The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Members' statements today are by the following members: the hon. the Member for the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace; the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the Member for the District of Placentia & St. Mary's; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley; the hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace is a Member of the Executive who would need leave of the House in order to present a private members' statement.

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the 2007-2008 Conception Bay CeeBee Stars on winning their third consecutive Herder Memorial Trophy this past weekend -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: - with a 4-1 victory over the Deer Lake Red Wings, taking the series in six games. It has been thirty years since a senior hockey team has accompanied such a feat. As a result, the CeeBees will hang a 7^th Herder Banner at the S.W. Moores Memorial Stadium, in Harbour Grace adjacent to those for marking wins in 1960, 1961, 1965, 1967 and, most recently, 2006 and 2007 and again this season.

On a personal note, Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure two weeks ago to see Jim and Carl Penney, two former captains of the CeeBees, honoured at Mile One Stadium. Jim and Carl both coached me in minor hockey and softball and played on various teams with me, and I can honestly say, Mr. Speaker, are true role models for the community. As we celebrate this latest Herder win, it is also important to recognize the great CeeBees of the past, like the Faulkner brothers, Dick Power, Joe Hunt, Mac Martin, Doug Moores, Harry Hunt, Kevin Williams, John Parsons, Neville Pike, and Stan Moores, just to name a few.

I would also at this time, Mr. Speaker, like to acknowledge the tremendous volunteer effort that drives the reigning Herder Champions behind the scenes.

Finally, to the fans of the CeeBee Stars, thank you for your dedication and commitment to your hockey team. The Herder Memorial Championship series reflects the pride and enjoyment that the people of this Province take in senior hockey. While the packed houses at Mile One Centre in St. John's and the Pepsi Centre in Corner Brook demonstrate our love and respect for the game, it is important to recognize the CeeBee's fans who are present game in, game out at the S.W. Moores Memorial Stadium in Harbour Grace, who come from all areas of Conception Bay North, and who have supported the CeeBees for years.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud today as MHA for the Carbonear-Harbour Grace District, home of the reigning Herder Champions to ask my hon. colleagues to join with me in congratulating the Conception Bay CeeBee Stars, the 2007-2008 Herder Memorial Champions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Dr. William Fitzgerald on recently receiving the Order of Canada for his thirty year career in health care. He was bestowed this honour at the 102^nd Order of Canada investiture ceremony at Rideau Hall on April 11.

Mr Speaker, Dr. Fitzgerald is currently the Chief of Surgery at the Charles S. Curtis Memorial Hospital in St. Anthony, and is well known and respected by the patients in Northern Newfoundland and Labrador and the Lower North Shore of Quebec. For thirty years Dr. Fitzgerald has provided exemplary care to residents in these areas and mentored many young doctors with the Labrador-Grenfell Health Association.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Fitzgerald is also widely known for establishing screening, detection and management program for colorectal cancer in southern Labrador and has been credited with saving many lives through this program. Dr. Fitzgerald is also a valuable volunteer in the community and is greatly admired for his dedication to the people of the region and the patients of that region.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Dr. William Fitzgerald on being inducted into the Order of Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to deliver accolades to the Trinity-Placentia Minor Hockey Association. The Association serves the communities of Whitbourne, Markland, Long Harbour-Mount Arlington Height, in my district, and several communities in the neighbouring Districts of Bellevue and Trinity-Bay de Verde.

Mr. Speaker, the Trinity-Placentia Association had its year-end banquet and awards last Sunday night, capping off what has been an outstanding season. The Association recognized the achievements of its teams at this year's all-Newfoundland tournaments, where the Under 20 Girls' team won silver in Whitbourne, the Under 15 Girls' team won silver in Mobile.

The Atom boys won silver in their division in Trinity-Placentia. The Peewee team won silver in the D division in Mount Pearl, and the Bantom boys won the gold medal in the Provincial C tournament in Placentia.

What is amazing about this Bantom team, Mr. Speaker, is that nine of those boys, and their coaches, have played together throughout their entire minor hockey careers, and have won gold medals in their respective divisions for the past six years – quite an achievement.

Mr. Speaker, as a former minor hockey coach and hockey parent, I appreciate the tremendous generosity of time and effort by all individuals, including coaches and volunteers, as well as the minor hockey moms and dads. It is obvious that the Trinity-Placentia Minor Hockey Association has a great thing going.

I ask all hon. members to join me and my colleagues, the hon. Member for Bellevue and the hon. Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde, in expressing our congratulations to the Trinity-Placentia Minor Hockey Association for a job very well done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Rachael Brown, a Grade 8 student at Amalgamated Academy in Bay Roberts, who recently won the Club Level Competition of the Lions International Twentieth Annual Peace Poster Contest.

The poster will advance to the second round at the district competition, and the final round of competition will conclude at the international level.

Mr. Speaker, Rachael stated that the true meaning of peace lies within ourselves, uniting our family, community, nation and the world.

The Peace Poster Contest is one of many ways the Lions Club of Bay Roberts works with the youth and stresses the importance of peace, tolerance and international understanding.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all those who participated and received recognition, and I wish the Bay Roberts Lions Club every success in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured and proud to stand in this hon. House today and pay tribute to the students and staff of Elwood Regional High School, and their many recent successes.

I was very proud last week to hear that Allison Kelly, an Elwood student from my hometown of Howley, was the provincial winner of the Canadian Securities Administrators' Challenge Contest. I would like to congratulate Mila Major, a Level III student, for taking first place in the provincial essay competition sponsored by the Royal Canadian Legion. For earning the top essay award provincially, Mila won a trip to Beaumont Hamel as part of the ceremonies to take place on July 1.

It is indeed noteworthy that this is the third consecutive year – like the CeeBees – that an Elwood student has captured the top spot and won the trip.

Also worthy of note is that Elwood participated in the regional drama festival in early April and took the award for best performance, and earned the right to represent the region at the provincials in Carbonear in May. The school's drama instructor, Jordan Stringer, captured the best director award.

Jeremy Gordon, a student from Elwood, entered in the Rant like Rick promotion as part of The Rick Mercer Report television show. Jeremy won one of seven national awards for his rant on the price of healthy food.

