample, has a blood level at or above 0.08, and also do impoundment for seven days if the police have reasonable grounds to believe, based on a drug recognition evaluation, that the person is impaired by drugs, or drugs in combination with alcohol, and also if the person has a criminal record with regard to driving.

So, Mr. Speaker, while this legislation is very good, and I do acknowledge that it is very good, I like other things in it besides the ones I have mentioned. I like the fact that speeding in a school zone - a zone that is a school zone under this act - the fine will double for that. I think that is very important. I like the section on looking at the need for intensifying the whole thing about not holding hand-held devices while one is driving. You know, you can get distracted so easily when you are driving. Even changing the station on a radio can distract you. Even though you are only pushing a button, because everything is pre-programmed, just reach over and push a button, but just a blink of your eye and all of a sudden you can see the vehicle in front of you may all of a sudden stop when you did not expect it, or somebody started to come into your lane when you did not expect it. Things can happen so suddenly.

I agree with the minister; I do not think we give up trying to enforce rules around not having hand-held devices in one's hand. I think you find ways to increase the monitoring of that, and find ways to increase making sure that people know this is not something that is acceptable. We have documentation of accidents that happen because of people holding hand-held devices, so we should not stop having that as a rule because a lot of people out there are not paying attention to it. We have to get into more enforcement of the rule.

One of the things that I know is a concern - and I am really happy to say this is a bill that has been around for a few days so people got to see it, and it is something which I would really encourage in the House. Getting bills a day before we are going to speak to them is not very helpful. With this bill, it was available; it was out in the public. The media could go online and read it; people have been talking about it. One of the issues that is coming up is the issue of peace officers being able to just pull somebody over and check out what is happening, even if there is no evidence of anything going wrong.

We do have that. We have spot checks that happen during holiday times, et cetera, and the warning goes out that there are going to be spot checks - it happens over the Christmas holiday in particular - spot checks are going to happen. You know they are going to happen, and you are warned they are going to happen. You do not where they are happening, but you know you could get stopped any time. So, in a way, we do have that thing of peace officers being able to pull somebody over without any reason, external reason, for doing so. If we now have a bill that makes that sort of a general practice, and it is not a warned spot check, it could happen any time, then I think we really have to make sure that peace officers who have this power are also trained to understand that there is a way in which that happens which does not infringe upon human rights. That is the issue that people have started to raise: Is this an infringement of personal human rights?

So I think it is, as I said, a practice we already use in a more programmed way. If we are going to do it now as a general practice, then we have to make sure that the peace officers are trained, that they understand human rights, and that it is done in a way that it is for the safety of the road, it is for the safety of the community in general, but it also does not infringe upon the human rights of those who are behind the wheel.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to hearing the minister speak to some of the issues that I have raised. I would have liked to have seen the issues that I talked about in the bill and a couple of the points beefed up, as I have indicated. I will vote for the bill, but I also would hope that it is on the agenda of the minister to look more closely at what I have talked about with regard to life suspensions, what I have talked about with regard to vehicle forfeiture, and also what I have talked about with regard to having a mandatory alcohol interlock program.

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 am certainly very happy to take my place in the House and just reflect again in regard to Bill 27, An Act Respecting The Highway Traffic Act. I welcome the comments of my hon. colleagues across the House. I am very, very pleased that they are supporting this bill, and certainly I also acknowledge some of the advice and some of the reflections they have in regard to ways that we could probably strengthen the act as well in the future.

I think one of the items that the hon. Member for Port de Grave reflected on is to use an extensive advertising campaign to make sure that people are aware of the actual changes within the act itself. I will have a look in my department in regard to the communications side of this act, once it is proclaimed and gazetted. Certainly, I will have a process in place in regard to myself and any of the media outlets, any of the interviews that I can do, the Open Line and Backtalk shows, or whatever I can do to make sure that much of the public understand exactly what we are trying to do under this act: the penalties that are being put in place in regard to this act; the increasing of the fines in regard to driving in school zones, over the speed limit of school zones, in this act. As well, that it will be clear within the act that is now a violation of the Highway Traffic Act in regard to driving and texting and extensive use of iPod and GPSs, which are all covered in electronic devices under the act.

I listened to the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Leader of the NDP, in regard to her comments to the act. I certainly welcome them. I certainly understand exactly where she is coming from in regard to the progressive suspension process. I have had a number of interviews in regard to these amendments. I have stated publicly in these interviews that it is a continuous process in regard to my legislation. I consider it my responsibility as the current minister to have that process continue in all aspects of all the legislation. One of the areas that I will be looking at and probably will – God knows, if I am still the Minister of Government Services, or I would also encourage, if I am not, that another minister would also follow in regard to if there are any amendments that are needed in this act to bring them forward as early as the fall session or in the next spring session in 2011, if that is required. There is a process that we go through in bringing forward these amendments. We want to make sure that we are doing the right thing. I heard the hon. member say that the maybe the minister needs some more information, some more data, some more consultation, and that is exactly where I am to.

Also, I want to compliment and also reflect the good work that the organization, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, do. They have been a very good support to me, as a minister, a very good support to me, my department, in regard to this particular act, and we take their advice very, very seriously. We listen to them very, very carefully, regardless of where it is to, if it is a setting of a meeting in my boardroom or just in an event that we might be talking to each other. In regard to some of the things that they say to me, I take them very, very seriously, and I try to reflect them in anything that I would consider under the act.

I just caution one thing in regard to some of the surveys, one by MADD and any of the other organizations, it is my understanding that the measurement bar that is used in that survey is that they actually survey you and they take you from where you were last year or from the last survey and then measure you from what you have achieved from that point forward. So, you could be really number one in the country this year and then in the survey that is used in 2011, you could be on the bottom because you did not have any amendments come forward in the House of Assembly. That is the way they actually judge it. I am not trying to downplay that survey because I read them, and you know I read them because it is reflected in the amendments that we see here on the floor of the House today. I take them very seriously. Before we criticize, I guess, government and criticize what we are trying to do, you have to really know how they actually measure themselves in regard to that survey process.

It is also to my understanding, regardless of what is in the legislation, in the suspensions and the progressive suspension program in regard to violations under the act, a judge - I believe under section 65 of the act - can lift a licence for life. So once it is in the court systems, if that goes there, it can be lifted for life within the court system. That provision is there now, but I will be having a look in regard to the progressive suspension process as well to see if we can actually strengthen that as a deterrent. Each and every thing that we amend and we actually strengthen will actually be another deterrent with regard to drinking and driving and driving erratically, even under the influence of drugs. So, I will be looking at that.

I need some more information with regard to the interlock system. I did not consider this today, but I also want to tell the hon. member that I will gazette this one. I think the amendments that are here today, I think they are warranted. I think that we cannot do it soon enough. I think we have to have them there and certainly I will be gazetting this as soon as possible to make these amendments law. That is not saying that I am not going to come back and amend again in the fall session. I wanted to certainly assure the hon. member that I will be considering that as well. Just because I am gazetting does not mean to say that I shove the Highway Traffic Act to the side and not considering other amendments, believe me. As a matter of fact, other amendments are in consideration right now in my department.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I think I have covered off the amendments in my opening remarks. I know that the hon. members across the House, and my hon. colleague from Baie Verte-Springdale covered off some remarks in regard to the Highway Traffic Act because he showed a deep interest in this act. He has full knowledge in what we are trying to do. He has consulted with myself, as the minister, and gave me some advice in the Highway Traffic Act as well.

I certainly appreciate those remarks. I appreciate the help of my colleague from Baie Verte-Springdale as well. I think we are doing some good work, some really important work in keeping the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the traveling public, safe. We are certainly putting the proper things in place, in my mind.

Also, before I take my seat in the House there is one item that I reflected on and one item that I want remark on in second reading here is that is really a two-pronged approach. I think each and every one of us in this House of Assembly has the responsibility of communicating this to the general public. Each and every one of us, because I think it is incumbent on us as legislative people to communicate what we are trying to do, what we are trying to achieve, what we believe in. I think it is incumbent on each and every one of us to communicate this at any given time and everywhere possible if you possibly can. I welcome that help because I am just one person. We are a government, yes, and I take total responsibility, and I will be in the forefront in regard to that, but each and every one of our members here in the House of Assembly has the same responsibility really.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I am going to take my place in the House of Assembly, in my seat. Certainly, I will welcome any other comments in Committee stage if there are any. If there are any questions that may come up between second reading and the Committee stage, I will be ever so happy to take my place in the House and try to clarify for the hon. member that has the question.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat and welcome any comments in the Committee stage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 27, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic 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 Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 27)

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 Highway Traffic Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 27)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

From the Order Paper, I would like call Order 20, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No.3. (Bill 28)

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

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

I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, that Bill 28, An Act Respecting The Insurance Companies Act be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 28, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 3, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 3", carried. (Bill 28)

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

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

I have been on my feet in the House for the last couple of days in regard to the number of pieces of legislation and amendments to that legislation and certain bills that I find are very, very important in the everyday life of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, be it in the domestic world or be it in the business world. I think each and every one of them has merit and certainly have importance to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. This one is no less, Mr. Speaker.

It is certain amendments that I see as the minister responsible that are needed under the Insurance Companies Act and they surround mostly investigative powers. As I spoke in this House yesterday on some of the pieces of legislation that we have, we find ourselves in society today, that big sums of money – big things are being transacted. We have to protect the consumer all the time. As well, we have to enable the particular industry to succeed in what they are trying to do and also to make a profit. So there has to be a balance between the two.

Now I see that there is a weakness in our Insurance Companies Act reflected in the sections that are concerning investigative powers. So the amendments that we are bringing forward for consideration and debate on the floor of the House of Assembly today has to do and all to do with investigative powers.

As a background, Mr. Speaker, I want to reflect that companies wishing to provide insurance in the Province must be licensed under the Insurance Companies Act. The act covers all types of insurance, including life insurance, property and casualty insurance. As I reflected as well, the legislation is a very, very important element of consumer protection as consumers need to have the comfort that the insurance company they are dealing with has enough money to pay claims when they arise.

In other words, all of us in this hon. House and all people who have insurance across Newfoundland and Labrador rely on an insurance company to not only take their money in regard to the policy they are buying, but also to know and have the confidence that that company will have the amounts of money that are needed if we would have a claim. God forbid that we would have a claim. I do not mind paying insurance and not having a claim, believe me. I would rather not have any claims at all under any of the insurance policies that I have in my possession but sometimes due to unforeseen events I do, or somebody, a person would have a claim. That is when insurance comes into effect, and insurance is so important. Certainly, this has to be there in regard to the consumer having confidence that if they do have a claim, they are actually going to be able to rely on that particular policy.

In life insurance, business contracts can be in place for many years before the insured dies and a claim is made. The person has life insurance, and I have life insurance. I have been paying life insurance now since I was probably about sixteen years old. As a matter of fact, I think the first policy that I ever transacted and signed off on was when I was sixteen years old. I did that myself. It was not done by my parents, it was done by myself. I saw that it was a necessary tool in what I was trying to achieve in life and I purchased life insurance. I have that in place today, but as well, I have to have the comfort that the particular company I was dealing with, that I would be insured with, that when the time comes that if I were to make a claim to that particular insurance policy, that the actual money would be there for whoever it was deemed to be paid out to, be it my family or a person or whoever it may be. I want to make sure that I was going to realize on that particular claim.

In the property and casualty insurance business contracts, they are for a shorter period of time, usually one year, but there needs to be assurance that the company also has sufficient money on hand to pay claims. When you are talking about property and even automobile really, you are talking about big investments these days. An average vehicle these days is up around $30,000, $35,000, $40,000. People buy vehicles that are of a higher value but you want to make sure that your vehicle is fully covered in regard to what variance of a claim that you might make. You might have a $2,000 claim or you might have a $35,000 claim. So you want to make sure that the company has sufficient funds to pay out those claims.

Then when you are talking about property insurance, well you are talking about really big claims. The average home in Newfoundland and Labrador, especially in the urban areas, is running now anywhere from $250,000 to $350,000. So if you have a claim in regard to that particular policy and you have a total destruction of your home or your business investment, or whatever it may be, you want to make sure that - if you are talking about $250,000, $350,000, $450,000 you want to make sure that they have sufficient funds, because you are not the only one making a claim. They could have several claims. They could have hundreds and thousands of claims because that insurance company is not just centred in Newfoundland and Labrador, but centred, really, in Canada.

Most of them are based out of Toronto. Most of them are transacting business in each and every one of the jurisdictions in Canada. So they have numerous claims on a daily basis. They have to have the cash flow. They have to have the reserves behind that there is no disruption in regard to your payout, because you do not want any disruption in your life in regard to that claim. You want to have it settled as soon as you possibly can. You want to get your life back to what it was yesterday as quickly as you can. So you have to have that.

Other provisions under the act; it gives the provision of an authority for the Public Utilities Board to conduct a review of any aspect of the insurance in the Province. The Public Utilities Board has the authority to go in and do a review in regard to any aspect of any type of insurance under this act. That is good, because we need that, because an independent body does an independent review. So we need to see that happen. We need to have that comfort that is there. We need to have that accountability. We need to have that transparency.

It also provides for the appointment of a consumer's advocate for the purpose of a review of the Public Utilities Board. It also provides for the appointment of a Superintendent of Insurance, and a Deputy Superintendent of Insurance to administer the act. We have to have people – like I am the minister responsible in regard to the legislation. I am the Minister of Government Services, and the Minister Responsible for the Government Purchasing Agency, but I have to have people of expertise from the profession, as reflected in the Superintendent of Insurance and Deputy Superintendent of Insurance who would administer that act on a daily basis.

As the minister, I cannot administer every single act within the Department of Government Services on a daily basis. I have to rely on professional people within my department, and I am glad to say, as the Minister of Government Services, that I am very, very proud as a minister of all the people who work within my department, be it at the level of the superintendent level, but also in regard to the Clerk IIIs, the Clerk IVs, the Clerk IIs that I have who transact business on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador on a daily basis, and I want that in the record, Mr. Speaker. They do very, very good work.

Also, this act explains what is considered to be carrying on the business of insurance in the Province. So it explains that. It is defined within the act itself, in regard to exactly what this act does and how the carrying out of business is to be done. It also explains what is considered to be withdrawing from the business of automobile insurance in the Province.

In other words, a company might be doing business in Newfoundland and Labrador – automobile insurance – and then they want to withdraw. I believe, if I am right – I might be corrected and do not take this as gospel in regard to going into Hansard, but I believe they have to give a year's notice before they actually can withdraw from doing business in Newfoundland and Labrador. So, they have to give notice to the Superintendent of Insurance that they are intending to withdraw. They have to do that a year in advance of withdrawing from the marketplace where people, the consumers, know that, that they are withdrawing, and they can avail of other services from other insurance companies. That gives the transition period that would be needed and that there is no disruption in regard to the consumer being able to avail of a certain insurance.

It defines the requirements to obtain a licence under the legislation itself and a requirement that insurance companies be a part of a compensation fund to compensate consumers up to a certain limit in the event of the failure of an insurance company. That is very important too. If you have a failure of an insurance company, there is a compensation fund that is in place today that will compensate any consumers who might be affected by that failure. So that is there as well and I think that is a very important piece in regard to this act.

There is also a provision for an automatic cancellation of a licence where an undisputed claim is not paid. There is a provision for a minister to suspend or cancel a licence where there is evidence that there are insufficient assets to justify continuation of business. So, if my Superintendent of Insurance and his investigative people find that there are and suspects that there are insufficient assets to justify continuation of a business, well then I have the right, as the minister, to suspend or cancel the licence to operate in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I think that is very, very important to the public too because it gives them another level of comfort in regard to making sure that the funds are there, that they are actually buying what they are buying, that they are going to be able to rely on a claim at any given time. Hopefully, as I have said before in my speaking, I hope they never have a claim, but certainly they want to know that if they do have a claim that there will be sufficient funds in place in order for them to rely on the claim.

If the person's or the business licence is cancelled, well then there is an appeal process as well to the minister and this is a subject of one of the proposed amendments that I will get to in a moment. There is also provision for the minister to apply to the court to have an insurer wind up for failure to carry out his business activities appropriately in Newfoundland and Labrador. There is also provision for the minister to appoint a provisional liquidator where the insurer is wound up in rules respecting the liquidation process as well. These are all of the things that are governed under this act. They are all of the things there, as I said before in regard to some of the items that I reflected on previously, is that they are there not only for the protection of the consumer but also in regard to the business to really to operate as well. They understand the rules. There has to be rules with regard to operate under, so they have to be clear in regard to the act. They want that there in regard to the act. We consult with the industry itself to make sure that everything is clear from their end and then we also have to have clarity in regard to their responsibility to consumer and their protection too.

There is also a requirement for an annual inspection of insurers. Most insurers are located outside the Province and are federally regulated by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. We do receive copies of these inspect reports. They are done through that federal process and there are currently two property and casualty insurers in the Province who we examine. So, they are Newfoundland and Labrador companies and we examine them. We do not rely on the federal process, but most of them are all located outside the Province and are subject to that federal process.

An insurer who carries on the business of fire insurance is required to keep a record of premium, income and claims. The insurer who carries on the business of automobile insurance is required to keep a record of premium, income and claims as well.

There are all kinds of things, there are provisions dealing with the Facility Association which is an association of insurers to provide automobile insurance to drivers not able to obtain insurance in a regular market, usually because of poor claims history. Regardless - and I shudder the thought in regard to the poor claims history, I would hope that there is no one in that category in Newfoundland and Labrador, but this is life, this is real life, there are. So, we have to have facility insurance and that facility insurance is there for a reason. It is to provide the insurance that is needed by the person regardless of their claims history because each and every person in Newfoundland and Labrador requiring insurance should have the availability to have it.

This is an area that I wanted to reflect on just for a second because it comes up in conversation at various times when I am out in the general public in regard to people having to pay higher premiums. Then, when I do my research I find that they are in the Facility Association and the reasons that they are there is because they have had a not so pleasant claims history. There is nothing we can do about that other that they should be glad that association, the Facility Association, is in place because if it was not they would not be able to get insurance at all. I think that each and every person, and each and every situation, requiring insurance should have insurance.

Down now, Mr. Speaker, to the proposed amendments, it is certainly proposed that an amendment be made to section 25 of the act, to have an appeal by an insurer whose licence has been suspended or cancelled, or whose licence has been refused under the act be made to the independent Financial Services Appeal Board rather than to the minister. This provides for an independent appeal process with no apprehension of bias.