Chris White, a Level III student from Elwood Regional High School, has just been offered a $10,000 entrance scholarship to attend UNB.

Mr. Speaker, I would like all members of his hon. House to join me in extending congratulations to Elwood Regional High School, students and staff, on their recent accomplishments.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, more efforts are being made today to recognize the value of volunteers in our communities for the tremendous contribution they make to society. These volunteers come from all walks of life, both genders, and from all ages.

When our young people step forward to volunteer in school or with community groups, we take particular notice. I would like to highlight a particular group in Ferryland District who do just that – the Goulds Leo Club, a group of young people affiliated with the Goulds Lions Club.

The Goulds Leo Club has been in existence for five years and is made up of high school and post high school students from the Goulds area. This group provides many hours of assistance in many community events and activities.

Some of the events the Goulds Leo Club have been involved with include: decorating the Janeway Children's Hospital for Christmas; working with the Goulds Recreation Committee to set up a haunted house at Halloween for children in the community; taking part in the Goulds Lions Club Christmas Parade, by collecting food items for the local food bank; taking part in environmental projects such as highway cleanup, instilling environmentally friendly practices for today and the future; holding public speaking contests for Junior High School students at St. Kevin's Junior High School; and, participating in and running events in the Goulds Winter Carnival.

The list goes on for the volunteer activities of these young members of the Goulds Leo Club. Several members have taken the next step at the Goulds Leo Club and joined the Goulds Lions Club to continue to serve the community. I would also point out that the Goulds Leo Club recently celebrated their Fifth Charter Night Anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, to give freely of one's time and energy to do something for the enjoyment of others is one of the greatest gifts in our society. These young people are making a meaningful contribution to the community by their unselfish will to give to others. They no doubt will continue to give and play a lead role in our community in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in applauding the great volunteer work of the Goulds Leo Club and thank them for their efforts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to address an issue that is extremely important to coastal communities throughout this Province and indeed across this country. That is the issue of the proposed ban on seal products, from Canada, into the European Union.

I am pleased to report that my hon. colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, just recently returned from delivering our message to the member states of the European Union.

Mr. Speaker, 85 per cent of the Canadian harp seal harvest happens off the shores of Newfoundland and Labrador. Sealers have stated that up to 35 per cent of their annual income comes from the sealing industry. The proposed ban by the European Union is unjust and it threatens the livelihood of these people.

This trade action under consideration by the EU is being done with total disregard for the livelihood of over 6,000 individuals in this Province. Indeed, the 1983 European Economic Community ban on the importation of whitecoats and bluebacks reduced the total Inuit income in Labrador alone by one-third. Clearly, this action can have serious negative impacts on people who are depending on this industry.

Our government is also pleased to work with the Government of Nunavut on this very important matter and this truly Canadian issue.

The Canadian seal harvest is one of the best managed harvests of animals anywhere in the world. It is humane, it is sustainable, and it produces a wide variety of sealing products such as seal meat, clothing and seal oil capsules.

This is an issue that is being decided by people who are heavily influenced by misinformed and misguided anti-sealing groups.

I would take this opportunity to remind our colleagues in the European Union that when these groups are finished with seals, they will likely move on the harvest of deer and boar and other harvests.

In April of last year, I personally wrote the federal Minister of International Trade requesting that the Government of Canada initiate trade action under the World Trade Organization on the grounds that a ban on seal products by the European Union would violate European international trade obligations under the WTO.

Our government was extremely pleased when the Government of Canada announced in September of last year that they would move forward with a formal complaint against the European Union to the WTO.

Mr. Speaker, this is a time that requires leadership on the part of our federal government. We will continue to press the Government of Canada to take immediate and swift trade action against any member of the European Union that chooses to pass trade bans against Canadian seal products.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not mention that our government is extremely pleased that the Government of Canada took action to protect the safety and livelihoods of Canadian sealers over this past weekend, by boarding and seizing the Farley Mowat and arresting its captain and chief officer for violations against Canada's Marine Mammal Regulations. As a country, we have stood by for far too long while anti-sealing groups disrupt sealers as they go about making a living in a well-regulated, humane and sustainable manner.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the hon. minister for a copy of his statement today.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say to the Minister of Natural Resources, I am pleased that she took the opportunity to go to the European Union and to deliver the message of seal hunters, not just in our Province but all those in the country. I think we have to continue to ensure that we spread our messages around the world, that this is a humane hunt and a humane industry that provides for a livelihood of many families throughout Canada, not just in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to say I am pleased that the federal government is finally taking some action as it relates to the anti-sealing groups who have had a presence in our country, in my opinion, for far too long in exercising the kind of controls that they have. I want to commend the minister for taking the action that he has in recent days, and especially for laying the charges that he did against the Sea Shepherd Society and Paul Watson and those people who have been involved because their propaganda has been running roughshod over Canadians and around the world for far too long in my opinion and it comes a point when some of these things have to stop.

I have absolutely no problem with people who want to express their opinions but the opinion of this man has been not only insensitive as it relates to other human beings, but he has been a complete obstructionist. He has had false rumours, Mr. Speaker, and false information that he has chosen to spread, and to what avail? To the advantages of his own society and his own groups in trying to build a war chest for animal welfare on the backs of people in our Province who are earning a decent living from a very legitimate industry. Actually, I find it absolutely disgusting that this man could even have any protest or any claims to what is happening to him today in the court systems in this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Thank you to the minister for his advanced copy.

I am very pleased to be able to stand today, along with the Leader of the Official Opposition, and in solidarity with the minister, to tell the sealers in this Province and their families how proud we are of them and of the history that they are part of in this Province. Anything that we can do as a Province and anything we can get the Government of Canada to do to show others the truth of this story, that is what is so bothersome with this issue, is that people around the world - the anti-sealers are out there telling untruths, literally telling lies about what is going on. We have made so many efforts in this Province to make sure that this industry is regulated and that regulations are followed. So everything we can do, government, I urge you to make sure that we do it to let the sealers know that we want the truth out there, that they have the support of the government, and not only the government of this Province but all the people of this Province.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral questions.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Premier, and they are around the inquiry that is ongoing in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, even from the briefing today that we received from Robert Thompson - who, as we all know, is government's point man on the public inquiry into the ER-PR testing - it is obvious that government still does not have a full handle on this issue. I guess that was evident this weekend as government scrambled to put together the numbers to present in today's briefing to both the media and the public. Yet, we have learned today that there are nineteen patients whom have not yet been tracked and located and therefore not contacted.

I ask the Premier: Why has government, or at least through Eastern Health, why has there been no coordinated effort to contact these nineteen patients to date?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government has, in fact, not been scrambling. Government has, in fact, been working on this since June of last year and something good from an information perspective has come out of something very bad. Fortunately, and despite the wishes of the Leader of the Opposition to have Mr. Thompson removed for conflict of interest, his efforts have uncovered these problems. He has done basically a process audit, for want of a better term, in order to try and find out exactly what the numbers are. The numbers keep changing. This really accentuates the type of problem that my government and my ministers have been trying to deal with, with information coming from Eastern Health. It lays it out very clearly. This thing is still not complete. This is an ongoing process. There will be more reporting.

For the Leader of the Opposition to suggest that this is somewhat opportune and we were scrambling over the weekend to put this together, nothing is further from the truth. It has been a very difficult process. It has been ongoing since June. It was only until November we could even start to release some of the findings and as we get these findings, when we have complete information we will release it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we have now learned that 400 of those patients were to be contacted via their physicians, yet no one can confirm that this is the case. Government, through Eastern Health, is now directing a review of those contacts with patients.

I ask the Premier: Why did you wait for so much time to pass before you ensured that these patients were actually contacted through their physicians as was supposed to have happened?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, as will come out in the inquiry - and this is why completion of the whole inquiry is such an important process, and this is why Mr. Thompson has to be allowed to complete his work. These are things that are being discovered on an ongoing basis.

With regard to the number of 400, that is basically extrapolating a raw number from this information. That is a due diligence check. That is going to be a secondary check to make sure that is done. The real numbers here, of course, are that basically there are nineteen people who are unable to be found anywhere, despite all the efforts, the best efforts, as I understand it, of the people involved at Eastern Health. Nineteen were not able to be contacted. One still remains out of the group of fifteen, and there are four others that may have been questioned on the diagnosis of a tumor. So, that is twenty-three. As well, there are another nineteen people who have since deceased and with a question of whether their families have been contacted.

The good thing about this is that we are getting to the bottom of it, and at the end of the day this is about the patients, it is about the families and it is about future patients and future families who are affected by cancer. So, we should not look at this as being a bad thing but a good thing because we are finally getting accurate information, and it just shows the frustration that we are having in trying to deal with the chaos in the information that is coming from Eastern Health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My next question is for the Premier, and it is to do with a response that I was given in the House of Assembly on March 19 by the Minister of Health in response to a question. He said to me: "…those individuals currently being followed by a physician are being provided with the necessary support that they would need through this period."

I ask the Premier today: How could the minister knowingly have made that statement when, in fact, no follow up had been done, and still has not been done to date, with those physicians to see if they have, in fact, contacted the patients at all?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The questions that are being asked about statements that other people have made, those questions would have to go properly to the person who made them. That question would have to go to the minister.

I can say though, in defence of the minister and ministers, they can only rely on the information that is presented to them. They are dealing with massive departments with budgets of over $2 billion with thousands and thousands of employees down the line. That information gets presented to them, gets presented to me, gets presented to Cabinet, gets presented to government, and we have to rely on the information that is presented to us by the experts.

Now, over the course of this particular process - and again I can say this is a good thing - we have now set up Robert Thompson as a secretary to basically do his own task force to go back and find out what when wrong. During the course of his investigation, he has indicated that there were problems, and he actually lays out in this report - which is somewhat of a preliminary report –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - what his concerns were and what the reasons were.

There are two reasons and I can come back to them, Mr. Speaker, if necessary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier: At some point I think someone should at least question the validity of the information being provided.

I ask the Premier today: Do you expect your ministers to read their briefing notes when they are in charge of a department?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.

Ministers, and myself, are expected to read our briefing notes when they are provided, subject, of course, to the knowledge that they already have about a particular issue.

For example, if a briefing note comes to me on an issue that I already know as much about, or 100 per cent about, then it would not be beyond me not to read the entire briefing note. The same way, you have to allow discretion for ministers and you have to expect ministers, all ministers, to do their jobs and to do their jobs properly.

I don't babysit them. I don't go down and ask them a quiz the next morning - Did you read your briefing note? Here are the questions on it. - because I cannot do that. These are responsible individuals who are in charge of departments.

As well, we also have an individual here who was parliamentary assistant in that Department of Health for over four years, as far as I know, or nearly four years, as far as I understand it, so he is an individual who was briefed from time to time and informed about general health issues. Whether he would go through every single item and every single word and every single page in a briefing book, only he can answer that, but I have to be reasonable in my expectations of what ministers can accomplish and are expected to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, in a backgrounder issued on May 23 by the Department of Health, it states that all breast cancer patients have been contacted about their results - a statement that we now know to be false. At that time, the Canadian Cancer Society and patients were saying that they were not all contacted.

I ask the Premier: Why did the minister continuously make these statements and not question the information that was being provided to him and, in essence, to government at that time by Eastern Health?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, again, that is a question that only the minister can answer; however, the minister was being provided with information that was coming directly from his officials, from his department, and from Eastern Health.

That question, and those questions, really should be put to Eastern Health. This is where the information was coming from. This is where incorrect information was being provided from, and only they can answer it.

During the course of this process we have questioned information. As information changes, we go back and ask why it has changed. We have also attempted to verify the correct information.

That is exactly the report that Robert Thompson has just prepared and it has been presented to everybody. In fact, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, a technical briefing was held this morning.

In response to the last question as well, there are two reasons for no contact being made that were given in that report. The original policy that all living patients would be contacted with the results -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - was not universally applied.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier if he would not recite and read from documents, if he paraphrased them or give the gist of what is in them. I also ask if he would conclude his answer.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Policy was not followed, Mr. Speaker; and, secondly, there was no protocol between the health authorities to say who was responsible for doing what. As a result, there was a passing of the responsibility back and forth between each other.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, on May 23, when the minister was still saying that all of these individuals had been contacted, despite public information being out there by patients, it was not only incumbent, Premier, upon the minister to question Eastern Health. At that time you knew, as the Premier. The Cabinet knew; they had been briefed.