As the minister, and really having the ultimate responsibility of the minister in the act, even though I have said that the everyday administration of the act lies on the shoulders of the Superintendent of Insurance, then each and every day, regardless of that, I am the ultimate person, as the current Minister of Government Services, I am the ultimate person who has responsibility of act. Certainly, when the appeal process comes back really to the ultimate person that administers the act, I think there is a bias there. I think that has to be an independent process and that why I am here and certainly believe that amendment is warranted and that should be passed to the Financial Services Appeal Board which is independent from the minister's decision.

The section 71(3) of the act is going to be replaced with wording that removes reference to fines. Fines under the act will now be consolidated in section 108 and 108.1. So that will be a consolidation and harmonization piece and will give clarity under the act in regard to the industry that it governs and also to the consumer that it protects.

Section 77 of the act, which is related to the examination of insurers, is revoked and I want to make it clear that the superintendent, or a person appointed by the superintendent, may conduct an examination. The current act states that the superintendent shall personally visit the office of the insurer. Now under the act, the superintendent will be able to appoint a person to conduct that examination. So it does not have to be the superintendent all the time that is actually doing the investigation.

There will be a new section, 77.1, giving the superintendent specific authority to appoint that person to conduct an examination. That should take care of 77 and 77.1.

There is also a new section in the act, 77.2, which gives a person conducting an examination the power to summon and enforce the attendance of that particular person and to compel him or her to testify under oath and produce documents. This enables the superintendent to give evidence efficiently. This provision is in insurance law in all other Canadian jurisdictions and also in our Securities Act. So this is harmonized with the Securities Act and it is not earth shattering. We are not the leader in this. It is in all other Canadian jurisdictions and it is warranted under our act as well.

There is also a new section proposed, 77.3, which provides the authority for a judge of the Provincial Court or the Trial Division to issue a search warrant if satisfied on reasonable grounds that a contravention of the act has occurred. So, in other words, a search warrant can be issued if there are reasonable grounds that there is fraudulent activity, that there has been a contravention under the act. That also exists in our Securities Act and our Insurance Adjusters, Agents and Brokers Act, and also in insurance law, I believe, in four other Canadian jurisdictions, if my memory serves me right.

Section 77.4 has been added, which authorizes a judge of the Provincial Court or the Trial Division to issue a production order. A production order, which we discussed yesterday as well, is if there are reasonable grounds to believe a company has evidence in this procession which is relevant to an investigation, well then a production order can be issued against a third party and that particular third party has to produce those documents in regard to the specifics of that search warrant. Three Canadian jurisdictions have mechanisms currently in place to obtain production orders.

Section 77.5 has also been added to the act which authorizes the superintendent to direct a person or a company who holds money collected from consumers by the insurance company that is not licensed or a licensed company that may be using the money inappropriately, not to permit the money to be removed from an account until the order is lifted. In other words, if we as the Superintendent, and I as the minister, feel that there is fraudulent activity or there has been a contravention of the act in regard to consumer protection, we can exercise section 77.5 of the act. We can make sure that the money that is held in an account, that that order cannot be lifted until the superintendent and myself as the minister responsible lifts it. In other words, any monies that are contained in regard to that particular company on behalf of the consumers will now be protected and cannot be used other than for the consumer. It will stay sort of in limbo until the investigation happens. This protects the premiums paid to insurance companies by consumers and this, as well, is currently contained within the Securities Act itself and the insurance law in one other jurisdiction in Canada. I believe that all the other jurisdictions are having a look at this provision, as well.

Section 81(4) of the act is repealed and reworded to remove reference to fines again. Government believes, I believe, that we live in a culture now that is completely different than say five years, ten years ago in the past. In some of the fines now that I find in the acts within the Department of Government Services are too low in relation to the amounts of money that are being transacted. The deterrent is not there in the penalty that could be levied by a judge in a judgement. In regard to a charge and a judgement, that penalty I believe is not large enough to reflect the amounts of money that they could be using in regard to fraudulent activity.

So under this act we were looking at and we are proposing that the current fines be increased from a minimum of $100,000 to a maximum of $1 million. I believe this is warranted, and I reflected some of the amounts of money that are held in trust these days by insurance companies. They are very, very large. In the millions and millions of dollars, and some of the fraudulent activity that has happened in the past as well are in the millions and millions of dollars. Certainly, the penalties have to reflect the crime, or at least the maximum that it can go in regard to a judge's consideration. I believe when this is communicated to the industry itself it will serve as a deterrent to anybody who would consider any type of fraudulent activity towards consumers.

Also, the period of imprisonment for up to two years is not considered appropriate to have prison terms of these types of offences. There is an amendment that reflects that as well. That is a part of it as well there. Section 108.(2) provides that a prosecution under the act shall not be started later than two years from the date of offence was discovered by the superintendent.

Currently, the act is silent on the limitation period, meaning that the limitation period in the provincial offences act applies which is only twelve months from the date of offence. This means that a person cannot be charged if the superintendent becomes aware of an offence more than twelve months after it has occurred. We believe that is not enough. We need to know and be able to prosecute under the act. We believe that two years is an appropriate time frame for this. So we have that proposed in the amendment for discussion in regard to this act. Limitation, I might reflect also, varies in other provinces. It is up to three years from the date. I acknowledge that we are going in the middle sort of and saying that two years is an appropriate time.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have covered off all of the amendments. I hope I have been clear in the intention that we have here on the floor of the House of Assembly and the amendments that I am proposing. I am going to listen intently to the comments of my hon. members across the House. I also, hopefully, if they have any questions, if they have any issues in regard to the proposed amendments, that I will be able to answer them in further debate on second reading, or in committee stage if I cannot answer them in second reading.

I think, again, that this is very important, as the other pieces we have before us, that we have debated in this hon. House. I think my hon. colleagues would – again, I would not want to put words in their mouths but I believe that they too, as I believe, that this is a very important piece of a bill and also very important in regard to the amendments to the Insurance Companies Act. I certainly welcome all their remarks and hopefully, answer any of their questions.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Once again to stand with regard to Bill 28, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 3, I think I have to agree with the minister that over the past several days during our debate here there have been several bills, and once you read them, a lot of them are almost alike. You have the Insurance Companies Act, the Insurance Companies Act No. 2, now we are into the bill, the Insurance Companies Act No. 3. Each and every one of those pieces of legislation has the protection of the consumer in mind, and a lot of them are bringing our legislation and our laws in conjunction and in line with other jurisdictions throughout the country. Like I stated, we had bills with regard to other phases of the insurance, securities, we went into various scams and so on that are being protected under the securities.

Under this particular piece of legislation, under the explanatory note, there are some eleven different sections that have been touched on, and the minister has gone through them. As with all the other pieces of legislation when it came to the Insurance Companies Act, we supported the previous various bills, and the same will be true for Bill 28.

Like I said, I will not be going into all of the explanatory notes as outlined, because what it states in this bill is there is a provision for the appeals of the administrative decisions to be made to the financial security appeal board. We go into various sections where it outlines examinations of insurers to make sure, to ensure compliance and that the superintendent, or a person appointed by the superintendent, be a person to conduct an investigation under the act.

It also gives the judge powers, like it did under the other various acts that we had, where they can appoint an individual who can search a building or any other facility, including a private residence. That is one of the issues that have been coming forward with the legislation that we have seen. It also gives power to the superintendent, or to the person appointed by the superintendent, to be able to seize documents and various other items. It also gives the power to the judges that they can enforce that documents be provided that they would have in their possession, and where the individuals would not be able to violate the act, and if so, there would be various penalties put forward.

Mr. Speaker, it also goes on to say that where necessary for the administration of the act, it provides authority once again to the superintendent to issue an order to preserve property of a person or company until the order is lifted. This is very similar to the other pieces of legislation. Also, there is an order that where compensation can be paid, where an individual – the act has been violated and a person has suffered damage. One of the other things that is outlined here, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a time frame – a two-year limitation period for prosecutions under this particular act.

Mr. Speaker, as we look at the appeals process under item 1, section 25, it goes on to say that an insurer whose licence has been suspended or cancelled, they can appeal to the Financial Services Appeal Board. That is very important, Mr. Speaker; regardless of the offence, at least they are given the opportunity that they can appeal to some level, that hopefully their side of the situation can be put forward. We know all too often, regardless of what walk of life we go through and whether it is Canada Pension, EI, or what have you, there is always an opportunity given to the individual to appeal.

Under section 77, where it goes into examination of insurers, it also gives authority that where the head office of an insurer is not in this Province, it gives the authority that the superintendent, or a person appointed by the superintendent, has the authority to visit a head office of the insurer and to examine the affairs that is being carried out by that individual or by a corporation.

Further down in section 77, under item 5: For the purpose of an examination under this section, the superintendent may examine documents or other items, whether they are in the possession or control of the insurer or another person or company. So it is very important to give the leeway that if the individual who you have been dealing with does not have the proper documentation, this empowers the judge or the superintendent, I should say, to be able to go to another person or to a company to try to get the documentation that they need.

I know where it says that you visit the head office in another province, I am sure that the other jurisdictions, their laws would make that available, that they would not be in contravention of their own laws.

It also outlines the powers under this piece of legislation under section 77.2 where they state that a person conducting an examination or an investigation under section 77.1 has the same power to summon and enforce the attendance of a person. They must abide by this enforcement, and if not, they would be in contempt by a judge of the Trial Division, as in a breach of an order of that court.

It also goes into some detail about the search and seizure with a warrant. It states, under section 77.3 of the act, the superintendent, or a person appointed, may, with a warrant, issued under subsection (2), enter a premises and seize anything that may be there that may provide evidence of the contravention.

Mr. Speaker, one of the questions I want to put forward to the minister is, when we speak about the superintendent, I was just wondering if in his closing comments if he would enlighten us about the superintendent. Who the superintendent might be, and what persons or individuals the superintendent might appoint to be able to go and do those searches or investigations. Would it be just someone from the peace officers, or someone else within the department who would have authority to do searches and be able to get involved?

It also mentions here the production order and the interim preservation of property. Under section 77.5, it says: Where the superintendent considers it necessary for the administration of the act, the superintendent may direct a person or company having on deposit or under its control for safekeeping funds or property of a person or company, to retain those funds and to hold it until the superintendent in writing revokes the direction or consent to release a particular fund. As the minister stated, as well as in other jurisdictions, this is very important. We know that when individuals, whether they buy insurance, whether they invest in other companies, you have to have the rules and regulations there so those individuals will know that the investments that they made, that the items that they have purchased, everything is being honest, up front and above board for them so that they know that their investments will be there for their security, and to be able to carry out and entitle them to receive the benefits from which they had purchased.

It also on to say, Mr. Speaker, under subsection (4), "An insurer and the principal officer within the province of an issuer that contravenes this section is guilty of an offence." This is where we come into what is listed under this section as an offence, Mr. Speaker. My understanding, under the old act, the penalties could go from $25,000 up to $250,000. Under the new act, it is from $25,000 up to $1 million. So I do have a couple of questions for the minister to respond to. They are just general questions, I must say, but one of them is: I was wondering why government is moving the appeal process for insurers whose licences are suspended or cancelled, away from the minister and toward the board established under the Financial Services Appeals Board Act. The other question I put forward to the minister is: I am wondering why government is providing more express language in the act for the appointment of persons to conduct investigations. Under the existing act, I was wondering: Was there any uncertainty surrounding the ability of the superintendent or the person that he would appoint to delegate investigatory powers? Also, I was wondering if the superintendent's representative was not authorized to carry out investigations under the existing act. I was just wondering if that would be one of the reasons. Thirdly, and my last question for the minister would be, I was wondering: Why is government seeking to amend the penalties associated with contraventions of the act to include potential imprisonment? I know the fine has been increased from $250,000 up to $1 million, and I was wondering: Is that because of anticipated wrongdoings that could come up in the future, or are there concerns at the present time that there might be something to warrant those fines to be increased like they are?

Mr. Speaker, with those few comments and questions to the minister, I am sure he will respond when he closes debate. As I stated with all the other pieces of legislation from the Department of Government Services, when it came to the Insurance Companies Act, the Insurance Companies Act No. 2 and No. 3, the Securities Act, we totally support them. We know what is being done here: different sections are updated and others are repealed, and in other sections new legislation put forward. Why we support this, Mr. Speaker, we know that from time to time this has to be done, but it is done with the interest of the consumer at heart, to know that whatever investments or purchases they may make, that they will be protected as they carry out business with various groups and organizations and insurance companies in our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. 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 happy to take my place in this hon. House again, in regard to closing debate at second reading on Bill 28, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 3.

Certainly, as we both reflected, my hon. colleague certainly reflected, in regard to the importance of the act itself. He certainly concurred in regard to the amendments that are proposed here, that they are very, very important to the consumer and the consumer protection side of the actual legislation itself. It also reflects in regard to the business side as well, and enabling the industry to actually move forward and transact business in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I will not get into actually the merits of the act itself again, because I think I covered them off in my opening remarks. I also covered off, I think, most of the amendments. My hon. colleague certainly reflected on a certain amount of those amendments as well, and I thank him for his comments. I am certainly glad that he is my critic in this House of Assembly. We have worked well over the last few years, in regard to all the legislation that we brought forward, and certainly he has made very good comments in regard to any of the legislation and suggestions that I brought forward.

He had, I believe, the hon. Member for Port de Grave, three - no, actually four questions. He had three, but he forgot one that he had asked previous. He wanted to know, who was the Superintendent of Insurance? In my department right now, that is a person called Winston Morris. He does some absolutely fabulous work in regard to the department. As a matter of fact, he could have retired but he is not retired. He loved the work in the public service sector; he has chosen to go beyond retirement. I welcome him in my department, I am glad to have him in my department, I am proud to have him in my department, and he has certainly provided me with some great advice over the last three years – a good person. Who can he appoint? As the superintendent, he can appoint people within the department. We have three investigators in that division right now, so he can appoint that person.

One of the items right now, I will go to the second, or I will call it the third question, really, because there is one, two, three, but he had forgotten one, so I will go to in regard to the superintendent, why they would have to appoint. The reason is that currently in the act it says that the superintendent shall personally visit the office of the insurer. Sometimes that is not possible. There might be two investigations, there might be other work at hand in regard to the various duties of the superintendent, and that kind of limits the scope of what the superintendent can do. It puts undue challenges in front of him, so now we are very, very clear in the act that he or she can appoint a person on his behalf. Right now, under the current act, it certainly limits that by saying that he shall personally visit the office of the insurer. So we are removing that, and that should clarify that.

The reason why I am proposing, as the minister - not that I am a minister who likes to lose any of his power, or her power, and control over his department, but in this particular case, in regard to the appeal process, in regard to a lifting of a licence or whatever it may be that an appeal is made to my department, the bottom line of it is that I am the boss of the superintendent. I am the minister responsible for the legislation. So the ultimate person in the department is the minister, and currently it is me. So, really, I feel, in regard to the appeal process, you are appealing to the person, really, in essence, that has charged you, right? There is a bias. So that takes away the bias; it is an independent body that will hear that appeal. I think that is much fairer, not only to the insurer but also to the ministers themselves, because I would not want myself, or any minister in the future, in a biased position in regard to making decisions in regard to the Insurance Companies Act at any given time.

Number three I scribbled, I say to the hon. member. I cannot remember the third question that you had in regard to, you had the –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. O'BRIEN: Right, in regard to the protection of the money in regard to, we have a provision in the act, which is not currently in the act, that prevents the movement of money after there is a suspected fraudulent activity, that there has been a violation under the act. So, if the superintendent has enough evidence that he believes or she believes that there is any type of unwanted activity happening within the confines of the insurer, that the monies that are held now in trust, there would be an order put on that money and will not be lifted until the charge is formally laid and, after that, has gone through Trial Division, or there is enough evidence that proves that there is no fraudulent activity on the go in regard to the act.

That again protects the consumer. I think it is a very important piece. I think the Member for Port de Grave reflected that he thought that is what it meant, and he certainly concurred that it was a very, very important piece, if that is what it was, in regard to protecting the consumer and the amounts of money that we are talking about.

Mr. Speaker, again, Bill 28, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 3, is a very, very important bill, again, on the floor of the House of Assembly today. I have welcomed any comments from my colleagues across the House. I have certainly consulted with the industry, my staff, and in particular the Superintendent of Insurance and his staff have done some great work in regard to these amendments and making sure that we are doing things right when it comes to the consumers and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We certainly consulted with other jurisdictions, and did cross-jurisdictional checks in regard to making sure that these amendments are consistent in the industry today.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to take my seat in the House. I certainly welcome any other comments that my hon. colleagues may have in Committee stage. Certainly, if they have any questions or issues or queries, I will certainly try to answer them in Committee stage at that particular time.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

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 To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 3", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 28)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Order 21, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act. (Bill 29)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take my place in the House of Assembly here today. I think I have a pair of shoes wore out from getting up and down, or at least the seat of my pants, actually, is getting worn and I might have to buy a new suit. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, these are very, very important pieces of legislation at this particular time.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, that Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act, now be read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act". (Bill 29)

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to think that you are forgetting what minister I am after I have been up in this House all this afternoon, all yesterday afternoon and some of last night. You hesitated in regard to your introduction, but I do not think you will ever forget me again.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I am certainly happy to take my place in this House and reflect in regard to the act that we are currently debating, the act respecting the Prepaid Funeral Services Act.

This again, is a very, very, very, very important piece of protective legislation, especially its relation to senior citizens.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I hear some heckling coming from my side of the House, not the opposite side of the House, in regard to my pronunciation of very. I reflect on that because we are into a Prepaid Funeral Services Act, and it certainly is reflective of where I come from on the Southern Shore, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: I am very, very proud to be from the historic community of Ferryland, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the basic purpose of this legislation is to ensure that, as much as possible, money paid by individuals to funeral homes in advance for payment of a funeral, is held in a trust account for the time when the individual dies. Mr. Speaker, this is very important in regard to our senior citizens in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is very important to each and every one of us, because I would say there is a good many of us here right now that have, in regard to our wills, we have trust accounts put in place that would provide monies and financial whereabouts for our loved ones, to provide funeral services for us if something would happen to us today. I would suspect that most of us have that here today, not only senior citizens, but seniors citizens, in particular, this is very important.

We have found in the past that these trust funds can be violated. We had an incident in Newfoundland and Labrador some years ago. There is still an ongoing process in place in regard to recovering some of the monies that were supposedly being held in trust, that were not held in trust, and were used for other things, and were lost to the consumer. That happened here in Newfoundland and Labrador a number of years ago, and amounted to around about a half a million dollars, which is a large sum of money. That is a large sum of money in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why I believe that this is a very important piece of legislation and the amendments that I am proposing on this floor of the House of Assembly today.