Again, I have to ask: Why did no one confirm that the information that Eastern Health was providing was indeed factual?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As these situations arose, and as people arose who had indicated that they had not been contacted, the questions were asked through the department and back through sources to get verification. We then had to rely on the information that came back from Eastern Health.

So, if someone happened to be on a public airwave and made a statement, then officials in the Department of Health would bring that to the attention of Eastern Health and follow through on it. We would then wait for the answer and respond; but, you know, the minister was receiving information from Eastern Health and was attempting to present that to the public. Now, we can be criticized - we will be criticized if we do not provide information, because then we are deemed not to disclose. Then we are criticized on the other hand if we do provide information and it is later found out to be inaccurate. We cannot win in that situation, so we are managing a very difficult situation, Mr. Speaker.

I remind the hon. member opposite that this laboratory closed for five weeks while their government was in power. I can't wait to hear the testimony of Premier Grimes and Minister Smith and other ministers from the previous government, to hear what they knew.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We do know that the current Minister of Health did not read his briefing notes. Although the Premier expects his ministers to be briefed and to read their notes, we know he did not. We know that he did not question the information that was being provided by the health authority, despite other claims in the public that it was inaccurate, and we know that he did not live up to the duties and responsibilities as outlined under the Executive Council Act for ministers who serve in a government.

I ask the Premier: Does he see this as a clear level of incompetence, and is he expecting to do anything about it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Let me state very clearly for the record that this minister who is presently testifying before the inquiry today, in my opinion, has done an absolutely outstanding job of dealing with (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: He has given an explanation to the inquiry as to why he did not read a particular briefing note, and the inquiry will pass judgement on that.

He has also indicated that he has tried to get the best information possible, and he has done that to the best of his ability. He stood in this House day after day after day, when the sands were shifting under his feet, when information was changing from Eastern Health, trying to present it to the Members of the House of Assembly, presenting it to the public to the best of his ability, at a time when he was being provided misinformation by Eastern Health.

Now, he has managed that excellent, from my perspective. As a matter of fact, I would not put anybody else in that position, other than him, right now in this government - I can say it - because he has done an outstanding job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, maybe the Premier can answer this question for the minister that he has such confidence in: Why is it that the minister and you, Premier, did not have any dedicated meeting with regard to this ER-PR retesting, even though you knew the statistics on the number of people who were affected, you knew the seriousness of the matter, but yet there was no direct meeting between you and the minister to discuss this issue? Why was this not a number one priority of concern for the government at that particular time?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have said before, I have to rely on my ministers to run their departments. From the beginning, on this particular matter, we had received an indication that there was a problem. Then, within hours, it was indicated to us that no action was required. It was then in the hands of the department.

We were also being told over the course of the whole development of this problem that, in fact, improper testing had stopped, so the problem had been taken care of; that future testing was going to be done at Mount Sinai; that the past testing was going to be retested at Mount Sinai; and that patients had been notified.

We were also concerned about the confidentiality, the privacy, and the health of the people who were involved, and under those circumstances I am satisfied that our government did absolutely the right thing.

You have to keep in mind here that we were dealing with a problem that had been created and put in our lap and presented to us, and our primary concern was patient care and the health and the welfare of the patients who were afflicted by this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we know that when this issue broke open on May 15, the minister did go back and read his briefing notes. We now know that on May 16 there were briefings with Eastern Health, and on May 17 there was a Cabinet meeting around this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that Dr. Howell and Mr. Tilley sat outside the Cabinet doors while the meeting was going on, and were not asked to come inside to answer questions or provide for briefings.

I would like to ask the Premier why these individuals were not questioned at that time, or afterwards, on the information that they were bringing forward.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I was not outside the Cabinet doors; I was inside the Cabinet doors. Dr. Howell or Mr. Tilley or other officials are always present, coming and going, during Cabinet meetings, when these matters are ongoing.

I do know that the minister and officials of the Department of Health and the Deputy Minister of Health certainly would have had discussions - I assume that they would have had discussions - with these people.

Again, this was in the hands of the Ministry of Health. That is exactly where it rested, and it was being handled and managed properly by the Department of Health.

I said before, if at some point in time the Cameron inquiry, in its wisdom, decides that there was some error in judgment made in the way that it was handled with regard to contacting patients, and that is our responsibility - I mean myself, my Cabinet, my government - we will accept it.

I do again take general responsibility, but I am not prepared to stand here day after day and take responsibility down the line specifically for problems that occurred, and mistakes that were made, and omissions that were made, when I had no way of knowing anything about them; nor did my ministers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, it is a fairly clear, very legitimate question.

Dr. Oscar Howell and Mr. Tilley were both available to meet with the Cabinet, as I understand it; yet, they were not invited in, they were not questioned, and they were not part of that discussion.

I can only ask the Premier again: If this was such a huge priority for the government and you at the time, why were these individuals not engaged at that level and questioned?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I will repeat the answer, Mr. Speaker.

These individuals were engaged by officials of the Department of Health, which I assume would be the minister, the Deputy Minister of Health, and other officials.

Reciprocally, I can ask why you, as a Cabinet minister, or the Health Minister, Minister Smith at the time, or the Premier, Roger Grimes at the time, would not know that a laboratory was closed down for five weeks because a doctor had complained that it was not doing its job properly, that testing was not being done properly, and that might lead to legal action?

Now, I said before, I am prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt on that, but you cannot sit here and question me, and ask me why I did not know information that I had no way of knowing and, at the same time, hide behind the cover of saying: We knew nothing about a laboratory being closed down. We knew nothing about the problems of 2003, 2002, 2001 when people were being mistested.

You have to be fair, Ms Jones; this is about the patients at the end of the day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think I am being more than fair, and very tolerant of the Premier's answers here.

Mr. Speaker, the question was not to the Premier about, why did you not get correct information? It was about why, after you knew about the issue, after you were informed, after there were numbers of briefing notes, after there were Cabinet meetings, why no one - you included - talked to Mr. Tilley and talked to Dr. Howell about this problem and what was going on. That was very clear.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier this question. When Eastern Health was going to court to disallow the release of peer reviews, I questioned the Premier with regard to that, and why the government did not step in. Of course, his response was that, from government's perspective, we were not a party to that particular action and we –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to pose her question.

MS JONES: I certainly will, Mr. Speaker.

- and we had just basically stood back and let the courts do what they had to do.

Well, I ask the Premier this question. You may have taken a hands-off approach in your office when it came to the court challenge of peer reviews, but why is it -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to pose her question.

MS JONES: I am posing the question, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier: Why is it that your office was very much engaged in editing communication releases and ads that were going out from Eastern Health by your director of communications?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What the Leader of the Opposition - and I apologize. Before, I referred to the Leader of the Opposition as Ms Jones, and I just correct the record there. That was just an oversight.

What I did state in answer to this question last week, or two weeks ago, was that, in fact, from our perspective, Madam Justice Cameron, the head of the inquiry, actually had that peer review in her hands. So we knew that this information was not going to be kept from the Commission of Inquiry, and in an open, accountable and transparent manner they had the information for their benefit so they could basically make findings at the end of the day based on that information.

The legal point was a moot point because, in fact, it was just a question of whether, from an ethical perspective and a practical perspective, these peer reviews could be allowed into evidence. That was a matter for the courts to decide.

I also ask Ms Jones why her Premier and her Cabinet would not know –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I will, Mr. Speaker.

- why that Cabinet would not have known a statement from a doctor that said: a diagnosis based on inappropriate immunostain will surely jeopardize patient care. That happened in -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the Premier would know the difference is, is that his government was informed.

Mr. Speaker, we have continuously heard the Minister of Health stand in this House of Assembly and tout the new Centre of Excellence of the lab conducting breast cancer testing. However, I have received calls, in fact, over the weekend from patients who are less than confident with the statements that were made by the minister. One woman who was diagnosed with breast cancer four years ago received a phone call telling her that her tissue samples had to be retested. She received the same phone call six months later from the lab, again, saying that her tissue samples had to be retested. When she questioned it, apparently the first call she got, although she was contacted and told it would be sent out, it never was and it was not done until six months later.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS JONES: I certainly will.

She was called back for an MRI in January and she had a double mastectomy last month. She describes the process as she went through -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: I will, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

I ask the Premier: What is the Centre of Excellence that government refers to and what improvements have been made, because they have not been witnessed by all women affected?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the details on health care will be provided by the minister when he is available in the House. I can tell you, though, that from my personal perspective, and from the perspective of the members of Cabinet, members of government, caucus members, this is a very serious matter to us. When we look at this and we consider the problems here, we look at this as if this was our mother, our wife, our daughter, or a male member of the family who has had this problem. We try to deal with matters in this government as if it was happening to us, specifically. We try to react and respond in the same manner as what the patients are.

So I can tell you right now, myself, and speaking on behalf of the government, we have the greatest sympathy for the patients. As well, I want you to know Ms Jones, that if this kind of thing is happening, I think it is absolutely terrible - again, I am sorry, Leader of the Opposition. This is terrible. It is a terrible thing. It should not be happening, and it is not acceptable from our perspective.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly agree with the Premier, that this is terrible and it is traumatizing for many people. The reality of it is that it is happening, and that is what is unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker, this patient who had contacted me also informed me that she was asked to sign a consent form last month before she underwent a double mastectomy, to say that she would agree to be released from the hospital immediately after her surgery. The reason for that was there was no bed available to be able to hospitalize her. She had no one at home to care for her and she resisted signing the form. The option was to have her surgery cancelled.

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask: Is there a policy existing within Eastern Health right now that says if you undertake surgical procedures like this you must consent to be discharged immediately -

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I am not, from my knowledge, aware of that policy nor would I likely be aware of the specific policies with regard to that, but I can tell you from my own perspective, and this government's perspective, if a woman is put on the street after having a double mastectomy and has to sign a consent form to allow that to happen, that is absolutely unacceptable, and if that is the policy it will be changed forthwith.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I might add for the Premier, that if it is not a written policy it should not be a policy at any level. Hopefully, it will not happen again.

Mr. Speaker, I was also informed by a woman who had an MRI done for breast screening, that her results in reporting to her were delayed for a period of time simply because there wasn't a radiologist available to read the report, specifically as it related to breast screening.

Can I ask if there is more than one radiologist on staff at Eastern Health who does this work, and if so, why is it that at that period during February there was a delay in being able to get these reports out?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I will undertake to provide that information, Mr. Speaker. The question is valid and if the information that there wasn't a radiologist available is correct, then we will find out why, and hopefully there will be a good explanation.

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

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

My questions, too, relate to information that we received this morning during our briefing with Mr. Robert Thompson.

During the briefing we were told that one of the main reasons for patients not being contacted was either the lack of a communications protocol or protocols not being followed. So patients who should have been contacted fell through the cracks between Eastern Health and the other health authorities.

I ask the Premier, if he knows: What actions are being taken with regard to creating, throughout our health care system, an established protocol for patient follow-up and contact in the future?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I thank the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi for that question.

As you are aware, this information - a draft report of this only came to my attention yesterday afternoon, when I was in the office. The final report was presented to me after our business this morning with the Icelandic officials. So, I have only seen the final report. I will be speaking with the Minister of Health when he comes off the stand and when he is finished. I will be instructing him to follow-up on what has occurred here and to pursue the recommendations and some of the recommendations that you have indicated.

You talked about the protocols; it appears there that policies were set and protocols were established but they were not followed and they were broken. So, we will be getting to the bottom of it and finding out exactly why they were broken, but this is new information, of course, to me as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to hear the Premier say that he will be following up with the minister.

This is another piece that I am concerned about, that the ATIPP Act, the act that covers the access to information and privacy, puts responsibility directly on the shoulders of public bodies to be proactive in releasing information that is related to public interests. It is right there in the ATIPP Act.