Not only the $500,000, but an average cost of a funeral today ranges anywhere from $8,000, $10,000, somewhere in that area, in regard to an individual, a family who finds one of their loved ones who passes away at any given time. God forbid that we have to face that any time in the future, but certainly, you should have the comfort of knowing that things are place that you do not have to deal with the financial side of internment. You can go to your loved one, you can go through your process and you can concentrate on other things that are important to you and that is the past life of the individual, the loved person that you have lost, that you do not have to deal with the financial side of it. That is what this is all about. That is why they put it in trust. That is why they believe that this is very, very important.

I have reflected in regard to the fraudulent activity that happened. As a matter of fact, I believe it happened back in 2000. Like I said, there was $500,000 that was supposedly being held in trust for, I believe, eighty-eight individuals. However, when the company went out of business, none of the money was there. They had spent the money for cash flow, for other purposes, for the everyday operation of the business. In other words, they used, in this case I suppose, the eighty-eight individuals' money to finance their business dealings. That could be you and me tomorrow. So, I believe in my heart and my soul that this has to be corrected and this has to be protected.

Mr. Speaker, this is devastating to an individual. An individual would put this kind of money in trust to a company, the individuals relied that that money is there, which I spoken on in the past bill which I had before this House, that they rely, they have to have the comfort. In regard to senior citizens, as they get older and like it – and I often reflect on this, once we are born on this earth, there comes a time that we have to die. That is the way of life. We do not want to. We do not think about it on a daily basis, but it happens. Certainly, as you get older you often reflect at times in regard to having that comfort level that you have put away in trust, the monies that would be needed to make sure that the family is not under any duress conditions in regard to your death. That is why we have this in place. It is there in order to ensure that these individuals would have their funerals paid for, as I just reflected on.

Certainly, as the act sits today there is a process in place that government and the funeral industry entered into. There is an arrangement whereby government would obtain a $200,000 line of credit and other federal homes in the area would respect that.

Mr. Speaker, provisions under the act right now, just to reflect on that as well, because I have tried to do that because some people do not realize that we actually have these pieces of legislation in government. They do not realize that it is there until probably they need it; they have an issue or whatever. So I just wanted to give an overview in regard to provisions to the act as it sits today.

Some of the provisions are, licensing requirements to be a seller of prepaid funerals. In other words, there are specific requirements surrounding a funeral home having the right to be a seller of prepaid funerals, and they are spelled out in the act. There is a prohibition to sell prepaid funerals without a licence. In other words, it is illegal to sell prepaid funerals without a licence and there are penalties associated with that violation as well. They are there in the act.

The establishment of an assurance fund to be paid for by the industry to cover the cost of prepaid funerals in the event a funeral home goes out of business and trust funds are missing. There is an assurance fund. That came into being after the fraudulent activity that happened back in May, 2000 when a funeral home went out of business and there was approximately $500,000 that was being held in trust, or supposedly being held in trust, for eighty-eight individuals, and was found that it was not there. So after that fact, there was an assurance fund put in place that is paid into by the various funeral homes in Newfoundland and Labrador that are part of the prepaid funeral services. They put it into a fund just in case something do happen, that there will be money there, held in trust, just in case a business goes out of business and the trust funds that are being held by that particular company is missing. Now there will be a process as well in regard to if that ever happened there will be an investigation and there will be court proceedings pertaining to that as well in the recovery of those trust funds. We will not just rely on the assurance fund to take up the slack for those missing funds because that is a criminal activity regardless of how you look at.

A requirement for a seller of prepaid funerals is to place money collected for such funerals in a trust fund that is provided, clearly defined within the act. Provisions that must be in a prepaid funeral contract include cancellation rights of an individual buying the prepaid funerals. In other words, if I enter into a contract today in regard to a prepaid funeral, well then I have the right at any given time, cancellation right, to cancel that policy. That is clearly defined within the act as well.

There are prohibitions on where prepaid funeral contracts may be sold, such as a hospital, a long-term care facility or personal care home unless requested by the buyer. This is to prevent solicitations of prepaid funerals in these facilities. In other words, a funeral home that has a licence to enter into that industry of prepaid funerals cannot enter a long-term care and solicit the residents in that particular facility to buy into the prepaid funeral in regard to the trust fund that they have. That is there as well and that is legal, unless the buyer requests a particular funeral home to come into the facility and then they set up an account that way, but it has to on the specific request of the actual buyer.

A requirement for the seller to revise services, that is provided for in the prepaid funeral services contract. It also gives the authority for persons authorized by me, as the minister, to inspect the books of a funeral home related to prepaid funeral contracts and trust funds. It also gives the authority for a judge to issue a search warrant where there are reasonable grounds that a seller may have contravened the act.

There are penalties for offences under the act which are, right now, for an individual a fine of not more than $2,000 or a term of imprisonment of not more than two months, or both for a first offence, and a fine of not more than $5,000 or a term of imprisonment of not more than four months, or both for subsequent offences, and a fine for a corporation is not less than $5,000 and not more than $25,000.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will just give an overview of the actual act itself in regard to what it does today in protecting the consumer, how it spells out how a particular business conducts its prepaid funeral accounts and how they have to govern themselves under the act. The proposed amendments that we have in front of us today for debate, which I firmly believe are absolutely needed in the act because we cannot do enough - I think in regard to some of the legislation that I have in my department - to strengthen the act in providing the necessary deterrents, the necessary provisions under the act to be able to protect the consumer when it comes down to their money that they entrust to people that they expect to have when something happens within their lives and the family would need to avail of those financial services.

A new subsection will be added, 3.1. It will be added to provide the minister the authority to attach restrictions, limitations and conditions on the licence. This allows for conditions to be placed on a licence where a funeral home is not following certain provisions of the act, but the offence is not severe enough to take away the licence.

Other financial services legislation administered by my department has similar provisions. Also, other legislation in seven other Canadian jurisdictions has much the same provisions as well. In other words, if my people in regard to an investigation would investigate a particular place of business and they find there are certain things happening that does not pertain to the act but not strict enough to lift the licence of that particular funeral home to administer prepaid funerals, well then I as the minister, or any Minister of Government Services, will now have the authority to attach restrictions and limitations, conditions to the licence.

The act currently does not contain a provision that sets out the duration of a licence. In other words, when you issue a licence there is nothing there in the act now that actually gives the life of a licence. So a new section 3.1 has been added, which states: "A licence remains in effect, subject to the filing of annual reports and payment of an annual fee… until it is suspended or cancelled…" by the minister. This is similar to the legislation for other financial services, regulations administered by my department.

This clearly defines it, that there are certain provisions in that licence, that they have to file annual reports, which is very, very important. They have to pay an annual fee in regard to that licence and then also the Minister of Government Services has the right to cancel or suspend a licence, depending on the violation that is suspected.

A new section, 11.1, is added to give the minister specific authority to appoint persons as examiners and investigators. While this authority may be implied in the act, it is not specifically stated. So we wanted to make it clear. It is there now but it is a grey area. So now this defines it. It makes it very, very clear that the minister has this right to appoint a person as an examiner or an investigator to investigate a particular business in regard to the prepaid funerals.

Section 12 of the act is being repealed and replaced with wording, which replaces the word "auditor" with "a person appointed by the minister under section 11.1". So, staff within the department conducting examinations and inspections are called examiners and inspectors, not auditors. There is a big difference because they are what they are; they are examiners. They go in and examine the actual documents. They go in and examine and inspect the actual transactions of that particular company. That is what they do.

Also, a new subsection is added stating that a seller of prepaid funerals must give the person appointed to conduct an examination reasonable help to enable him or her to carry out his duties. So in other words, this is similar to some of the other things that we have discussed in this hon. House in relation to some of the other acts and bills that I have brought forward to the floor of the House of Assembly, that really there cannot be any obstruction in the investigation. Actually, it states that the particular persons in the company have to assist the examiners and assist the investigators in providing them the necessary information that they need to conduct the actual investigation.

Section 13 of the act is, as well, being repealed and replaced with the wording that authorizes investigators and examiners to seize documents that are obtained through a search warrant, and to retain these documents for presentation in court, if necessary. Currently, the act, I believe, only provides authority for documents obtained by a search warrant to be copied. So in other words, now we have the right to seize the documents. We have the right to retain the documents for presentation in court, and I think this is very, very important, and it is also reflected in the legislation in seven other Canadian jurisdictions.

Mr. Speaker, a new section 13.1 is added as well, giving examiners and investigators the authority to summon and enforce the attendance of a person, and to compel that person to testify under oath and produce documents. I think this is very, very important as well, in regard to completing the investigation, making sure that you are able to realize your mandate in protecting the consumers of the Province, as well as the mandate to make sure that each and every aspect of this particular act has been adhered to and respected by the people in the industry.

A new section, 13.2, is added as well, which will authorize a judge of the Provincial Court or the Trial Division to order a person, other than the person who is subject to an investigation, to produce documents and present them to an investigator or an examiner. This is very, very important because sometimes there is a third party involved, and in the course of an investigation that can be very disruptive to the business, and it is very time consuming to the investigators and examiners. So in regard to a judge being able to be authorized to order production orders, I think they are very, very important. They are certainly more efficient ways to exercise the search warrant. It certainly does not disrupt the business as much as having an examiner or investigator going through all your books. It actually protects the integrity and the confidentiality of documents that an examiner or an investigator may very well view that are not even related to the actual examination that is at hand. So that protects that too. I believe that is very, very important. It is also similar to what I am proposing and have debated, and I believe it is third reading now, in the Insurance Companies Act and the Securities Act as well as others.

A new section, 13.3, is also being added to authorize the minister to direct a person having control of money of a seller of prepaid funerals to retain these funds and hold them until the minister revokes the direction or a judge of the Trial Division orders otherwise. This is called a protection order and is necessary to ensure that consumer deposits are retained in a trust account where the minister is concerned that monies have been misappropriated.

Certainly, again, this is very, very important because if we have reason to believe that there are violations of the act, that monies are not being used, or being used other than the intended purpose in regard to the trust fund, then certainly we can put an order in place or have a judge put an order in place – as a matter of a fact, it is the minister. Actually, it is not a judge; the minister can do it himself. I want to correct that in regard to putting an order in place to have those monies sorted, suspended, frozen, in that the company cannot continue to use them, draw on those accounts, until our investigation is over and we see if there is either misappropriate activity happening, or if there is misappropriate activity happening, then we can charge under the act. So this protects the consumer as well.

A new section, 13.4, has been added to authorize the minister to appoint a trustee to take possession of the property of a seller of prepaid funerals where the minister believes the clients of a seller are not being protected or the seller has converted trust funds. Certainly this is also necessary to ensure consumers' trust funds are protected. This is also reflected in, I believe, seven other Canadian jurisdictions which have similar authorities as well in regard to their legislation that they have within their particular jurisdiction.

I believe that is very, very important that the minister has the ability to appoint a person, a trustee, to take possession, to make sure that monies are not being used for items that they should not be used for and that the people who have entrusted that money in that particular business, that they are protected under the act, and they can have some comfort that their money will be there at the end of the day.

The penalties under the act are certainly, I believe, considered too small. We are talking about fairly large sums of money, for example, maximum fines are $5,000 for an individual, now in the act $25,000 for a corporation to a maximum term of four months. It is proposed in the amendments to increase the fines to a minimum of $100,000 and a maximum amount of equal to three times the amount obtained by the person as a result of the offence.

In other words, if you were to misappropriate $100,000, well then the maximum fine that you could have levied in regard to a judge is $300,000. If it was $500,000, it would $1.5 million and thereof. So, penalties vary across the country, but we as a government, myself as the minister and my staff thought that the three times amount, which is used somewhere else in another jurisdiction, was a good rule of thumb. I think that if you are going to misappropriate money be it $25,000 or be it $100,000, I think the three times factor would certainly serve as a deterrent in regard to the amount of money that we are talking about. That is reflected right through the industry. I think we have to have deterrence there. The money is there and where money is involved, boy, I tell you it becomes a kind of a carrot in regard to people using it. If you have financial burden in regard to the everyday operation of your business and you cannot avail of monies through the normal process of banks or whatever else, lending institutions, well then you might very well be intrigued to avail of the trust fund that you have, which could be in the millions of dollars.

Just as a point, currently there is $41.7 million held in trust by forty-seven companies in the Province with three of the companies holding approximately $4 million in trust, each that is, and one company holding in excess of $3 million in trust. You are talking about fair sums of money, so I think the penalties should be reflective and I think they should be there as a deterrent in regard to entering into any fraudulent activity.

The act is currently silent on the time frame which the department has to bring charges against a person for a violation of the act. Therefore, the Provincial Offences Act would apply, which gives twelve months. We believe that two years from the date of offence would be a more appropriate time frame in regard to the laying of charges. I referenced that in the past act, as well, in regard to that time frame. I think a year goes very, very fast, so a two-year time frame would be more appropriate in regard to bringing charges, because there is always a process in regard to investigation and examination and getting it actually to the point that you might lay a charge.

This is serious stuff. This is serious, so you do not want to be laying charges on a particular business or a person in regard to any type of activity that you might suspect unless you are positively sure that activity is actually happening. So that two year period would give that time frame. It would not rush the examination, and it would not put any undue challenges on the examiners or the investigators. It would give them time to do their valuable work and move forward and come back to the superintendent and to the minister in regard to the administration of this act to make a decision – an educated decision, a wise decision – in regard to if we would lay charges or not.

Mr. Speaker, I think at this particular time I have certainly covered off a background into the reasons why we need this piece of legislation. Just on reflection, it was highlighted, I guess, by the closing of a business, when a business went out of business back in 2000 and $500,000, approximately, went missing and was never recovered, to this date, only small portions of it. So we have to put every measure in place in regard to legislation to make sure that this does not happen again. This is very, very important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly our seniors.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would certainly welcome any comments from my colleagues from the opposite side of the House. I certainly hope that I can answer any questions in relation to this very, very important piece of legislation. If I cannot answer them in second reading and closing remarks, I will certainly try to answer them in Committee stage.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: 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 about this particular amendment today to the Prepaid Funeral Services Act.

I am sure the people in my District of Burgeo & La Poile who are listening to this are going to be very pleased to hear about any update concerning this particular piece of legislation; because, of course, the fraud that the minister alluded to, that occurred back in 1999 and 2000, occurred in the Town of Port aux Basques, which is within my district. It was perpetrated by a guy by of the name of Glen Ford, who operated a company called Ford's Funeral Home. Normally, you might not be announcing people's names or whatever, but anybody in that community who knows that individual was severely, emotionally impacted by what he did, because there were eighty-eight different people in my hometown who had prepaid the guy for their funeral services in the event that they died. Most of these people, as you can appreciate, were older people. They were people who sometimes entrusted this guy with their last dollar. They wanted to make sure that, when they died, they had a decent burial. They took him into their confidence, and he took them to the cleaners to the tune of about - to be exact, $492,790.

I knew the gentleman, by the way. I do not know if I would use that word now, given what he has done to the people in that particular area. We have not seen him every often since. He skedaddled off to Alberta. We have been, as a Province, ever since trying to recoup the money that he took from people. You would not believe how devastating that was to these senior people. That was one of the first things I had to deal with as an MHA - friends of mine, neighbours of mine, people who came to me, seniors crying, emotionally devastated, who did not know what to do. How were they going to pay for their funeral?

The minister alluded to how careful you have to be when you allow people to takes someone's money, to make sure that it is entrusted to make sure that they do not abuse it. In that particular case, of course, the abuse was obvious, now that people look back and see what he was doing with it, in terms of gambling habits, material things and so on. He lived well and, of course, he lived on other people's money to the tune of $500,000 until he was caught up, and his bills caught up with him.

At the time, of course, the government of the day, and I happened to be a part of it, the question became - because it became a government issue. It impacted not only the eighty-eight people who had paid the money; every one of their families was devastated. The whole community was in turmoil - what to do. Actually, nobody did know what to do at the time. There was no such thing as trust funds regarding prepaid funerals. Everybody was on their own in this Province when it came to funeral directors. There was no guidance being given by government. There were no directions; there were no rules in place. Anyway, the first question became: How do we deal with the people who lost their money? Or should we, as a government, even deal with the people who lost their money? The approach that was decided, first of all, was: Let's get in the funeral home operators, because these are the people who have the biggest stake in the future to make sure that this is done right. It is a great business tool for them, provided it is used properly and appropriately. It is great for the seniors who want to invest their money and pay for their funeral up front, and then they do not have to worry about that as they go forward, and they can enjoy the rest of the days they have without wondering if they are going to have their funeral paid for. So it is a great process provided, like everything, it is handled properly.

So the government of the day approached the funeral directors at the time and brought them all together - they had an association - and said: What do you suggest we do? We know what we think, as a government, you ought to do. Number one, we should compensate the people who got ripped off.

As a credit to the funeral directors, they stepped up to the plate. What was decided was, each of the eighty-eight contracts would be honoured as they became due. If a person died, and he or she had a contract with that particular gentleman, the contract would be honoured – with another funeral director, of course, because since that two funeral homes moved back into the community. So their funeral would be honoured and it would be paid for from a compensation fund. That is why we ended up with the Prepaid Funeral Services Act of 2000 – May, 2000. So the government passed legislation and said: This is what you are going to operate like on a go-forward basis. Included in that is, we are going to set up a compensation fund.

The way it worked was that every funeral director in the Province paid a certain amount of money into this fund. The money from that fund, the compensation fund created under this act, was used to honour these eighty-eight contracts as they became due. I believe in the first year of operation – it got set up in 2001 - in the first year there were twenty-three, and so on, until ultimately, of course - and I am not sure if they are all deceased by now, but as they become due they are paid out of this fund. So what we see here, Mr. Speaker, is a further tightening of the legislation that was originally brought in back in 2000.

Now, there have been some growing pains. There have been several growing pains along the way. For example, there was an Auditor General's report back in 2002, two years after it was set up, and the Auditor General at the time had some problems and said: It is one thing to do what you did, but if you are going to do it, do it properly.

For example, the government, of which I was a part, albeit well-intentioned, the appropriate follow-up was not done initially in terms of putting the staff in place to make sure that the fund was administered, to make sure that the trust provisions that were required were there. Of course, as time went on, and the Auditor General kept checking, and government got more and more used to implementing the act, the thing was tightened up. The funeral directors themselves, it became an obvious part of their business, how they had to handle these funds and deal with these funds that they had in trust.

Port aux Basques was just the example that started it. Today, it has become pro forma in the funeral directing business if you have to handle funds in this fashion, and people know the consequences if you do not because there are two sides to this law. Number one; there is a punishment issue here if a guy perpetrates a fraud upon the trust fund. So there is some punishment for the person who does not comply with the rules but at the same time we have a consumer protection element here because the fund is established to protect the people. That is why this is a two-fold very positive approach that was taken here.