I am wondering if Cabinet actually discussed Eastern Health's responsibility, under the light of that act, when it came to releasing information to the public?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I will take that question under advisement and get an answer for the hon. member.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Follow-up to that then, I know that the staff of ATIPP did do information sessions with all aspects of government and public bodies with regard to the act, but what I am wondering now in relationship to my first question, is there actually a protocol that is given to public bodies and said this is the protocol to follow with regard to releasing the information, or do we just have this section in the act without a protocol?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would inform the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that the purpose, as she is aware, of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act is a law for individuals to access the information that affects them and to allow for correction of that information. There has been, and are, ongoing training seminars with various bodies. In relation to the information to be released by the public body, ATIPP is triggered when a request is made. Now that is my understanding of the act. I stand to be corrected, but the information is not for public bodies to release private information, it is triggered upon a request.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just have a another question, and it is related to a call that I received in the last few days, actually two calls, by patients over the weekend who have had their surgeries cancelled, one who has been put on a wait list and one who is still in hospital awaiting surgery. I have contacted Eastern Health and given them the information, and they are telling me that there is an intermittent problem with accessing beds in ICU.

I ask the government if they are aware of that problem and are there any plans to extend or expand the ICUs to be able to deal with this problem in city hospitals?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I didn't receive any such phone call prior to coming to the House today so I certainly wasn't aware of that particular issue. I thank the hon. member opposite for informing us of that.

I am aware from being in Opposition that from time to time you do get calls. Of course, you obviously have to track them to make sure that they are authentic which we will do if you can provide that information to us. I understand you have already provided that information to Eastern Health. You provide that to government and we will make sure we track it down. At this point, we know nothing about it, because it was a phone call that came directly to you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Winsor-Buchans.

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of the Select Committee appointed to draft a reply to the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, I am pleased to present the report of the Select Committee as follows:

To His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, the hon. John C. Crosbie, PC, OC, ONL: May it please Your Honour, we the Commons of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session assembled beg to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Tabling of Documents.

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

MR. SKINNER: In accordance with the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, I hereby table the 2006 and 2007 annual reports of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Review Division with the House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Tabling of Documents.

As required under Section 15 (5) of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, I hereby table in the House draft amendments to the Members' Resources and Allowances rules approved in draft form at the April 11, 2008 meeting of the House of Assembly Management Commission.

These draft amendments address four different areas of the rules. The four rules are as follows:

1. Respecting Temporary Accommodations: The effect of these draft amendments would be to remove the $125 daily maximum currently applied and to instead permit actual costs of a standard room to be reimbursed.

2. Respecting Private Accommodations: The effect of this draft amendment would be to increase the daily reimbursable amount for private accommodation expenses from the current $25 to $53 on the Island and $71 in Labrador.

3. Respecting maximum number of nights allowable when the House is not in session: The effect of this draft amendment would be to increase to 50 the annual number of accommodation nights to be reimbursed while the House of Assembly is not in session.

4. Respecting meal per diems while travelling to and from the Capital Region: The effect of this draft amendment would be to permit meal per diems to be claimed when a member is travelling to and from the Capital Region.

Under section 15 (5) of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, the process for amending rules which add to the levels of allowances must follow the four steps which I will outline.

Number l: A draft of the amendment is tabled at a meeting of the Commission.

Number 2: Notice to and reading of the draft shall be given in the House of Assembly, when in session, and posted on the House Web site.

Number 3: The draft must be voted on at a subsequent meeting of the House of Assembly Management Commission; and,

Number 4: The Office of Legislative Counsel will prepare the final version for publishing in The Newfoundland and Labrador Gazette as subordinate legislation, upon which date the rules become effective.

As Speaker, I table those changes to the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, as a piece of subordinate legislation that accompanies them at this time.

Notices of Motion.

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

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the following motion, seconded by my colleague from the District of Lewisporte, Mr. Wade Verge.

WHEREAS many graduate students in this Province and in the whole country are currently experiencing severe financial difficulty because of high student loan debt; and

WHEREAS many of these graduates had no other alternative but to accumulate debt in order to fund their education; and

WHEREAS many of these graduates have had their lives put on hold while they pay off this debt; and

WHEREAS this provincial government in its 2007 Budget reduced the interest rate on the provincial portion of student loans to prime, offered needs-based grants, and held the line on tuition;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls upon the federal government to also reduce the interest rate on its portion of student loans to prime;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House of Assembly ask the other provinces and territorities to support this action by passing a similar motion in their respective Legislatures.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call Motion 2, first reading of Bill 20 standing in the name of the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. The minister is seeking leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act, The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill 20)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act, The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991, and that the said bill be now read a first time. (Bill 20)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 20, and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act, The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991," carried. (Bill 20)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, The Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act, The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill 20)

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

When shall the said bill be read a second time? Now? Tomorrow?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 20 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call Motion 3, standing in the name of the Minister of Government Services, for first reading of Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, and that the said bill be now read a first time. (Bill 21)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 21, and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act," carried. (Bill 21)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act. (Bill 21)

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

When shall the said bill be read a second time? Now? Tomorrow?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 21 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to move to Order 2, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 10, An Act To Repeal The Bulk Sales Act.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

CHAIR (Osborne): Order, please!

Bill 10, An Act To Repeal The Bulk Sales Act.

A bill, "An Act To Repeal The Bulk Sales Act." (Bill 10)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

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

Just to have a few words in regards to the Bulk Sales Act and repeal of the Bulk Sales Act, is that I must, again, refer that the Law Society was consulted and they furnished a detailed review of the statute. It was done by Mr. Jeffrey Benson of Benson Myles, which certainly supported heavily the repeal of this particular act.

Also, in regards to how - the statutes and the mandate, I guess, of the Bulk Sales Act is covered off now under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Judgement Enforcement Act and the Personal Property Securities Act. We also consulted with the Departments of Justice and Finance in regards and both concurred with the repeal.

Last week I had some of my officials contact the general counsel, the policy division of administry and Auditor General in Ontario, and they informed us that they actually have not given much thought to it. They do not use their Bulk Sales Act very much. A couple of years ago it was used but it was a very, very unique situation. They have not used it in a number of years but they will certainly be considering it in the near future in regards to repeal. In the meantime, they have not given very much thought to it right now. In other words, they have not gotten around to it, as my hon. colleague across the House referenced last week in the House of Assembly.

Also, there was a court proceeding here in Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court in October of 2007 in which Justice Robert Hall stated: I often wondered what we would do with the Bulk Sales Act where everyone else pretty well - say if Ontario has (inaudible) the thing and we still have it and they still have it and there are differences between the two and sorting out what those differences mean of where it fits in the scheme of the modern legislation to protect creditors. Certainly, he referenced that this act had really no meaning in regards to modern law today.

As I just referenced, again the law has changed, the way we conduct business has changed and establishing credit has changed. Certainly, the more modern legislation replaces the Bulk Sales Act.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the minister for his information. It certainly clarified some of the points that I asked. I am not totally clear yet on the issue though of Mr. Benson. I asked a question last week of the minister: What was the Law Society position on this and did he have any written documentation in that regard? He kindly gave me the name of Mr. Benson and a phone number. I took it upon myself to call Mr. Benson and ask but he would not release the information to me. He said he had been appointed by the Law Society to give some opinions on the issue of the Bulk Sales Act but that he did not feel at liberty to reveal the information to me.

So, notwithstanding the minister's comments, I am no further ahead today as to what the Law Society actually presented to government in regards to justification for repealing the act than I was last week. I think Mr. Benson found himself in a quandary that he did not give the information to government. He gave the information to the Law Society and he did not know actually if what he had said to the Law Society is what government ultimately relied upon and so on. I am just wondering, again, if it is possible to get a copy of what the Law Society gave to the minister, just for clarification? That would be helpful.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Certainly, I have no problem with that, in regards to that detailed review. I will provide a copy to my hon. colleague across the House but also I would not recommend stopping this piece of legislation from going through this House at this particular day because, as I said before, the Law Society was consulted. They actually reported heavily in favouring the repeal of this act, in regards to it being archaic to our present legislation and the way business is conducted in today's society.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Shall Clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 7 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 7 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Repeal The Bulk Sales Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: It is moved by the Government House Leader that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, on a point of order.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the member if she would be kind enough for us to start to go back into the House before she raises a point of order. We are in the stage of changing from Committee to the House. When we start the regular business again, I will certainly recognize the hon. member when she stands.

MS MICHAEL: Sorry, I thought we were.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South and Acting Deputy Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 10 carried without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 10 carried without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said bill be read a third time? Now? Tomorrow?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Presently, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently, by leave.

On motion, report received and adopted, bill ordered read a third time presently, by leave.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party, on a point of order.

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

During Question Period I asked a question with regard to the ATIPP Act, and asked my question in the context of public interest. I would like to point out that section 31 of the ATIPP Act is a public interest override. The main part of it, section 31.(1) says: "Whether or not a request for access is made, the head of a public body shall, without delay, disclose to the public, to an affected group of people or to an applicant, information about a risk of significant harm to the environment or to the health or safety of the public or a group of people, the disclosure of which is clearly in the public interest."

I would like to say that my question with regard to a protocol with regard to that section was a proper question. I would like to say that.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The Chair accepts the hon. member is standing for a point of clarification.

There is no point of order. It is a point of clarification.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to call Motion 4, which is a motion standing in the name of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, having to do with the recommendations of Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court Judge's salaries and benefits and the tribunal report respecting those matters.

Motion 4, standing in the name of the Minister of Justice.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the resolution to accept the judicial indemnity recommendations of the 2006 Provincial Court Judges' Salary and Benefits Tribunal. The tribunal members are retired Justice Jeffrey Steele, Chair, former Justice of the Trail Division and Court of Appeal, David Day, QC and David Norris, all of whom have considerable knowledge and experience.

The report, Mr. Speaker, was tabled in the House of Assembly on April 10, 2008 for the review of all members.

The report makes the following recommendations: The establishment of a judicial indemnity policy for the judges of the Provincial Court is, in principle, warranted; and the Province and the Association working through their legal counsel promptly undertake discussion with a view to formulating the terms and conditions of a judicial indemnity policy acceptable to both parties; and that the first subject matter for consideration be the defining of an overall concept of the policy.

Mr. Speaker, in accepting these recommendations the House of Assembly is accepting that a judicial indemnity policy for the judges is, in principle, warranted, and the recommendation that the government and Provincial Court Judges' Association work together to formulate terms and conditions of a judicial indemnity policy acceptable to both parties which will be submitted to the tribunal for further consideration. In other words, Mr. Speaker, there is no conclusion that a judicial indemnity policy will be adopted. There is no conclusion as to what those terms will be. There is simply that there will be discussions and that the there will be recommendations put forward.

It is a requirement under the Provincial Court Act, Mr. Speaker, the 1991 Act, that every four years a review be initiated of the salaries and benefits of Provincial Court judges. While the tribunal has not rendered a definitive answer on the content of an indemnity, we will certainly abide by their decision and work with the Provincial Court judges to establish a reasonable policy which protects the best interests of both the Province and Provincial Court judges.

We recognize, Mr. Speaker, the important role that Provincial Court judges play in our judicial system as well as the importance of judicial independence. However, we must also ensure we act appropriately and within policy.

This is perhaps as good a time as any, Mr. Speaker, to have a word on the concept of judicial independence. In my approximately five and a half months now as Minister of Justice the term judicial independence has been one that I have heard perhaps as much as any other term. It is a difficult concept in one way and it is a simple concept in another. It is simple to the extent, Mr. Speaker, that we all realize – and as Minister of Justice and Attorney General I realize – that we as a government, or I as a minister, cannot do anything to interfere with the ability of judges to make their decisions. Nor can there ever be any attempt to influence their decision in any way. However, Mr. Speaker, once we get to the administrative aspect of this, it becomes much more difficult – and, if I could elaborate somewhat.

Judges have to be able to do their work unimpeded and unaffected by government; however, Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Justice, I am accountable to this Legislature and to the people of this Province. I will use the example of criminal law to highlight the difficulty that I experience as Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

Under section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1982, the federal government makes laws in relation to criminal law. Under section 92(14), I think it is, of the Constitution Act, the Province is responsible for the administration of justice within the Province.