I say hats off to the government on this particular bill that we are dealing with here today in improving even further upon the act that was started some ten years ago, ten years-and-two-months ago. I noticed just how serious it has been taken - and the minister tells us that he has consulted with people in the industry, of course. Just so the people have some assurance when they put their money in trust now, the type of safeguards that are in place, that you are protected.

I will refer in particular to clause 13.4 which says: "Where the minister believes that the business of a seller is neglected to the prejudice of a person or that the interests of the clients of the seller are not being protected or that the seller has converted trust funds, the minister may, by order appoint a…" trustee to go in and take possession of that person's property. So, there are watchdogs there now. As soon as there is an inkling that somebody is not complying with the rules that your trust funds are not protected, the minister has the authority to send someone in to take over that person's business to make sure that it is operated for the best interest of the clients, the persons who have bought prepaid funerals, for example.

That did not happen back in 2000, of course, because what happened that particular gentleman, he stole out of town under the cover of darkness. He was in town one night, everybody saw him, and the next day he disappeared. All of his furniture disappeared, certain assets that he had disappeared. So the protections were not in place, and to this day they have not been able to recover that money. He comes home every now and then I understand to go moose hunting. I do not know if he has a lot of friends around. I do not know if I would trust myself to be in the woods if I were him, around that neck of the woods, given what he has done to a lot of people, but he still does every now and then - but, no attempt whatsoever to make any restitution to the people whom he victimized, none whatsoever.

Anyway, for those who perpetrate such an offence in the future, we see now that we have a new penalty clause in 16; pretty stiff stuff. We are not talking about a snap on the fingers here now. If walk off with somebody's prepaid funeral expenses, you are looking at a fine. Now if you read the first part, it sounds pretty mild, "…a fine of not less than $500…" Then you read the second part, and this is what I think is really, really a good deterrent to people. It says: "…a fine of not less than $500 and not more than $100,000". It gets even better, and this is where I say hats off to the government in having the backbone to put something in here that I think is going to scare a lot of people, and it is needed. That is where they say: "an amount equal to 3 times the amount obtained by the person as a result of the offence, whichever is greater".

That is the words I like: whichever is greater, because the judges have some leeway now. They can use some discretion, listen to the facts. Maybe somebody made a minor mistake. They did not comply with some filing rules or whatever, that is one thing, not anything outlandish or fraud and so on. They might not have complied with filing regulations under the trust provisions, but if you outright steal from somebody and you steal the monies - in the case of Mr. Ford, of course, we would have been looking at about $1.5 million that the penalty could have been. Unfortunately, there are others areas of the law we obviously need to tighten up on, because despite the order of restitution that was made against him, he absconded and we have not recovered a cent since.

Now, I do not know, the minister talked about other jurisdictions in Canada that have these types of prepaid funeral trust funds and we do have what we call reciprocal enforcement agreements whereby if you get a debt in one province we try to recover in another, but he has been pretty cagey so far. He has been a pretty cagey guy. As I say, he has been ten years out. He took the $500,000, he sold off whatever he had and he took off. We have not been able to nail him since. I can assure you that just about everybody that I know in the Town of Channel-Port aux Basques who could see that he got his just desserts would be very, very proud and pleased.

I say to the minister, there is no question about the Official Opposition supporting this bill, none whatsoever. We were very pleased in the first instance to create the prepaid funeral home thing, so that the people who were victims of that gentleman were looked after, and good to see that it is being even tougher. You learn from experience. We tried to set the template, set a good template. The intentions were there. The motivations were right. The victims were looked after, but it is even good and better when you see, after ten years of experience, how you can tighten it up even further so that it never, ever happens to anybody else.

You have some funeral home directors in this Province, particularly when you talk about urban areas like St. John's; they have some major amounts of money in their trust. The minister, I believe, alluded to two that have like millions of dollars tied up in these types of things. So it is nice to know, not only who got it, it is nice to know where they have it. It is nice to direct what they can put it into, because this guy put a lot of his money that he took, he put a lot of his money in casinos. Fortunately now under these rules, they are going to be a bit more restrictive than that. If you take somebody's funeral money, you have to put it into authorized investments. Usually blue chip stuff, Coca Cola, whatever. I was going to say GM, I take that back. They are not as solid as they used to be one time. Blue chip investments as opposed to, as I say, that guy invested it in his casino or other people's casinos.

So, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, and to the minister, we applaud you and the government for bringing forward this piece of legislation. It was needed in the first place. It is good to see that it is being strengthened. The only thing, I guess, missing from this is there is no way, in this particular piece of legislation, to do anything about getting the money back which that particular individual took off with in the first place. It is unfortunate, and maybe there is some way under the criminal system, and maybe that is under the Minister of Justice – and I do know, by the way, because the local newspaper out our way, religiously checks with the Sheriff's Office and through the Minister of Justice's office to see if there is anything being done or can be done to recoup the money from that individual. I appreciate the task you have because he is a very cagey character, no question about it, very cagey character, and ten years out we still have not been able to nail him. Hopefully that day will come some time, because I do not think there is any statute of limitations on getting it back.

Anyway, hats off to the government, and we will be voting for this, without question and without doubt, unanimously from the Official Opposition when this comes up for vote.

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 certainly am very, very happy to take my place in this House in regard to closing debate of second reading to An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act. I certainly listened intently to the hon. member on the opposite in regard to his comments on this bill. I certainly welcome the support – as he termed it, the unanimous support. He referenced hats off to the government in regard to bringing these amendments forward. They are well warranted, well needed, and whatever in regard to protecting the consumers of this Province.

Certainly, I want to recognize his closeness in regard to what happened back in May 2000 in regard to that particular business that is in his particular district and what happened to those eighty-eight individuals who are involved. I would like to tell – and yes, I also agree – that we are dealing with a very, very cagey person. He is very hard to track, but we are still pursuing. As a matter of fact, recently there was a sale of his house in Alberta. We actually recovered something, I believe. We are now actively pursuing him in Ontario. So he moves around.

In the meantime, I certainly want to just respect the remarks by the hon. member. I am sure he had closeness to a number of the eighty-eight individuals who were affected. I am sure he has a relationship with most of the families that were involved in that. He has seen first-hand how devastating it can be when you put your money in trust, that you believe that it is going to be there at the end of the day when you absolutely need it, when you lose a loved one because you do not want to be dealing with the financial implications of death at that particular time. You just want to mourn, you want to reflect on the life that has been lost, and you want to reflect on what that life has provided you as an individual in regard to your living life.

These are the kinds of things that you want to do when somebody passes away. You do not want to be dealing with: How can we pay for this? We have to have it because the person has to be interned and you have to have a funeral service. So then the family has no other choice but go through the process, and then the whole way through you are wondering: Well, how can we pay for it? I think that is wrong. I think that is the reason why people put money in trust and that is the reason why we have to put protective measures in place in regard to making sure that money is held in trust, that it is not used for other activities within that business in regard to financing the everyday operations of that particular business. That is very, very important.

I welcome the remarks of the hon. member. He certainly has closeness to it. He recognizes how important this is to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I thank him for his remarks in regard to the government, myself, as a minister, and my department. We consider that we did a fair bit of work. We will be following this piece of legislation and we will be of the mindset that if we see areas that we can strengthen it again that anything comes forward in regard to anyone in the industry that has suggestions or any of the jurisdictions or anybody in this hon. House, well then my mind is open in regard to strengthening that because it is very, very important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, in particular, our senior citizen community.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will close debate on second reading. If there are any other questions I will (inaudible) -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The bill has now been read for the 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 To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 29)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, considering we have laid down a motion that we will not adjourn at 5:30 or at 10:00 this evening, at this time I guess we will recess until 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: This hon. House will now recess until 7:00 p.m.


June 15, 2010                        HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS               Vol. XLVI  No. 38A


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

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, Order 22, second reading of a bill, An Act Respecting The Health And Protection Of Animals, Bill 30.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services, that Bill 30, The Health And Protection Of Animals Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 30, An Act Respecting The Health And Protection Of Animals, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Health And Protection Of Animals". (Bill 30)

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

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present today second reading of the new Animal Health and Protection Act. This new act provides the substantially enhanced protection for animals in this Province. It is a major initiative on the part of this government and responds to a widely recognized need for modernization of our legislation. It is reflective of issues and concerns in the public with respect to the health and treatment of animals.

Mr. Speaker, staff within the Department of Natural Resources has been working diligently on the consultations and this new statute since April, 2009. This is a complicated and sensitive matter, and I congratulate them on a job well done.

The genesis of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, to a major extent resulted from the representations from animal health and animal protection groups calling on government to review and consolidate numerous pieces of legislation. These groups and many members of the general public were motivated as well by high-profiled incidents of animal abuse which have taken place within our communities.

Mr. Speaker, the new act demonstrates our government's commitment to animal protection and animal health. We have responded to an enormous public call for stiffer penalties for those convicted of abuse and neglect of animals. The act very clearly outlines what constitutes inappropriate and illegal treatment of animals. It also represents government's commitment to support those groups in our Province who are working hard to keep animals healthy and safe.

Mr. Speaker, officials of my department, led by the MHA for Bonavista North and Parliamentary Secretary to the Forestry and Agrifoods Agency, consulted widely in the development of this legislation and the policy principles that are at its foundation. Notably, Mr. Speaker, we consulted with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, municipalities, and representatives from the Nunatsiavut government to hear their issues and concerns. We have consulted with owners of pet stores, animal welfare groups, academics from Memorial University and the general public. We have also reviewed relevant scientific publications on the subject. In these meetings, Mr. Speaker, we sought to understand the deeply felt concerns of experts and advocates alike. From such groups, the government benefitted from the experience and passion of genuinely well motivated people who have substantive views on what new legislation should involve.

Mr. Speaker, we also benefitted from a considerable amount of unsolicited opinion. This testifies to the importance of animal health and protection, that citizens took it upon themselves to communicate with the government over and above normal consultative processes. My department could not have put such a comprehensive bill together without the assistance of all of these groups and organizations, Mr. Speaker, and I sincerely thank them for their input. Because of the efforts of many people, our new legislation will result in the proper animal treatment and humane handling of animals. It minimizes risks within industry and ensures that proper regulations will be in place to contribute to the continued growth of the agriculture industry and the appropriate treatment of people who own domestic animals.

To ensure that the new act will provide the greatest degree of protection available, Mr. Speaker, the department reviewed animal welfare legislation in other jurisdictions. Importantly, our new Animal Health and Protection Act builds on the best approaches in other provinces. It takes the lessons and experiences in these other jurisdictions and allows us to move to the front of the line.

The public of this Province have been witness, almost on a weekly basis, to the extremes that are possible in animal cruelty and neglect. The media have done a commendable job in bringing these stories to the attention of the public. In a modern and caring society it is important to face these stories and take action. The public have clearly told us that this behaviour is unacceptable.

The Animal Health and Protection Act is comprehensive and it consolidates six live animal statutes into a single modern piece of legislation. Most of this legislation was originally enacted in the 1970s and has not been significantly updated since that time. Mr. Speaker, the statutes being combined are the Animal Protection Act, Dog Act, Heritage Animals Act, Livestock Act, and Livestock Health Act. The Poultry and Poultry Products Act will not be entirely consolidated into the new act. Regulations are currently being developed to accompany the new act. The regulations will further define what is and is not acceptable under the act in a variety of different areas. The regulation making powers are enumerated in the act.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure everyone can appreciate that the work undertaken to get us to this stage has been comprehensive. With that in mind, the drafting of the regulations will take some time to complete as well. While this process is underway the current acts will remain in effect. However, Mr. Speaker, I would advise everyone to become familiar with this legislation. It is the new standard by which we must live in this Province. It has significant changes from the norms and practices to which we have been accustomed. In that context, I will now provide some of the highlights of the Animal Health and Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker, among all the messages that the government received in consultations, we were told consistently that penalties need to be commensurate with the seriousness of any offences. Cruelty to animals cannot be tolerated in a humane society and action is required. Therefore, the act provides for stiffer penalties for those individuals convicted under the act, including fines up to $50,000 and imprisonment up to six months, or both, and a lifetime ban on animal ownership if sufficient to warrant it.

Mr. Speaker, the Animal Health and Protection Act also contains a general statement to legally protect animals from distress. This statement sets important perimeters for the treatment of animals in Newfoundland and Labrador. Distress is defined as "…the state of being in need of proper care, water, food or shelter, being sick, injured, abused or in pain or of suffering undue or unnecessary hardship, privation or neglect".

The previous definition, Mr. Speaker, did not include references to water or to abuse. We believe the addition of these two terms, which may sound minor, are fundamental. For animals, as well as for humans, water is a necessity and owners, or those who care for an animal, must provide this necessity. While the current act does indicate that such things as neglect and pain are included in the definition of distress, the absence of abuse was a glaring omission. This has now been corrected and provides clarity to the definition of distress.

Mr. Speaker, our legislation asserts that allowing an animal to live in abuse is inappropriate and further, that each of us has a responsibility to provide appropriate care. The definitions and penalties set out in the Animal Health and Protection Act achieve that goal.

Mr. Speaker, I also believe the people of the Province have spoken loudly and told us that inappropriate treatment must not be tolerated and that the repercussions for those who abuse or neglect an animal must be significant, if not severe. That is why the provisions for fines and incarceration are increased greatly in the Animal Health and Protection Act. That being said, Mr. Speaker, we also recognize that not all cases involved with this legislation should go before the courts.

In the current act, Mr. Speaker, all matters, including minor offences, go through the court process. Legislating that all cases proceed to the courts is not necessary and, in fact, may be cumbersome in some matters. Mr. Speaker, the new act recognizes this and provides for ticketable offences so that some violations may not have to go through the courts. Simply said, Mr. Speaker, those designated with enforcement capabilities under the act may issue a ticket to an individual contravening the Animal Health and Protection Act. During consultations we explored the use of summary offences that would avoid the timely and costly resort to the courts. We received support for the provision of tickets for minor offences.

Mr. Speaker, under the new act, directors and officers of businesses involved in the livestock and animal companion industries can be banned from owning animals if convicted of animal abuse. Those who have been proven to abuse animals, including those who are involved in retail operations which raise, sell or breed animals should not be permitted to continue their involvement in these operations. I believe this legislative change clearly demonstrates our government's commitment to protecting animals within our Province and ensuring those entrusted with their care operate appropriately and within the laws of our Province. The legislation also specifies that national codes of practice will be used to define standards for the care of animals.

Mr. Speaker, these codes of practice have been written on a consensus basis between all affected industries, governments, animal welfare interest groups and academics, to recognize the important economic role these industries have in our society. These codes also address society's concerns that these industries operate in a humane manner.

The issue of tethering dogs has raised significant public concern, particularly following a series of significant cases brought forward in the media. Tethering of dogs with lack of human contact and minimal care has the potential to result in major behavioural, health and public safety issues. The legislation requires that dogs must be safely tethered or penned, unless held on a leash by a person capable of restraining its movements. They may be off leash for lawful hunting purposes or herding of sheep or other examples that may be defined by the regulation. A dog may also be kept in a yard if the yard is safely fenced with no ability for the dog to escape. The new act does not permit animals to be attached to a fixed object if they are wearing a choke collar or have a rope tied directly around their neck.

The Animal Health and Protection Act also includes new provisions which demonstrate our commitment to ensuring animals are kept in safe environments. The act specifies that animals cannot be maintained or used for fighting purposes. Clearly, our society has evolved past the point where it is considered acceptable to maintain animals for the explicit purpose of fighting. Such activity is incomprehensible, Mr. Speaker, and has no place in Newfoundland and Labrador. While the Criminal Code of Canada already prohibits this activity, we are providing authorities in our Province with the tools to deal with these situations by including this provision in our act.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, animals cannot be confined in an enclosed space without adequate ventilation. For example, Mr. Speaker, an animal cannot be in a vehicle with the windows closed for an extended period of time on a hot day, and animals cannot be transported in the trunk of a vehicle. No doubt, Mr. Speaker, most of us have been in parking lots on a hot day and witnessed a pen inside a car without the car window being rolled down in order to provide fresh air to the dog. This type of behaviour is inappropriate and far too common. The Animal Health and Protection Act will make such treatment of an animal illegal.

Under the new legislation, it will also be an offence to harm animals such as horses or dogs used by the police for enforcement purposes. Clearly, animals used by enforcement agencies play an important role within our society and should be protected.

Mr. Speaker, veterinarians will now be required to report suspected cases of abuse to the Chief Veterinary Officer. Veterinarians who make such reports will be legally protected in taking this type of action, unless the information was provided falsely or maliciously. Mr. Speaker, veterinarians are charged with an important duty, the care of animals, particularly those in poor health, and it is incumbent upon them to report suspected cases of abuse. This legislation mandates this important responsibility and that is why they need legal protection when carrying it out.

Mr. Speaker, circuses will not be banned but they will be required to meet the appropriate standards of practice. These standards will be modelled on the requirements of the Canadian Association of Zoos and Aquariums. Of course, Mr. Speaker, municipalities will still be able to make their own decisions regarding the conduct of circuses within their own jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, volunteers remain a significant part of the animal protection sector, as they do in so many sectors of our society, therefore we are recognizing their important role in this legislation. Similar to other provinces, Mr. Speaker, volunteers will have a role in the enforcement process. The minister can appoint volunteers to be inspectors under the act, in addition to the appointment of provincial and municipal employees. Inspectors will also include Forestry and Agrifoods Agency employees and police officers. All appointees, including volunteers, must complete the specified mandatory training. We have already started to look at training practices elsewhere and encouraged by the interest that we are finding across the country. We have already taken the steps to hire an individual to begin work on developing this training program for inspectors.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the outstanding role that the City of St. John's has played in the control of animal abuse within its boundaries. We applaud them for taking a stand on this issue and look forward to co-operating with them in the future. We encourage other municipalities to take an active role as well. The prevention and control of animal abuse will be more effective if partnerships with municipalities are widespread and continuous.

Mr. Speaker, under the new act, certain conditions may apply to the appointment of inspectors, such as limitations on specific animal species and geographic regions, and a requirement that all inspectors must report back to government. Within the broad framework of the act, and in specific situations, inspectors will have the authority to issue tickets, take custody of an animal, destroy an animal, enter a dwelling or business for the purpose of an inspection, and provide food, water or treatment to an animal in distress. Inspectors will also be able to seize items as part of an investigation. However, inspectors will not be allowed to enter a person's home without permission or without a warrant from the courts. Inspectors will be able to enter a place of business during regular operating hours for the purpose of inspection.

There will be policies to determine if an animal can be destroyed. For example, Mr. Speaker, if an animal is in distress for which it cannot be relieved or is unable to live without undue suffering, a veterinarian may authorize an inspector to euthanize an animal. Under certain circumstances, if the situation is critical and if the authorization of a veterinarian is not available, the inspector can make this determination.

Mr. Speaker, these are some of the highlights of the Province's new Animal Health and Protection Act. Once again, I would like to thank my staff within the Department of Natural Resources on a job well done, and also to thank the many people and groups who provided input.

I would like to point out that existing legislation will remain in force until the new act and regulations are proclaimed. It is our intention, Mr. Speaker, to bring this new legislation into force as quickly as possible once the regulations are complete. In the interim, Mr. Speaker, details of the new Animal Health and Protection Act are available on the House of Assembly Web site, and I encourage everyone to review the act and familiarize themselves with it.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to an informed debate in the House of Assembly and encourage all of our members to support the Animal Health and Protection Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for her introduction of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is a piece of legislation that groups, especially the SPCA in Newfoundland and Labrador, have been asking for, for some time. Mr. Speaker, I guess if you reflect on incidents in our Province relative to animals and the abuse of animals over the last number of months, it certainly gives cause as to why they would want to have the laws in Newfoundland and Labrador changed and have stiffer penalties and fines along with new rules and regulations that would govern those who are entrusted with the responsibility of animals in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, the bill that we are discussing, An Act Respecting The Health And Protection Of Animals, actually encompasses or comprises the review of seven other pieces of legislation, I think it was, within the Province. It dealt with the Animal Protection Act, the Dog Act, the health animal act, the Livestock Act, the Livestock Health Act, the Poultry and Poultry Products Act, and the Heritage Animals Act. All of these particular bills were reviewed and I guess Bill 30 is a reflection of changes that would pertain and encompass all of those pieces of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that people would have heard a lot about was definitely issues that were raised by the SPCA. The SPCA is a non-profit group within the Province. The acronym stands for the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and they have been asking for legislation for some time. In fact, last year they submitted a brief to the government outlining a number of things they felt needed to be changed. It included everything, Mr. Speaker, from how to deal with distressed animals, what penalties and fines should be implemented in the Province, and it also dealt with how animals should be cared for and how they should be provided for in terms of people's properties and so on.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of the recommendations they did put forward were certainly adopted in this legislation. I think all together there were probably nineteen or twenty recommendations. I am just looking for those recommendations, Mr. Speaker, that they did submit. I think there is something like sixteen of them that have already been reflected in the changes within the bill. So, Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no doubt that they had a tremendous amount of influence over what went into this particular piece of legislation. Some of the things they actually asked for, even the regulations themselves reflect more stringent measures, especially in the areas of things like fines and penalties.

Mr. Speaker, I know the minister had an opportunity to go through a number of the sections of the bill and I will attempt to speak to some of them in just a minute. I guess some of the pieces that are certainly noteworthy would have to do with distressed animals, and this was one of the concerns that was raised by the SPCA in terms of taking custody of animals and so on.

Mr. Speaker, under this legislation what will happen is that there will be inspectors. These inspectors will be guaranteed or granted certain rights and privileges in terms of carrying out the duties as been outlined here. These particular inspectors will have the authority to issue tickets, to do inspections and seizures, to do investigations and to ensure that animals that are in custody are being cared for properly. They will have the ability to go into shelters or into other properties and to inspect those properties to ensure that the animals there are being cared for.

Mr. Speaker, this is really important, because one of the issues that have existed is in terms of the numbers of inspectors in the Province. Under the old act, in fact, they were called constables, or special constables. They were designated with certain responsibilities and powers, but not to the degree that it will be within the new legislation. These individuals will have the opportunity to be able to go out and act in the interest of animals in the Province and in providing for care for these animals. They will be entrusted with the ability, as I said to check properties, to do investigations, to issue tickets where necessary and so on. This is going to be a change in the legislation, but, Mr. Speaker, what is more important is some of the other changes that are occurring. Some of the other changes are things that have been in practice for a long time that is really today, in every sense of the word, considered to be cruelty to animals. Mr. Speaker, there was a need to make those particular changes and to ensure there are stricter rules and regulations that have to be followed.

Mr. Speaker, also under the act it gives the authority of inspector to police officers. It also gives the authority, under section 68 as well, to veterinarian officers and the staff of veterinarians of the department. It also gives the minister the opportunity to "…designate a person or a class of persons from another department of government…" to be able to act in that capacity.

Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns that we have with that particular part of the bill was in relation to those special constables that are out there now who have really been designated, I guess by the SPCA, recognized by the Province and to ensure that there are provisions within the act to allow them to be grandfathered in as inspectors once the legislation passes. So, that is one of the concerns that we had with regard to the fact that this is not written in the legislation within itself. Mr. Speaker, we will raise that in committee. In fact, we will be bringing forward an amendment to that particular degree.

Mr. Speaker, the minister probably talked about the penalties and the fines, but I think they are really noteworthy, because in the past, Mr. Speaker, even if you look at a report that was done not too long ago - actually, it was a report that was completed by the Animal Legal Defence Fund entitled the Canadian Animal Protection Laws Rankings. This was just recently published, and the publication itself even outlined that Newfoundland and Labrador was way behind many of the provinces in Canada in terms of our legislation regarding the protection of animals.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is good that we are bringing this forward at this particular time because there was a need for a broader range of protections in terms of where animals were concerned. There was a need for a higher range of penalties and to allow for the mandatory seizure of animals that were being mistreated. These things were very important. It was important to increase the penalties to those offenders against animals and to ensure that there were mandatory fines, and of course, as I said, to have provisions where there would be protection either by peace officers or police officers or by inspectors or others that are designated. Mr. Speaker, in that particular review it was not very flattering to Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, I think we were something like fifth from the bottom across the country in terms of the protections that we have afforded for animals in the Province. So, it is good that this is actually being changed at this particular stage.

Mr. Speaker, also contained in the bill is the appointment of inspectors and how they are appointed, and of course, they are appointed by the minister. Under the old legislation, again, there were provisions under that legislation which allowed for groups like the SPCA to actually make recommendations or to appoint inspectors, or constables they were called at that time, to act in that best interest. This particular act does not allow for that, and we feel there should at least be some powers given to this group and organization in terms of what it is that they want to do. So, that is one of the other changes that we will look at bringing forward as we go on and review the rest of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, section 66 talks about the regulations and fees. Of course, there are a lot of areas in this bill that have to be regulated. For example, although we have sections of the bill that deal with all or most of the issues that were raised by the SPCA, there is a lot of this that needs to be defined in regulation. Basically, under the regulations there would be a number of things that would have to be considered and have to be done.

One of those things, Mr. Speaker, would be the regulations regarding inspectors; how do you become an inspector in terms of the testing that you would have to undergo, whether that is psychological testing or other testing. We know there is an educational component to the bill which is mandatory for people who want to be inspectors. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, they will have to make sure they undergo that training. What we are not seeing in the bill at this stage under this particular process are any of those regulations in terms of what the education program will look like. Although we know it is going to be compulsory, we do not know what it is going to look like. We do not know what other testing people will have to undergo in order to become an inspector. All of those things are going to be done through regulation, Mr. Speaker. So, therefore, until we see those regulations we will not be sure in terms of how it will all unfold.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other sections of the act - and I will get into that as we go along - that need to be regulated. I think all together there are probably seven or eight different aspects where regulations have to be developed. Any time you have an act that is brought to the House of Assembly and debated in the House of Assembly, if the regulations are not already completed then it has to be done afterwards.

In terms of looking at this bill, which is a very comprehensive bill - it has a lot of different clauses in it and a lot of different aspects that require regulation - well, then, Mr. Speaker, it will take some time to develop those regulations. Just in my own experience in dealing with bills in this House, I would think – and the minister has not said this, but I would think it will be at least a year out or longer before you could actually see this act even proclaimed and being enforced in the Province simply because the regulation piece is not completed. Mr. Speaker, we would have liked to have seen it done prior to this because we felt that it was important to be able to see what the regulatory process was going to be in many of those cases. Unfortunately, we will have to wait and see. I can hope that all of those regulations will be developed in conjunction with those people who provide for the care of animals and the protection of animals within the Province.

Mr. Speaker, we will just take an opportunity to go through certain sections of the bill. In fact, I just talked about the sections with regard to the inspectors. I think that was important, but we should not forget the real reason that this particular bill has been brought forward, and that is because of the cruelty that has been inflicted upon animals in this Province, animals who were not able to take care of themselves or protect themselves in certain cases.

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely sickening most days when you turn on the news and you hear the stories every day of more animals that are being abused by people in the Province. Just in the last couple of days alone, over the weekend we heard the incident in the Corner Brook area where cats were actually killed out of spite and out of hatred, or whatever the case may be, because of someone's emotions and whatever other motivation, it would be beyond me to be able to make an assessment of that. It is absolutely so angering and so sickening when you hear those kinds of stories; again this week, Mr. Speaker, to hear the story of a young child who actually killed a dog, a family pet. These are the kinds of things that are happening out there.

Mr. Speaker, just in the last couple of months in this Province alone - I do not know if it is because we have all of a sudden developed a complete new awareness in terms of what has been going on with animals in the Province or if it is just happening more and more. Mr. Speaker, I just pulled out a few articles of stories with regard to how animals are being treated in this Province, and criminal offences and acts that have been conducted upon animals and it is absolutely frightening. In this article it talks about a Deer Lake man, the one who killed the two cats. It talks about the issues with his common-law spouse and so on. It is unbelievable that people with frustration and issues in their own lives, whether it is through work or in their families or whatever, that they could possibly take it out on animals in this kind of a way.

Mr. Speaker, do not forget it was only a few weeks ago we all heard the story about a dog named Girlie. This was a story in the news for a number of days. Girlie was a dog that was tied to a doghouse in isolation for up to eight years, Mr. Speaker. She was kept in deplorable conditions and deprived of every social need that was imaginable. Can you imagine having a dog for eight years, tied on and chained on in a deplorable condition and not providing any care or providing for the needs of that animal?

Mr. Speaker, another dog that was actually kept on the same property for sixteen years had arthritis, the dog was blind. This dog was just left there to die at the end of a chain, and its owners were relocated. How cruel and insensitive are those kinds of acts? It is unbelievable today that we have to bring in regulations, Mr. Speaker, to put in place stiff fines and penalties to try and act as a deterrent for people who will conduct such malicious acts upon animals in this particular Province. Mr. Speaker, when you think about it, a person who has an animal and keeps it tied up for eight years and sixteen years, and that animal never gets looked after properly and is just left there to actually die, it is so ridiculous. It is absolutely heart sickening when you think about it.

Mr. Speaker, under our current regulations there is not stiff penalties and fines. We are going from a fine structure now in this bill of something like $500 to what it is today, up to like $50,000. I think that is where we should be. If you look at the fines in relation to other jurisdictions in Canada, $50,000 is basically the norm; some are $20,000, some are $100,000, but, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that there needed to be stiffer fines.

This article again, Mr. Speaker, only a couple of weeks ago, where they talked about the plight of a cat that was rescued in a dump in English Harbour East. It showed that this cat was abused and left there, which is again, very, very sad. The animal, Mr. Speaker, which was a female cat, had missing parts from her ears; had fur that was missing and all the rest of it. When you look at this stuff you have to wonder: What kind of people are out there that actually does these kinds of things and allows for that?

Mr. Speaker, there was an investigation into a case in Labrador West actually, which occurred back in March. I do not know what the situation was there but they found a dog that was dead in a camper. I think the owner said the dog had been missing or they had not seen the dog for quite some time, but, Mr. Speaker, if the dog was trapped inside of a camper or trailer, someone had to trap the dog in there. The dog just did not get in there by itself, open the door and bar itself in. People put animals into these situations and they leave them there, and with such cruel intentions toward them. Mr. Speaker, there are many other cases like that. I am just talking about some of the recent ones in the last couple of months, in April and May in particular.

Mr. Speaker, again, there was another case in April where there was a dog found, I think it was in Dildo Pond near Trinity Bay or something. The case went to court only last month or the month before, where this individual had drowned a dog. They had tied a heavy car part to the collar of the dog's neck. They had thrown the dog out into I think it was Dildo Pond, Mr. Speaker, or a pond near Dildo, to drown that particular dog. The individual went to court, and because the individual was on a probation order at the time - he did get some time as well for breaching his probation – but he was only sentenced to forty-five days in jail and eighteen months on probation for this particular case which involved a Labrador retriever.

Mr. Speaker, there was also an issue in Clarenville, where they received a complaint that there were two cats left alone in a house in that particular area. When they went there, one cat was alive and the other cat had already passed away. Mr. Speaker, these are the kinds of things – and people need to report this. They need to report this in areas where they know that it is happening.

Then there was the story, again, Mr. Speaker, only in April of this year, where they retrieved five animals from communities in the Coast of Bays area. One I talked about there a little while ago. Mr. Speaker, there were five animals that were taken out of that area.

So, Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of abuse and there has been a lot of neglect. Most of it, Mr. Speaker, has been by the owners of these particular animals in many cases. That is totally not acceptable, and that is why the laws need to be changed. People need to realize they cannot keep their dogs or animals tied up or penned in, Mr. Speaker, in circumstances where they are left and neglected and not being treated properly, because to do that any more in Newfoundland and Labrador there will be heavy fines and heavy penalties. You can be charged in cases like that, and so they should. Any time there is abuse and neglect of an animal, there should be fines, Mr. Speaker.

One of the other changes here is in how animals are transported. This was an issue as well that was raised by the SPCA. Of course, what they wanted to see here was they wanted to see changes in how animals were being transported. We heard recently about a case where a man was transporting his dog in the trunk of his car. This will no longer be acceptable, Mr. Speaker. People will have to transport animals in an appropriate manner.

I think this morning on the radio again, I heard another story about a lady who was transporting a goat and was charged because of how she was transporting her goat, although in her own culture it was an acceptable method of transporting animals. In this Province, obviously, we are much more modernized in our regulations and our legislation and those things are not as widely accepted. So, Mr. Speaker, there are new rules around those particular things as well.

There is a ban, Mr. Speaker, on animals being in confined spaces without adequate ventilation and so on. I think this is a good example, because we have often seen animals left in cars or trucks or vehicles when people go out and they take their animal for a drive and they go into someone's house, or they go into a store, or they go into a restaurant, or whatever the case may be. Mr. Speaker, confinement of an animal, such as locking them in a vehicle and leaving them there, under this particular act now is prohibited.

There is also as I said, a ban on transportation of animals that are unsecured. We certainly think that was necessary, Mr. Speaker. I talked about the tethering of animals and, of course, that will be changed. Under our old law you could actually tie an animal up for 365 days out of a year, twenty-four hours a day out near the house, out near the garage, out near the end of the yard, or in through the woods, or whatever the case may be. Well, those rules are no longer acceptable, Mr. Speaker. There are going to be stricter guidelines around the tethering of animals, mostly pertaining to dogs in this particular case. That needs to happen, Mr. Speaker.

There was also another change, because there was a ban on the entry of Labrador huskies to the Island portion of the Province. Mr. Speaker, I do not know all the history around why the Labrador husky would have been banned from the Island of Newfoundland, but I am sure it was done at a time for some reason or another, although for what I am worth, I cannot imagine what it might be. Mr. Speaker, I guess it is because I grew up in a culture where the husky dog is an acceptable breed of a dog that you see every day in communities where I live. They became a very useful animal, although they have also taken the lives of people, and I do not underestimate that.

Mr. Speaker, the husky dog itself has actually, probably in many ways, contributed to the survival of early generations of Inuit people, Metis people and Labradorians across the land where I live because they were used as a workhorse, basically. They were used to haul wood, they were used to haul water, they were used to bring the mail and bring provisions to communities. They were used to take people out to hospitals when they were sick. So it was the main mode of transportation. However, Mr. Speaker, they are a temperamental breed and we all know that. They need to be handled in a certain way. They need to be trained in a certain way, but those responsibilities lie with the owners.

I know lots of people across Labrador who own husky dogs, own whole teams of husky dogs. They use them for sled racing. They use them to mark the heritage and the culture of the animal and the customs of Labradorians. I have been around many of those animals and they are absolutely beautiful animals that are cared for and looked after, and they are certainly trained very well. There will be a ban removed which will allow the Labrador husky dog to now come to the Island. I guess people want to own husky dogs or teams of dogs and so on.

Mr. Speaker, there will be no more permits to shoot dogs. I think in a lot of areas around the Province, for many years because there were no veterinarians, if a dog was really ill or a dog had to be put down and so on, then that was often done with a permit to shoot that animal. So, there will be no more permits, as I understand it, under the legislation to actually shoot dogs. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they will have to be put down in another manner.

Mr. Speaker, there are other sections within this bill that pertain to other animals. Before I move on to that, I did want to make one other mention of the piece around the Labrador husky dog, because Scott Hudson in Happy Valley-Goose Bay has contacted me several times over the last year and whom I have had discussions with because he represents the Labrador Husky Society. Scott is a breeder of Labrador husky dogs, as well as an individual who certainly preserves the culture of the husky dog and holds up the heritage of the animal. Mr. Speaker, he is also a dog racer and one of the key organizers in the Big Land dog races which occur every year in the Big Land of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, Scott Hudson has asked that the Labrador husky dog be recognized as a heritage animal. We have the Newfoundland pony, for example, we have the Newfoundland dog, and he has asked that the Labrador husky be recognized as a heritage animal because of its relationship to the people of Labrador and to the Aboriginal culture. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the bill itself does not make that designation. It is my understanding that under the Heritage Animals Act that the minister can designate other animals, such as the Labrador husky, to be a heritage animal but there is a process that you have to go through. I understand from Mr. Hudson that he has been informed of the process.

There is a process where you have to identify the breed, the brand of the dog, and create a brand to identify the breed of the dog and what the historic attachment has been to the Aboriginal culture or to the people of Labrador. He has already been informed that he has to prepare that work and submit it to the minister and then the minister can make a designation, if she so chooses, to have the Labrador husky dog as a heritage dog. Mr. Speaker, I know this is an issue that is important to the Labrador Heritage Society. They have raised it on a number of occasions and they certainly would like to see that this is done.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing I want to talk about - I think it is under section 13 - it really has to do with euthanizing the animal. This was a concern that was raised, obviously, by the SPCA. It has to do with when an animal is actually taken into custody. Mr. Speaker, when an animal is taken into custody and the animal is in distress, they can retain custody of the animal. They obviously have to arrange for necessary transportation, food and shelter, and deliver the animal to the custody of the SPCA.

Mr. Speaker, in doing so, "An inspector may destroy an animal where the animal is in such distress that it cannot, (a) in the opinion of a veterinarian; (b) in the unanimous opinion of an inspector and 2 other persons; or (c) in the opinion of a inspector alone in a critical situation where a veterinarian or 2 other persons are not available to the inspector, be relieved of its distress or live without undue suffering." This was one of the things that the SPCA had asked for, Mr. Speaker. It also goes on to say, "The inspector or the person to whom custody of the animal has been delivered… shall take reasonable steps to find the owner of the animal and advise of the animal's destruction."

They wanted the ability, Mr. Speaker, in cases of distress, in cases where there are animals oftentimes that are rescued but much too late to actually save them or to rehabilitate them, or the animal itself is in tremendous pain and suffering; well, then there is an opportunity under this legislation now where a judgement call can be made by the inspector in a critical situation, but if not a critical situation, then by the inspector and two other people or by a veterinarian. Mr. Speaker, that was important and one of the things they definitely wanted to see added to this particular bill.

The things that were not incorporated here was they wanted the SPCA to be set up as a corporation, which did not happen under this particular bill. The other thing that did not happen that they had asked for, Mr. Speaker, was they would be granted separate legislation unto themselves, and that was not granted as well. So, those two things in particular were not granted. As I said, there were a couple of issues around the inspector's piece in changing from The Animal Protection Act, Mr. Speaker, to the new act, in that certain particular pieces did get lost.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, to this there are some other changes. One of those changes has to do with the Livestock Health Act. It has to deal with how certain animal diseases are reported. Mr. Speaker, we will often hear announcements on the radio that there is a case of rabies somewhere in the Province or there is a case of an outbreak of some kind that affects animals and so on. Well, under the legislation certain animal diseases will be reported. Again, it is a regulatory piece. It has not yet been developed. It has to be developed within the department. Mr. Speaker, basically, what it says is that right now when there is testing done on animals for diseases, and all of those tests are submitted to the laboratories that are federally run laboratories, they do not have to send back the results of a lot of these tests. Under this legislation they would be required to send them back. The veterinarian would have to be notified of any diseases and so on, Mr. Speaker, in order to have records and logs of all of that.

The other thing here, Mr. Speaker, is the ability to control the sale of drugs. That has to do with putting more restrictions on things like antibiotics and so on that people will need to treat these animals. Certain medications now you can actually obtain over the counter –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MS JONES: - and, Mr. Speaker, they ask that it would be done by prescription.

These are two changes that will happen within this bill that fall within the Livestock Health Act, but again, both of these have to have regulations developed around them. To date, Mr. Speaker, there are no regulations around that.

Mr. Speaker, the other change that is going to happen is with regard to fur farms. There will be regulations developed around licensing and other regulatory aspects of fur farming in the Province. In Newfoundland and Labrador today we have mink farms and fox farms, in particular. I think we have something like twenty-one fur farms throughout Newfoundland and Labrador and I would think most of them are probably mink farms, but there are no licensing regulations currently in place for many of these particular farms. Therefore, they would bring those regulations into play and put them in place. So, again, that is a piece that is not yet completed that will have to be done before the bill comes into force.

Mr. Speaker, we did question about the issues around Aleutian disease in fur farms in the Province because, as you know, a couple of years ago there was an outbreak of the Aleutian disease in mink farms. It did cause a tremendous havoc to the mink farmers in the Province. We were told there would be no changes around those regulations and, in fact, a number of diseases are tested on minks when they come into the Province or when they are transferred within the Province. Those similar tests for a different disease are also conducted on swine and honeybees as well, Mr. Speaker. That was the explanation that we were provided with when it came to the issues around the fur farms in the Province and how those particular licensing and regulations were going to work.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of pieces, as I said, that pertains to this particular bill. I would say that we certainly support the bill itself and we support the changes that are being introduced here. We think there needs to be tighter regulations for the protection of animals in the Province. We do feel that some of the other issues around the Livestock Act, and fur farming in particular, that need to be regulated and licensing that needs to be put in place.

Mr. Speaker, I think that anyone in this Province today who has seen and watched what has happened in terms of the cruelty and the abuse towards animals, mostly by their owners or by other people who were entrusted with that responsibility, will realize how important this legislation is. You only have to go through the newspaper clippings for the last two months in this Province and you will see case after case, almost on a weekly basis and sometimes, Mr. Speaker, two in the one week of animal abuse - many of them going into the courts and coming out with just thirty days or forty days, and short probations and small fines and so on. So there has to be more done to deter people from such hostile acts of cruelty and abuse towards animals in this Province. One of the ways this will be done now is through this new legislation.

My only concern, Mr. Speaker, is when the legislation would get proclaimed, simply because, as I said, there are six or seven regulatory pieces within the bill that have not yet been completed. I do realize that those things take time as well but in order to complete those pieces - I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, it could be at least a year and maybe longer before the laws that we vote on here tonight will actually be seen and realized within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I can only hope, Mr. Speaker, whether it is a year away, or if it is two months away that it will be done in as soon a time as possible. I think it is important to get those laws out there as soon as possible when you look at the number of cases and incidents that are happening now.

As I said before, Mr. Speaker, the government opposite has left a dozen bills on the table not proclaimed in the last number of years that they have been in government. I am always wary when there is a piece of legislation passed in the House in which I have been given no date of proclamation because there has been a number of pieces that have not yet been finalized.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a new issue. This issue has been around actually for the last two or three years. The SPCA, the individuals and the committee there have put forward recommendations and lobbied for changes in this legislation for the last number of years. So, Mr. Speaker, the work could have really been done. A lot of these regulatory pieces could have easily been put in place prior to this and we would not have to be passing a bill tonight, Mr. Speaker, that we would have to wait several more months for in terms of seeing it come into play, or even a year or even longer. So, it would be nice to get a definitive date of when we can see this become law, but I guess in the absence of that we will just have to do our job as an Opposition to continue to push the government to get it done in as quick a time as possible.

Mr. Speaker, in closing my remarks on second reading, I just want to acknowledge and thank the people who make up the SPCA in this Province. I do not think Debbie Power's face is any stranger to people in Newfoundland and Labrador. If there is ever a woman out there in our society who has shown tremendous compassion, compassion for animals and for the work that she does on behalf of this organization, it is definitely this particular woman in the name of Debbie Powers.

Mr. Speaker, I have had conversations with her myself, in cases where she has called about certain animals and where she has called looking for contacts in communities that could go and check into a situation because her organization may have gotten a anonymous call that there was an animal being abused somewhere in a community and they did not have a contact. I am sure other MHAs in the House have gotten those calls as well from the SPCA, especially people in rural districts where they do not have special constables or inspectors. Really, they depend upon volunteers to check out the situation and to see if the information being reported to them is actually factual.

Mr. Speaker, this is a woman who has certainly given a lot of her time, a lot of her energy and a lot of her compassion, along with her entire organization, in trying to protect animals in this Province; but, more importantly, Mr. Speaker, to push for greater awareness over the vicious abuse and cruelty that is being done to animals and to try and stop it, to put an end to it. We cannot pass a bill like this in the Legislature without recognizing those individuals who do that everyday and have become tremendous servants and volunteers to providing for a better society for all of us who live here, including the animals, Mr. Speaker, that are very valued and very loved in many families and in many homes across this Province. It is unfortunate that there are certain incidences where that same love and care is not always given.

Mr. Speaker, it is up to us who have that great compassion for animals and for the protection of animals to take guidance from people like the SPCA to act in their best interest and to ensure that we have rules, regulations and laws which protect these particular animals that need protection, but also, Mr. Speaker, to regulate those animals that are used as livestock and in other avenues and venues, whether it be in circuses, or whether it be for entertainment, or whether it be for shows, or whether it be for wilderness parks or whatever the case may be. There is still a responsibility to ensure that the care is being provided, that their needs are being met and that there is no incident of abuse.

Mr. Speaker, that will conclude my comments on Bill 30 and I thank you for the opportunity.

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

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

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to the bill that is on the table right now, Bill 30, An Act Respecting The Health And Protection Of Animals. It is an extremely important bill, a bill that brings together a number of acts that have been in place with regard to animals in this Province.

I think we all recognize, and I think both the minister as well as the Leader of the Official Opposition have said it as well, we recognize that we do have in our society, unfortunately, people who do not respect the life of animals. Over and over in the media we are seeing pictures and stories, and hearing about cruelty to animals. I think as a society nobody likes to see that. Everybody wants to see animals respected for what they are and who they are. I say who deliberately because they too have personalities and we all know that.

Recognizing animals I think is a sign of a caring society. It says something about a society. If we did not have adequate protections in place I think we really should be ashamed of ourselves. So it is really good to see the minister bringing forward - the Minister of Natural Resources - legislation that, in many ways, shows that we do respect the animals that are part of our community. No matter what the role of those animals are, they have a place in our community, they have a role to play, and we appreciate that role. We appreciate the life they have and we will do everything to protect them.

One of the most concrete ways in which this act shows that we believe that, is the way in which fines and punishments for animal abuse have gone from a maximum of $500 to that of $50,000. We also have the possibility, for people who abuse animals, of imprisonment of up to six months. We do show, very concretely in this piece of legislation, that we mean what we are talking about. I think the Department of Natural Resources is to be commended for bringing forward this piece of legislation which does that.

In terms of the concrete ways in which we show in this piece of legislation that we care is the fact too that, with regard to penalties, this legislation increases penalties and provides for restitution orders. This is a new piece. It also enables a Provincial Court judge to order a ban on ownership of animals, up to a lifetime in length. In other words, if somebody is found to not respect animals and is found to be an abuser of animals, a judge can actually say that person may not own animals. I think that is very, very significant because if we do not value the life of animals, it is a sign that we do not value the life of human beings either. The two really do go together.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that we have now a piece of legislation that is stronger than what we have had before. I think one of the –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: There are many things in this bill, and they have been spoken to, both by the minister and by the Leader of the Opposition, but there are a couple that I would like to look at a bit more closely. Probably the main one is the whole thing around the appointment of inspectors to enforce live animal legislation, because we can have all the legislation we want but unless we have a good system of inspection and unless we have well-trained inspectors, then we are not going to be able to monitor the legislation to make sure that people in the Province really do follow the legislation. It is good that we are going to have more inspectors across the Province. The government will require the training for inspectors before they are appointed, and that is very important.

Now, I understand from the legislation and from the briefing that was given to a couple of my staff this morning - which was rather a late date actually for getting the briefing. We only received the legislation yesterday evening and a briefing this morning, and tonight here we are speaking in second reading, but nevertheless here we are. I understand from that, that training requirements for inspectors are still being worked out. Now it would have been nice if we had known here tonight and could speak to what the training requirements are going to be, but we obviously cannot. As I said, these are still being worked out, and it is one of the things that will stop the bill from being enacted. That is one of the things that will have to be in place before the bill is enacted. I personally would have liked to have seen the bill being brought to the floor of the House when things like the training requirements were already worked out so that while we would not vote on them here in the House, because they would be regulations, we at least could have them as part of our discussion.

One of the good things, it seems, that will be happening is that the choice of inspectors will come from all places, all walks of life in the Province. They will be able to apply for training and they will be able to apply for appointment as an inspector. Of course, we do not know yet what kind of vetting will be done but I would imagine the training requirements and the regulations around training will have some kind of a vetting process to make sure that the people who apply for training and for appointment are people who have a track record of certainly not abusing animals, and a track record of being caring of animals so that they would make good inspectors. This is going to be extremely important.

I think it is good that there is going to be a broad range of people who will be able to come forward and make application because we have an awful lot of people in our community and throughout the Province who absolutely love animals and who give so much time to the care of animals; animals that are found, animals that belong to others, animals that get abandoned. In many ways, just on a personal level, they show how much they care for animals. I think there would be many people out there who would want to be able to be inspectors in their communities and be able to monitor what is happening to animals in their communities. So I really like this new aspect with regard to people from all walks of life in the Province being able to make application and being able to be trained and to be appointed as inspectors. I would hope this will mean that these are people who will also get paid for the work they do, which would also add to the economy of the smaller communities.

The act, or the bill, also provides new inspection and search and seizure provisions, which is good. Because if we are going to have a legislation that has teeth then we have to make sure that the inspection search and seizure provisions give the inspectors what they need. The legislation does expand the powers of inspectors. It addresses an issue some inspectors have had with their limited abilities to protect what they suspect to be animals in distress. So, inspectors may now issue tickets for minor violations, which I think is a real step up. I think that is really important because the whole notion of issuing tickets is something in our society that has meaning. If they can issue tickets for violations, that, I think, would turn out to be a deterrent. Although we do know that there are people who ignore tickets, for example, parking tickets, but I think we would then have to have a process in place where they can be chased down, as it were, if they do not pay their ticket, as is done with regard to parking tickets and other traffic violation tickets.

We, again, do not know what the schedule of offences and fines is going to be because the schedule has not yet been put in place. It is another piece that has to be done, another regulation that has to be created; something that we have to wait on because it is not done yet. It is something that will again hold up this bill from being enacted, and rightly so, because the bill should not be enacted if all of those things are not in place. That comes back to my point, I think more of this stuff should have been in place so that we have an idea of what the actual teeth of the legislation are because a legislation will be as effective as the regulations that puts the legislation in place. However, one of the good things is that when the inspectors are in place, it is now a lot more clear what is expected of inspectors. The legislation outlines duties much more clearly. Before, for instance, you had the definition of distress expanded to include lack of water. Now that is something that is very common sense and you would say: Why wasn't that there before? It was not but now it is, and that is really important.

The legislation also allows for an inspector to seize an animal without removing it from premises. This is good for care of large animals, such as horses. We remember that this legislation is covering all animals, everything from what is called comfort animals: dogs, pets, cats that are pets, right through to animals who do work for us, such as horses. The seizing of an animal in this way is called constructive custody. So, the legislation does cover some very important areas with regard to inspection and does really make inspection be stronger, have more teeth and clearer.

The legislation also addresses some issues which have become increasingly a public issue, and a lot of us will recognize these. Number one, of course, is the tethering of dogs. There has been a movement afoot by groups such as the SPCA and Heavenly Creatures, as well as Facebook groups, calling for the criminalization of tethering dogs outside. Widespread practice to tie or tether a dog to a doghouse, the side of a barn, et cetera, is something that this legislation does deal with. Many people see this as abuse. Tethering can be seen as abuse, depending on the length of time the animal is tethered, where the animal is tethered, et cetera.

The new legislation now bans the use of choke chains or rope attached to tethers and will prescribe time limits for tethering in regulation at a future date in accordance with other Canadian jurisdictions. So like a lot of the legislation that we have been dealing with here in the House over the past couple of days, we are seeing our legislation in different areas coming up on a par with or being in line with or being harmonized with other Canadian jurisdictions. Another couple of the rules that we find in the legislation which is good, is, for example, banning the transportation of animals in the open cab of vehicles, which is very dangerous for the animals, and banning the transportation of animals in the trunk of a vehicle, which of course is something that would really cause distress for an animal.

Government through legislation will prescribe codes of practice and standards of care in regulations. Again, something else that is pending and I would suggest that with all of the things that are pending in terms of having to be put into regulation, I think that it is going to be a little bit longer than was indicated by the minister before we get this bill actually put in place. When the government though, does look at the prescription of codes of practice and standards of care, they will do so using examples from other Canadian jurisdictions as guidelines, and that is very important, Mr. Speaker.

I am not, Mr. Speaker, going to speak to other pieces of the legislation. I am in support of the legislation. It is a good piece of legislation and I am glad to see it come to the House. As I have indicated, I would have wished that more things were in place, more regulations had been put in place so that we would not have a long delay between the passing of this bill in the House and the enactment of the legislation.

Some of the regulations that are not set at the moment cover the tethering, practice and standards of care, schedule of reportable diseases, and I have already mentioned the training of inspectors. So, these are the major pieces that regulations are going to have to be done about, and while I understand very clearly that we do not vote on regulations here in the House of Assembly, I think having the regulations in place, having the regulations side by side with a bill, I think would help us with our discussion and allow us to have a much deeper discussion of issues here in the House when we are discussing the bills.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to be able to speak to this bill and I take my place.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly a privilege for me to have a few minutes this evening to take part in the debate on Bill 30, An Act Respecting The Health And Protection Of Animals.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the minister for offering me the position of being chairman for the committee that took part in the review of the legislation. I also, at this time, would like to acknowledge and thank the other members of the committee from the Department of Natural Resources. These people were: Mr. Gerry Conroy, Ms Cathy Keane, and Dr. Hugh Whitney. I must say, Dr. Whitney put a considerable amount of time into putting all of the information together that we had gathered during the consultations.

We were given the mandate, Mr. Speaker, to review the six current pieces of legislation in our Province that deal with health and animal welfare. Part of this process, the main part as far as the committee was concerned, was consulting with the various interest groups throughout the Province.

Newfoundland and Labrador, as the minister has already pointed out, currently have six pieces of legislation that deal with animal health and welfare. Many of these pieces of legislation have not been updated since they were introduced in the 1970s.

These statutes of law, Mr. Speaker, affect many organizations and many groups in this Province; groups and organizations that range from chicken producers and cattle farmers to the Newfoundland Pony Society, from municipalities to the SPCA. It is important therefore, Mr. Speaker, that the legislation we have be reviewed and updated to ensure relevancy for the various affected groups and organizations involved and, more importantly, Mr. Speaker, for the well-being of the animals in the Province.

We all know that issues related to animal protection, to animal cruelty, and to animal welfare are of great interest to the public in this Province today. Any incident, and we have seen many of them, draw a great deal of attention in the media and particularly to animal lovers. There are other issues as well that are specific to a particular industry in the Province, such as guidelines governing chicken and livestock producers, and our fur farmers as well.

Mr. Speaker, during our consultations, we saw a lot of passion expressed by people who came to see us. A lot of emotion was expressed and a lot of conviction by the people who took part in the discussions. Mr. Speaker, we saw two sides to that as well, not just from the SPCAs and the animal lovers, but also we must recognize the fact that we have people in this Province whose livelihood is fully dependent on animals. So, Mr. Speaker, it was very important that we took the view to observe what both of these sides had to say and to put some balance in formulating our report to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, just take a look for a minute at what we currently have in the Province in terms of legislation. We have the Animal Protection Act. This act was enacted in 1978. It was done to provide for a method to help animals when disease set in and to prevent cruelty and other mistreatments of animals. Issues have been raised in recent years over appropriate penalties and fines. That was one of the things that as a committee we saw right throughout all of the consultations, that people were genuinely concerned with penalties and fines and were not too pleased with what we currently have in place.

We also have the Dog Act. This was enacted in the mid 1970s and it was done to control dogs in the Province. No amendments, as such, have been made to these regulations since they were introduced in the early 1970s. So, certainly consideration also – and I think the Opposition Leader alluded to it with respect to the Labrador husky not being permitted to legally be transported to the Island part of the Province. That is no longer there now, Mr. Speaker.

We also have the Heritage Animals Act. This act was enacted in 1996, one of the newer ones, I guess. It was to provide the means for the recognition and protection of heritage animals within the Province. Up until now, only the Newfoundland pony has so far achieved designation as a heritage animal.

We also have the Livestock Act, Mr. Speaker. This was enacted, again, in 1970. It was enacted as a means of controlling roaming livestock throughout the different communities of our Province, and no specific amendments have been made to that piece of legislation as well.

We have the Livestock Health Act, which was enacted in 1970. This was enacted as a means to control animal disease within the Province and prevent the entry of disease from outside of the Province. We see in recent years where the mink industry has certainly taken off in this Province and we saw the need to control the entry of mink coming into the Province. Just two or three years ago, we did see a major outbreak of the Aleutian disease, but thankfully it is under control now.

We also have the Poultry and Poultry Products Act, and this was also adopted in 1970. It permits the application of federal grade standards to provincial poultry and poultry products. As the minister alluded to earlier on when she spoke, we do not deal with that as such now because it is mainly controlled by federal legislation anyway.

Mr. Speaker, to give you some idea of the scope of consultation that took place during our meetings around the Province, we began the process back early last summer and we met and visited all of the SPCAs in the Province. We talked with the volunteers and staff of all of these facilities, and certainly we have heard an awful lot of passionate stories from the people involved with that society. We met with the City of St. John's, we met with Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, and we were told that Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador do have their own Web site. They were posting that every Friday, for a number of weeks last summer, so that the municipalities would have the opportunity to take part in the consultations. We did hear from a large number of individual municipalities after that meeting.

We also met with the Newfoundland and Labrador Fur Breeders Association. We had consultations also with a large number of the general public. People called, they found the number from the government Web site, and we did have a lot of written submissions from members of the general public.

We met with the RCMP and the RNC. We also met with heritage societies; the Newfoundland Pony Society; we met with the Dairy Farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador; Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Agriculture; the Egg Producers of Newfoundland and Labrador; and the Chicken Farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador. We met with a number of pet store owners, and also the Newfoundland and Labrador Veterinary Medical Association.

One of our members on the committee consulted with the federal government as well with respect to their animal control regulations. Also, we conversed with all of the provincial and territorial jurisdictions in the country. We also, on an interdepartmental basis with our own government, met with the Department of Environment and Conservation, the Department of Justice, the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, Government Services, Health and Community Services, and Intergovernmental Affairs, the Volunteer and Non-Profit Secretariat. We also met with a representative of the Nunatsiavut Government up in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. So, Mr. Speaker, as you can see, the opportunity was given to all affected groups and organizations to provide their comments during the consultation process. At each meeting that we participated in, I encouraged all of these groups to put their submissions in writing so that we would not in any way misinterpret anything that they had to say.

Mr. Speaker, the committee was given directive on four or five different policy issues. One of these was to consolidate all of the current legislation into one act, and that has been done, Mr. Speaker. One of the main issues raised by practically everybody who took part in the consultations was the fact that new fine levels and penalties should be imposed. Also, there was an issue of appointment power of inspectors. Also, we were given a mandate to give a new definition of the word distress, and that was to include water and abuse, and the minister has already made reference to that. We were given a mandate with respect to transportation of animals and tethering of animals, and that has been made reference to by a number of the previous speakers.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the new fine levels and penalties, I would just like to make comparison purposes with what we had before as a Province and what other jurisdictions in the country have. Under the old regulation, Mr. Speaker, the maximum fine in our Province was $500 and now the maximum fine will be $50,000 and imprisonment up to six months or both of that. Also, if warranted, a lifetime ban on animal ownership if the cause was just and sufficient.

Just to give you some comparison, Mr. Speaker, as to where we stand as a Province now with this new legislation as compared to some of the other jurisdictions in Canada: in Quebec, the maximum fine is $45,000; P.E.I. it is $5,000; Nova Scotia it is $50,000; New Brunswick, $100,250; Ontario, a maximum fine of $60,000; Manitoba and Saskatchewan, $10,000; Alberta, $20,000; and B.C. $10,000. So, Mr. Speaker, as you can see from our proposed legislation that our fines and penalties are certainly on the upper limits with respect to animal health and welfare.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing was with respect to inspectors. Now, under the new legislation, inspectors may be uniformed police officers, they may come from the municipal employee sector, and certainly the volunteers with the SPCA, and also, in some cases, provincial government employees. These people can issue tickets for violations; they can conduct inspections and seizures if necessary. They can also conduct investigations and warrants, if necessary, to enter a property. They can also take custody of an animal if warranted.

So, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to repeat anything else that other people have said here this evening, but in conclusion, it has certainly been recognized by our government that with the changed societal expectations and attitudes towards the care of animals, the time had come to review our animal protection legislation, and we have certainly done that.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to thank all of those who took part in the consultations. I believe that this new comprehensive and all encompassing piece of legislation provides the greatest protection and enforcement possible in regard to animal health and welfare in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed a privilege this evening to be able to take a few moments to speak to this new act Respecting The Health And Protection Of Animals. I am sure there will be some repetition in all of our words in terms of the debate and the comments on this new legislation, but as the hon. member just said, it is a new legislation that is the result of reviewing the six different pieces of the animal statutes that we already have in existence in our Province. Most of that legislation has been there for a number of years, dating back to the 1970s, and certainly for those of us who would have grown up in the 1970s, would realize that our concern and our understanding of how we would deal with live animals and how we would look after pets in our homes and so on, would certainly be very different probably than today. So that would just kind of reiterate and verify for us really the need to have new legislation, to have reviews, to have the consultations and so on to ensure that our animals today do have the proper protection and so on.

When we think about animal abuse and we try and understand why people would be involved in animal abuse, why animals would have to suffer abuse, then we have to understand that there are obviously a lot of reasons why people at times are cruel to animals. The reasons are really as varied as the people themselves. Sometimes perhaps people think it is just a thing they can do. Again, it is something they have always done. They have always seen it done, animals treated cruelly, so they just feel it is something that can be done. Other times perhaps people just get something out of doing it, I suppose, whether it is enjoyment somehow or whatever the case may be, but again, just the fact that it has always been done and they can get away with it. Therefore, no one really considers it as being something wrong.

Also, I believe a lot of times animals are treated cruelly simply because people have animals, they love animals, but yet they really cannot afford to look after them. At times, whether it is buying food for them or providing adequate protection for them and housing and so on, a lot of times these animals are suffering cruelty and neglect simply because people cannot really afford to do it.

One of the articles that I read in preparation for this was put out by the Animal Legal Defense Fund just a few days ago, or not too long ago, and it is called the 2010 Canadian Animal Protection Laws Ranking. It is an interesting study. It is called The Best & Worst Places to be an Animal Abuser, and the study ranks laws right across our country, right across Canada. This study released by the Animal Legal Defense Fund underscores the often considerable differences that exist between the animal protection laws from one province to another and between the territories and so on. It is the third annual report. It is the only one of its kind in Canada. I think there is some great information in there, something that certainly helps us understand where we are as a Province and how we are as a country, and what we are doing good in and what needs improvement. It ranked every jurisdiction on the relative strength and the comprehensiveness of their current laws, their animal protection laws and legislation and so on.

The ranking was based on a detailed comparative analysis, if you will, of the animal protection laws of each jurisdiction. Basically, each province and each territory received a numerical ranking based upon their combined scores. When we find Newfoundland and Labrador there, our Province, we find that we rank ninth out of twelve provinces. That is not somewhere where any of us, I would think, would be pleased to find ourselves in terms of ranking from best to worst. We would prefer to be at the top of the list, not at the bottom. The ninth really is not even the middle tier, if you will. It is in the middle tier but yet it is in the bottom of the middle tier. So it really gives us a good view and a good understanding of where we are.

When we look at some of the recommendations and some of the findings that are found in this study, I find it very interesting indeed. It recognizes the existing strengths – it is not a negative study in and of itself but it is a very practical, very open-minded study that looks at what is good and looks at what is bad and then would offer some suggestions on how to improve it. In the case of Newfoundland and Labrador, it does recognize that we do have principle protections for most animals and there are certain prohibitions that apply to owners and non-owners alike and so on. There are penalties that include both fines and incarceration and so on.

In the recommendation, in the ways that we can potentially improve our animal protection, there are a lot of things that are listed there. Most of these things that I have looked at through the act I find that most of them are there. It would show that we are going in the right direction in terms of what this piece of legislation is trying to accomplish, and hopefully will accomplish for us in terms of animal protection.

I would like to mention just a few of the recommendations that they have listed there in terms of how we can improve our animal protection. They talk about a broader range of protections; they talk about a higher range of penalties, and we have heard of that as our member just mentioned a moment ago and as others have during this debate; they talked about a mandatory seizure of mistreated animals. We find in our act that as the inspectors, in particular who are mentioned, as they inspect cases of where animals are said to have been mistreated with cruelty and so on, then they have that ability to seize that animal and to take it into protective custody. Also, another thing they mentioned that is very important, that is also in our new legislation, is the mandatory restriction on future ownership or possession of animals following a conviction. Our legislation even suggests that a person could be potentially banned for life from owning another animal once they have been convicted of a certain level of animal cruelty and so on.

It talks about mandatory terms of incarceration for certain offenders, larger fines. It even suggests that mental health evaluations and counselling could be done and could be necessary. We see in a very recent case just this week that has been covered in The Telegram, on television, on radio and so on through our news media, the situation in Deer Lake where a man was accused of assaulting his common-law spouse and killing one of their two cats, and he has been sent for a psychiatric evaluation. That is one of the recommendations. Not only do we want to protect the animal but we want to understand the cause and want to try and be aware of how we can help so that kind of thing would not happen again.

There are others there as well; mandatory reporting of suspected animal cruelty by veterinarians and select on animal related agencies. It talks about the duty of peace officers to assist in the enforcement of the animal protection laws and so on. Many of the things as we look into the act and these recommendations that came forth in that study which shows us being weak, I would look forward to, as I am sure all of us would, the annual study to come out next year this time. Once our new legislation has been in force and our programs have been rolled out, then hopefully we will see ourselves moving from that ninth position into the seventh, sixth position or whatever, and moving into the place where probably one day we can be the number one Province in this country in terms of animal protection, against animal cruelty.

There are a couple of things in the act that I would like to speak to in the few minutes that I have to speak here this evening, and it is in Part I under Animal Health. It talks about the inspection, which has already been referred to again. In our briefing this morning with the people from the department, we talked somewhat about the inspection process. It mentions the fact that an inspector may inspect an animal, or an animal by-product, or an animal product, or waste material, or bedding, or food, water, whatever the case might be, just to ascertain as to whether the inspector has reasonable grounds to believe that the activity that this animal is involved in, whether it is cruelty or whether it is an acceptable practice or whatever. It lays out the guidelines for the inspector. While much of that is yet to be built into the terms of the actual regulations that enforce this act, nevertheless many of the things are outlined.

The fact that an inspector can carry out an inspection at any reasonable time, either alone or accompanied by one or more veterinarians or other persons as the inspector considers reasonably necessary. It gives the inspector the power to enter and inspect a place. He has the ability to inspect a place that is a dwelling house, of course with the consent of the occupant or if not with the consent, then obviously they can do so under a warrant. He has the right to pass through or over land without being liable for trespassing or any other action and so on. So it really builds the autonomy, if you will, or the right of an inspector to go and carry out that inspection to be certain that what is being done or how the animals are being treated is what we would want it to be.

We look at the regulations for a moment and we see that, "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations in respect of an area…" and it mentions some of those, the area for "(a) providing for the prevention, control and eradication of animal diseases; (d) prescribing the sanitary condition of a place in which animals are kept; (e) prescribing the disinfection of a place and the destruction of materials with which animals have been in contact and might carry infection". So this act has a broad range of not only seeing that animals are not cruelly treated, but yet other things that are very important, such as animal disease and so on, that there are regulations that govern the process, there are regulations that control this type of thing and so on, and it is outlined in the act for us.

In terms of animal protection, Part II, it talks about viewing the animal. It says, "An inspector may at a reasonable time and where the inspector reasonably believes it is necessary to determine whether an animal is in distress…" it again, gives that right to "(a) enter onto land on which a dwelling house is located; (b) request a person in the dwelling house to produce the animal for inspection". Where it is produced, he has the ability to "…view the animal or conduct an examination of the animal as may be required to determine whether or not it is in distress." – so, again, just having the right and the ability to carry out these inspections.

When it comes to some of the things that are laid out in the act as well in terms of its prohibition and the transportation of animals and so on, there are some things that we have done for years. One of the things that kind of jumped out at me this morning as we were going through the briefing was in section 21 where it talks about transportation of an animal in a vehicle. It says that, "A person shall not transport, or permit to be transported, an animal in a motor vehicle outside the passenger compartment unless the animal is confined or secured in a body harness…" or some other means of fastening in such a manner that the animal is not endangered.

We have all seen - and probably many of us have done it along the way - heading down the road, whether it is going off on a Saturday to the woods or whatever the case might be, and the dog jumps in the back of the truck and kind of sticks its paws up on the side of the box, if you will, and that is where it has lived for a number of years. Well, it is important for people in the Province to realize that this will not be allowed any more; that kind of transportation of their family pet or their animal, their dog or whatever, that that would be against the law. So, it is important that people understand that this law really defines what can and cannot be done. Obviously, not many people would transport their pet in the trunk of their vehicle, but yet, again, it is very clear. It is spelled out that this cannot be done.

So, it is a good act. It broadly covers all of the issues, hopefully, that are important to protecting animals and so on. There is much else I could say but I will not. In conclusion, I would just applaud the minister for the initiative that has been taken in reviewing this legislation and bringing this new legislation that deals with live animals, and of course, very appropriately the piece of legislation which deals with the welfare of animals. As I have read the newspaper articles from the SPCA and other groups that have interest in the protection of animals, they are all very excited to see it coming to the House of Assembly, and certainly myself, and us as an Opposition, are pleased that it is here. We are glad that we had the opportunity to debate it in the House and I would see it as something that I personally would want to support, and I am sure that us as an Opposition would want to support as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this this evening.

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on Bill 30, An Act Respecting The Health And Protection Of Animals. Mr. Speaker, some definitions or explanatory notes of this act goes on to say: it provides for the appointment of inspectors to enforce live animal legislation; it provides new inspection and search and seizure procedures; and prescribes codes of practice and standards of care in these regulations.

Mr. Speaker, I read thoroughly this act. Obviously a lot of work went into it, and basically it is very descriptive to the point - the first definition on the act gives the definition of an animal. It states: An animal means a non-human vertebrate. Then it goes on to explain what animal products are. It goes right down through, of course, what animal products are. It could be: meat, milk, eggs, honey, hides, skins, pelts, and so on. So it gives, again, a very detailed explanation.

One area that came to my attention was the definition of a companion animal. A companion animal is a dog, a cat, or an animal kept for companionship or bred or raised for sale for companionship, but not an agriculture animal. I would like to take that section there because we all think a pet or a companion animal would respond to a cat or a dog, but, Mr. Speaker, I do have my own personal stories here.

I would like to tell a story of my own growing up and how we were taught to respect and care for animals. That took off at an early age when we were growing up. Of course, my father and mother had five young men in the household. When I say men, Mr. Speaker, we were probably going five and up to twelve. Of course, dad being a seasonal worker with Bowaters, we had to do a lot of our work when it came to getting preserves - potatoes, vegetables and meats for the winter. Of course, dad had a lookout of having some cows purchased and we proceeded to take care of these animals with quite a lot of love and attention.

I know we had to mow our own hay. I think, if I recall correctly, I did most of the mowing with the old-fashioned scythe. I must say, I was in a lot better condition than I am today, but in one particular case dad thought he would go a little further and purchase a calf that would grow into a fine animal in a couple of years. I think he went to P.E.I. somewhere, or Nova Scotia, and purchased a calf. I think it was Angus beef. We brought the calf in and we started feeding it but basically it did not grow. It just stayed like a little runt. Of course, being kids we fell in love with this little animal because he never hurt us in any way, kick, bite or anything else. So what we did, we used that as a pet. Our father got a little small yoke and bow and fit it out with the animal. We got a little cart built, and of course that is what we played with. That was our bicycle; that was our rides for the summer or after school. I recall the little bull, Blackie we called him, was just as excited as we were when it came to after school or the summer break. He loved the attention of the young people taking care of him.

Mr. Speaker, I would like, first of all, to thank the hon. Member for Bonavista North for being the Chairperson of this act and going over to other places throughout Newfoundland and Labrador and obtaining information from the SPCAs. I had the occasion of going to the one held in Corner Brook and listening to the SPCA person there by the name of Evelyn Hancock, a special constable with the organization. She was there, of course, giving her story and opinions of what should take place, what should be in the act, and how we should take care of God's loving creatures. She quite plainly stated that she wants laws to make people responsible. Basically, to make the owners of these little animals, whether they have feathers or fur, they should be taken care of properly. That is the approach she was taking.

I was so impressed with Evelyn that I actually did a member's statement on this lady, acknowledging how much care she provides to the SPCA on a volunteer basis and the finances that she incurs, or expenses she incurs herself. I actually called her last night and wanted to get, basically, some information as to how many complaints she gets over a period of a week. She was telling me that recently, or on average she gets about two or three complaints a week. Most of them are not gruesome but most of them are pertaining to dogs being tied on to fixed structures with very little chain that would give the dog any freedom, or probably lack of water and food. That is probably the one thing there.

She started telling me some gruesome stories of her experiences over the years that she was taking care of animals. I do not think this is the place to bring these gruesome stories up, but they were acknowledged by myself and, of course, the story goes on and on. She was telling me then about the pets that she has in her possession now. Actually, she fosters a few of these pets when there is no room at the SPCA confines in the Bay of Islands. She takes care of those animals herself. I knew Evelyn for years because she used to do the grooming of our dog called Cuddles. At one point I took Cuddles to go up and get groomed and I seen this little pup there that I basically fell in love with. So I took it home and told my daughter how this cute little black pup was up there. Mallory went up, and sure enough she came down but she never picked the pup I had picked out, she brought this little pup down – little corgi dog. Basically, he had very short legs and a long body. He was a cute little dog. I must say, we signed the contract with the SPCA and one of the stipulations of that contract is that we had to pay $100 for the pup. We had to sign a contract that we would have the dog neutered in such a length of time. After that, of course, we had to take care of it diligently, which we did of course.

Mr. Speaker, we had the dog and we had the change the dog's name because on his registration he was called Earl. When we brought the new dog home we used to sing out to Earl. Every time we sang out to Earl, the father-in-law himself would sing out to us. So, obviously, we could not have two Earls in the family. We had to change his name and we changed it to Sammy.

Sammy started to grow up as a pup. There for a while I thought this dog was actually a beaver. He chewed up our pine living room set, he chewed up the buffet and hutch; he chewed up the kitchen table. He went right through the house, anything that he could chew on.

Eventually, Mr. Speaker, Sammy got his act together and became a very pleasant dog. He became a lover of children and especially he was very affectionate to my grandson Wesley. Actually, Wesley tells everybody that he has two buddies, poppy Terry and Sammy. That is a story where the love of a dog could shed some light on the whole family.

Mr. Speaker, this act also goes on to explain what an inspector is and who appoints him. It also explains the definition of peace officer which responds to an RNC or RCMP member.

One point there, Mr. Speaker, is poultry. Poultry over the years, as I thought, was chicken, but according to this definition of poultry, poultry means chicken, turkeys, ducks, geese, guinea fowl, pigeons and other domestic birds.

I was asking my colleague here about poultry; what he thought poultry was, and he responded poultry includes ham. I do not know how he got that; how he got hams out of poultry.

Anyway, this is serious, Mr. Speaker, and I will try to go back to the inspections again. When it comes to going on a person's property, the inspector is allowed to go on the grounds but cannot enter a house if they suspect there is some negligence there when it comes to animals. He or she would only have to get in the house, whether it is by consent of the owner or by a warrant.

Continuing on, Mr. Speaker, we are going on what a person could not do, and I think this was mentioned there earlier. A person shall not cause harm to an animal used for law enforcement. Of course, we are looking at a police dog. We also have some stipulations there of what you should not do.

As we all know, most pets – particularly dogs – loves getting aboard a vehicle and going for a ride. In this particular case here, it is not saying that you cannot take an animal in the cab of a vehicle for a ride, but if you do leave them in that vehicle or confined to that vehicle, you must provide proper ventilation over a very short period of time. Also, of course, for the obvious reason, you cannot transport a pet in the trunk of a car – obviously because of the lack of oxygen, gas fumes from the muffler, and the heat which could cause serious injury or death to that particular animal.

Mr. Speaker, it goes on to say that – I think this is the first time I heard this tonight. If you have the unfortunate accident of killing an animal, it states here under 28 of the act: "A person who, while operating a bicycle or a motor vehicle, injures an animal shall, where reasonably possible, stop and provide the care and attention to the animal that is necessary to relieve its pain and help its recovery." It also continues to say that: "A person who, while operating a bicycle or a motor vehicle, kills an animal, shall as soon as reasonably possible, notify an inspector of that fact and provide the information that the inspector requires." Of course, the information there would be the location of the accident itself.

Mr. Speaker, my time is closing here, but one more particular area I would like to bring attention to would be the liability issue of animals. It says here under section 34: "An owner of a companion animal or livestock shall be liable for damages or injury caused by that animal or livestock to a person, other animals, goods or property."

This is what I was saying yesterday, Mr. Speaker, when I was talking on the bill on insurance brokers and adjusters, in that there is a liability issue here on the owners of these animals. So if that was the case, if an animal, for example, bit a child, most likely your house insurance company would get involved and they would do a thorough investigation. They would get statements from the owner, the injured party. They would go into a little detail of how the animal was brought up. Was it tied on constantly at the back of the house? Was it used to children? Did it bite any other kids or people prior to the incident? Was it eating at the time of the actual loss and so on? If you want to really go into detail, if that particular animal had a pedigree you would go back and get some details on the animal itself. Obviously, if it is a Rottweiler or a boarder collie, than there would be a lot of difference in the actual temperament.

Mr. Speaker, I find this act very rewarding when it comes to our animals, safety to animals, and I think it is very important. I think all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are going to accept this act tremendously. Someone was saying if you do not know if a dog can count, take three cookies put them in your pocket and only give the dog two and see what will happen. So a dog can, in fact, count.

Mr. Speaker, this act is there to safeguard God's most innocent creatures and that is our animals, and I will be supporting this act 100 per cent.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Minister of Natural Resources speaks now she will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have had several hours of debate now and I must say that it certainly has been an interesting one. Each one who has spoken so far this evening, Mr. Speaker, has brought different perspectives to this issue but there has been one fundamental principle that has carried its way through all of the observations of the people who have spoken here this evening, and that is the care of animals and the responsibility that we all have as citizens to care for animals in a way that is respectful of them and that certainly is humane.

Mr. Speaker, I have been a proud animal owner, an owner of dogs, a dog lover, and I have had dogs in my family all of my life and had two dogs that were very special to me. One lived with us for seventeen years and the other for sixteen years, Mr. Speaker, and when they passed away it truly was like losing a member of our family. We grieved deeply for those two animals who brought so much joy, pleasure and companionship to myself, my late husband and our two children. Mr. Speaker, this bill is extremely important, and as we have said several times through this debate, long awaited by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and certainly long awaited with people who have taken on, as part of their volunteer responsibilities or part of their municipal responsibilities, the care and protection of animals.

Mr. Speaker, as was noted earlier, we had nineteen recommendations come from the SCPA, sixteen of those recommendations have been incorporated into this legislation. Mr. Speaker, the three recommendations that we did not include were the banning of circuses. While we are very concerned with the treatment of animals who perform in circuses and have regulation and code of practice around how those animals have to be treated, Mr. Speaker, we felt that the decision as to whether or not a circus could operate in different areas was in the purview of municipalities and we are leaving that there. Municipalities will decide whether or not they want this activity going on in their cities and towns.

Mr. Speaker, the SCPA also recommended that we have a distinct piece of legislation for animal welfare. Mr. Speaker, we thought it was important to incorporate the six live animal acts into this one act. The third recommendation that we did not accept was with regard to the corporate organization of the SPCA. Mr. Speaker, we do not see, at this point in time, that that is an appropriate role for government. Those were the three recommendations of the nineteen that we did not incorporate into this act.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition noted that when we get to committee stage the Opposition will be bringing forward two amendments. Both of those amendments relate to the appointment of inspectors under this act. The Leader of the Opposition, very kindly, shared those proposed amendments with me before we broke for supper. Mr. Speaker, we will debate those in committee but I do want to say at this point in time that while we do not have a fundamental issue with what is being proposed in the amendments, we will not be supporting the amendments, and I just wanted to elaborate a little bit on that.

First of all, the first amendment is going to be around grandfathering in inspectors or special constables who we have now serving the Province. Mr. Speaker, there are seven of them, and it is certainly the intention of government to continue to have these seven special constables continue to serve while the regulations are being developed and we would be delighted to have those special constables continue on as inspectors when the new legislation is proclaimed. Mr. Speaker, they would have to undergo training. We would offer training to those seven special constables first before we did any other training. They would certainly be in the first group of people who are going to be trained if they wish to carry on and we would ensure that they would continue to serve as long as they wanted to.

There is no intention to rid ourselves of the seven people who have performed this duty most diligently as volunteers on behalf of their organizations and on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. So, we certainly respect their contribution and we would invite them to stay on, to partake in the training and to continue as inspectors if that is their wish, Mr. Speaker, but we do not feel that it ought to become part of this legislation that is before the House today. This is a commitment that we have made; it is a commitment that I publicly make here today in this House of Assembly that that is the intention of this government.

The second amendment that is going to come forward in committee, Mr. Speaker, has to do with the appointment of inspectors. The second amendment says that the minister may appoint an agent of the SPCA approved by the executive of the SPCA as an inspector under subsection (1). Now, Mr. Speaker, in the old act special constables were appointed by the minister and they were: "(2) A person is not eligible to be a special constable unless he or she is (a) an agent of the SPCA approved by the executive of the SPCA; (b) a staff veterinarian; or (c) an employee of the department."

So, we are moving in this new legislation to change that piece. What the Opposition is saying to us is that they would like that clause to remain in the new legislation. Mr. Speaker, we seriously took that under consideration when we were drafting the legislation. However, Mr. Speaker, this is new legislation. It is far more comprehensive than the old act. The responsibilities that inspectors will now take on are much broader and carry much more weight than special constables had under the old act.

Mr. Speaker, some of the powers of an inspector are to enter a dwelling or business for the purpose of inspection; to take custody of an animal; to destroy an animal; to issue tickets; to conduct an inspection; to seize items as part of an inspection; or provide food, water or treatment for an animal in distress. Mr. Speaker, these are much broader responsibilities than under the old act and require comprehensive training so that people can understand what their duties are but also what their limitations are. These people are going to be issuing tickets, they are going to be going on people's property, they are going to be seizing animals, destroying animals, and collecting evidence. It is extremely important that they know the law; that they know what they can do and cannot do. So training is a critical piece of what needs to get done before inspectors are appointed.

Mr. Speaker, another piece of work that needs to get done even before we get to the training, we need to do some evaluation of the people who are coming forward to ask for the training so that they can perform that inspection role. Mr. Speaker, we have a form of psychological testing that we do, for example, with our conservation officers to ensure they are well suited for the role that they are going to take on. Mr. Speaker, we would certainly foresee doing something like that; doing an evaluation in terms of people who are applying to take on these very serious responsibilities. Also, Mr. Speaker, we would require a certificate of conduct for people who are going to perform these roles.

These are functions that we will perform to ensure that we have very good people who are coming forward to do the training, Mr. Speaker, so that when they go back into the community they have a full understanding of what they are able to do and what they are not able to do and how they need to perform their responsibilities and their roles. So, to say that we would accept the recommendations from anybody carte blanche, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is prudent to do that. I do not think that is wise, Mr. Speaker. I think we need to follow the steps that I have just outlined.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are more than happy to accept nominations from the SPCA for people to come forward for evaluations and training for inspectors, as well as from municipalities and other animal welfare groups, but there also needs to be some management around that, Mr. Speaker, in terms of what areas they are going to be active in, what municipalities are taking on as part of their responsibilities and so on and so forth. We believe a significant part of that responsibility regarding enforcement and the management of that lies with the provincial government.

These are the reasons why we will not be supporting the two amendments, Mr. Speaker. Even though we fully support the seven special constables who are constantly doing the work and we will do everything to retain them into the future, and we certainly support the SPCA in bringing forward nominations for inspectors. Mr. Speaker, where it is warranted and the people have the necessary qualifications to do this kind of work, we would certainly welcome them into the training program.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I conclude second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

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: Now, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Health And Protection Of Animals", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 30)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bills 27, 28, 29 and 30.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (T. Osborne): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, we will call Bill 27.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 27, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.

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

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 9 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 9 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 9 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 Highway Traffic 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 28.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 28, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 3.

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

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 6 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 6 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 6 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. 3.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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 29, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act.

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

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 8 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 8 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 8 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 Prepaid Funeral Services Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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 30.

CHAIR: We are not debating Bill 30, An Act Respecting The Health And Protection Of Animals.

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

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Of course, I wanted to speak to this particular bill in Committee, especially to clause 68 of the bill.

Mr. Chair, the minister, when she closed debate in second reading, indicated we had tabled two amendments that we were going to propose to this bill. She is indeed right. I gave her a copy of those amendments, Mr. Chair, prior to recessing for dinner this evening. I want to speak to the reason that we proposed those amendments and we are bringing them forward. Mr. Chair, knowing now that the government is not prepared to entertain them or to support them, I guess the exercise within itself is not necessarily going to bear much fruit at the end of the day.

Mr. Chair, under clause 68 of the agreement, we were proposing some amendments. This is the section that pertains to inspectors. It indicates who may be designated or appointed to act as an inspector for the purposes of this legislation. It also outlines terms and conditions as the minister may specify. Mr. Chair, it also allows for "(a) the Chief Veterinary Officer and staff veterinarians of the department; and (b) a member of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary or of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police" to be appointed as inspectors.

Well, Mr. Chair, under the old act, which was the Animal Protection Act, under section 13 of that particular act the inspectors, as we now refer to them in the new legislation, were known as special constables. Special constables were designated in this way: "(1) The minister may appoint special constables for the purpose of this Act. (2) A person is not eligible to be a special constable unless he or she is (a) an agent of the SPCA approved by the executive of the SPCA; (b) a staff veterinarian; or (c) an employee of the department." Mr. Chair, what it does say is that they were identified as special constables.

Today, in the Province there are seven individuals who have the designation of special constables for the purposes of providing protection to animals under the Animal Protection Act. We were asking that an amendment be made to section 68, Mr. Chair, to ensure that these seven individuals would be grandfathered in under the new legislation and achieve the designation of inspectors. There are two of those special constables who are in the Avalon region; there are four in the Grand Falls region and one in the Gander region. That is how they are distributed right now around the Province, and we were asking there be an amendment to the legislation to ensure that they are grandfathered in.

Now, the minister tells me that they would not be receptive to an amendment to the legislation. In fact, they have already discussed this in preparation of the bill and have agreed that they will be given the designation of inspector but it will be done through the rules and regulations as prescribed by the bill. Mr. Chair, we are prepared to take the minister's word on that and ensure that that does happen. So we will not be posing that particular amendment at this time.

The other piece, Mr. Chair, that we had concerns about, again under section 68, clause 68 of the act, and this had to do with the fact that "(3) The minister may designate a person or a class of persons from another department of government under subsection (1), with the approval of the minister of that other department." Again, section 1, Mr. Chair, as I read earlier, talks about "(1) The minister may designate or appoint persons or a class of persons to be inspectors for the purposes of this Act…"

Mr. Chair, again, under the old legislation, which was the Animal Protection Act, the SPCA in this Province was given the ability to be able to recommend and approve special constables. We are not suggesting that they still have that power and ability under this, act but what we are suggesting, Mr. Chair, is that the minister may appoint "(a) an agent of the SPCA approved by the executive of the SPCA…" as an inspector under subsection (1). That does not say there will be any special privileges granted because the SPCA recommends them. It still means that they would still abide by all the other regulations, meaning if they have to go through psychological testing, if they have to go through other testing, if they have to complete educational training. There is nothing which says they would not have to do that.

The amendment that we propose, Mr. Chair, says that the minister may appoint an agent based on the recommendations and the approval of the SPCA. It does not say that she shall do it or that she will do it but it would ask that she may do it to ensure that this organization still has some authority to make that kind of a recommendation to the minister. We did not see any problem with that particular amendment. Mr. Chair, we thought that, in fact, it would give the minister all the discretion she required because the individuals would still have to meet all the other criteria as was outlined. Therefore, Mr. Chair, we think it makes sense to be able to do that and we think it gives the ability to the SPCA to continue to recruit people who would make good inspectors and who they feel will contribute something in the protection of animals in the Province. It gives them the ability to provide those recommendations to the minister for review and for approval.

Mr. Chair, because the government has already said they are not open to that amendment and that they would not support it, I guess there is probably no point in putting the amendment to the floor of the House. As you know, there are only four of us in the Liberal Opposition so I do not think that posing the amendment, knowing the government is not prepared to accept it, is going to make any difference.

Mr. Chair, we did want to indicate for the record that we thought their provisions should be there, that respect should have been afforded to the SPCA, and that they should have maintained some autonomy to at least make the recommendations to the minister and the minister would then have the authority to either appoint or not appoint, based on the criteria that would be outlined on the regulations attached to the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I understand what the Leader of the Opposition is saying and what it is she is trying to achieve in the amendment that she has brought forward, but, Mr. Chair, there is a significant difference between the old legislation and what it is that we are proposing under the new legislation.

Mr. Chair, under the old legislation, when we talked about special constables, there were only three groups of people in the Province who were eligible to be special constables. One was an agent of the SPCA approved by the executive of the SPCA, the second one was a staff veterinarian, and the third was an employee of the department. So it was very, very narrow in terms of who could be appointed as special constables. I am not sure what the rationale was around narrowing it down to those three groups, Mr. Chair, but I suspect it has a lot to do with training, because in this new legislation not only are we broadening the responsibilities and the abilities of inspectors, formerly known as special constables, to do this kind of work around the protection and care of animals, we are broadening the categories of people who can participate in doing this work. Now virtually anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador can apply to be an inspector under this new act. It is much broader, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, now we have municipalities that are very engaged in my opening remarks. I talked about the City of St. John's and the great work that they are doing around animal control and the protection and humane treatment of animals. They have departments within municipalities that have dedicated officers and inspectors around the protection and humane treatment of animals. The department needs to be able to engage with municipalities that have that capacity, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, there are other organizations who have an animal welfare mandate, and they are spread throughout the Province. So, Mr. Chair, in terms of the number of people who may want to be involved in providing inspection services and be involved in enforcement around this act, they are varied and they come from many different sources.

So, Mr. Chair, as I said in my closing remarks in second reading, there is also a management piece of this that we need to consider. Mr. Chair, because tickets can be issued and there may be overlapping authorities and so on, we need to be able to ensure that we have broad coverage of inspectors right around the Province, that we do not have redundancies and that there is a good co-ordination between what municipalities are doing, with what animal protection societies or animal welfare groups are doing, what the police are doing and so on. So, in terms of giving out these broad, broad responsibilities to inspectors, it is incumbent on the government then to ensure that the training is done properly, that we are careful in the selection of people we engage and train to do this kind of work and how we disperse them throughout the Province.

Mr. Chair, the SPCA is well-known, not only in this Province but right around the world for the magnificent work they do around animal welfare. Mr. Chair, we are not in any way at all trying to marginalize them or circumvent their ability to influence or to have influence in terms of the enactment of this legislation. As I said earlier, Mr. Chair, sixteen of the nineteen recommendations they put before us – and this was not one of them, Mr. Chair. This was not one of them that they put before us, but at the same time, we have given it consideration. Mr. Chair, because of all of those reasons - and, as I said, we encourage the SPCA to nominate people for training, for inspectors, and I expect that a great number of them will be accepted but it needs to be done in context of the larger picture. Where is it that these inspectors are going to be? Who else has authority there? How many other inspectors have we appointed and so on?

So, it is more than the certificate of conduct, the psychological testing and then doing the training. There has to be some management that goes on here, and because now we have broadened the base from which inspectors can come, Mr. Chair, this layer of responsibility around management has become much larger for the department. It is for that reason also, that we are moving away from what the practice and the legislation said in the old act to what is being proposed in the new act, which is very inclusive of the SPCA. It encourages the SPCA to be as involved as they have always been, Mr. Chair, but also opens it up to other groups, other representation, but with that comes an onus on government to properly manage how it is done. So that, Mr. Chair, is why we are not accepting this amendment.

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 82 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 82 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 82 carried.

CLERK: Be 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 Health And Protection Of Animals.

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.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: I move, Mr. Chair, that the Committee rise and report Bills 27, 28, 29 and 30.

CHAIR: It is moved that the Committee rise and report Bills 27, 28, 29 and 30.

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 the District of St. John's South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters referred to them and have directed me to report Bills 27, 28, 29 and 30 without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bills 27, 28, 29 and 30 carried without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MS BURKE: Now.

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 Government House Leader.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The motion 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 2:00 o'clock tomorrow, being Private Members' Day.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.