So what happens, Mr. Speaker, is that we have a Constitution that gives powers to the federal government on one hand and to the provincial government on another.

Superior Court Judges are appointed by the Government of Canada. Provincial Court Judges are appointed by the Province. Salaries of the Superior Court Judges are paid by the Government of Canada, whereas salaries of the Provincial Court Judges are paid by the Province of Newfoundland. Along with salaries there are costs of the courthouse, of administration, of running the administration of justice.

On the one hand, the concept of judicial independence says that judges have to be independent of government. On the other hand, government has to control somewhat the expenditure of public funds.

This is something, Mr. Speaker, that, as Minister of Justice, I am having difficulty with; however, I am pleased to state that we are working our way through it, and that there is a Courts Administration Advisory Board made up of the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal, the Chief Justice of the Trial Division, and the Chief Judge of Provincial Court. So far, we are working our way through some of the issues, although there are still difficulties.

Mr. Speaker, members of this hon. House may remember recently Chief Justice Wells of the Court of Appeal giving a speech, I think it was at Rotary, talking about the crumbling infrastructure surrounding the courts, and the need for new facilities.

Now, the Chief Justice is certainly entitled to express his opinions, and we welcome those opinions; however, as a government, we have obligations that relate over and beyond to the, for example, construction of courthouses or appointment of judges. We have obligations to the public, especially in relation to health care and education. So, what happens, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a tension between the terms. We need to be able to work with the judges and we need to be able to work with them, provide them with funds, but not influence them in their decision making.

So these discussions have been helpful, although I will say that in recent months the concept has again arisen and I expect it to arise in the near future with the release of the task force report on creating efficiencies in the provincial court system. For example, Mr. Speaker, this task force report upon which Chief Judge Reid sat will examine why it is taking so long to get to court. Why is it taking twelve months to get a trial in Provincial Court in St. John's?

This task force has made certain recommendations, as I have indicated, which will be made public once we have had an opportunity to look at them from a practical perspective and a financial and legislative perspective, but they can make the recommendations they wish. As Minister of Justice I cannot force, nor can this government force, the judges to adopt those recommendations.

To the average person, they are going to look at this and say: Well, these judges are paid a lot of money to do a job. Why can't the Minister of Justice, for example, instruct them to implement recommendations?

Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, we can do it without getting into an argument or discussion. In other words, hopefully the Provincial Court will accept the recommendations outlined in this report, which are meant to improve the administration of justice in this Province. We do not want victims of crime, Mr. Speaker, we do not want innocent accused, and we do not want witnesses waiting forever for trials to take place. A common theme we hear is, especially in Provincial Court, is that we need more judges. Well, one of the issues looked at in this report is whether or not we need more judges or do we need to increase efficiency within the resources that we have.

What I am hoping, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that the hon. Opposition House Leader will also remember this from his days as Minister of Justice, is to reduce the tension that exists; to work in a manner that is conducive to the most efficient and effective administration of justice, but also to ensure that judicial independence does not become trivialized, that judicial independence does not become a reason for whenever the judges wish to disagree with us.

It is a difficult proposition in terms of the government as the executive working with the judiciary has in regard of this principle. For those of us who read the Green report - and I would assume it is everyone in this House - Chief Justice Green in the early chapters reviews the issues of the interaction between the judiciary, the executive, and the Legislature. For our system to work effectively, Mr. Speaker, they all have to work together. So, I am pleased to state that so far our discussions have been very fruitful with Chief Justice Wells, Chief Justice Green and Chief Judge Reid of the provincial court.

So, this judicial indemnity policy is one that we will discuss. As I have indicated to the judges, we will discuss things. However, I have an obligation as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to report to this House and to report to the people of this Province. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it becomes very important that the relationships between the judges and the executive be one of respect and mutual understanding of each others role.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is one point I would like to raise, since we are talking about judges today, we will note that last week in the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Justice Bastarache from New Brunswick resigned. In sixty years that we have been part of Confederation there has never been a Supreme Court of Canada Judge from Newfoundland. So what has to happen - and I will be writing the Minister of Justice for the Government of Canada and I will also be bringing it to the attention of the federal MPs. It is time that we had a Supreme Court of Canada Judge appointed from this Province. We have many good candidates. I would suggest that in order for us to be properly represented and in order for us to truly feel part of this federation that the opportunity now be given to one of our judges to sit on the highest court in the land.

In the breakdown now, Mr. Speaker, of the Judges in the Supreme Court of Canada, we have three from Ontario, three from Quebec, one from the western provinces, one from BC, and one from the Atlantic provinces. So, what I am suggesting is that not only must there be a working relationship between myself, as Minister of Justice and Attorney General, and the judges, but also that it is time to advocate and to say loud and clear to the Government of Canada that a judge from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador should be elevated to the highest court in the land.

Mr. Speaker, there are many more issues that will arise in the future in relation to judges and as we work our way through this process. As I have indicated, this is one that we will have to discuss, and the undertaking I will give to the provincial court judges is that we will discuss this matter in good faith. We will discuss the matter, having regard to its importance. The commitment we are making is to discuss the matter and that judges must be cognizant that as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General and as members of this House, we have a larger role to play and that the court, as an institution, is one that must be given proper respect but also there must be recognition of the role that we play as a government.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for support of all hon. members in this House in passing this resolution.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Right off the top let me say that we will certainly be voting in favour of and supporting the resolution on the Provincial Judges Tribunal.

Just a little bit of further history on the thing. This House did not have a very good record and the Department of Justice did not have a very good record for quite a few years in terms of how we dealt with the issues of the provincial court judges in terms of compensation and tribunals. I know all of the Administrations from 1990, I do believe, up until around 2001, were outright rejecting the concept in this Province of having a tribunal do it. I am pleased to say, I think it was on this minister's watch when we were Minister of Justice that we got over that. We said: Look, everywhere else in the country is using a tribunal system and process to decide what the indemnities and to set up what compensation should be for provincial court judges and we should be doing the same thing.

So now we are a few years out. We got rid of that. We always seem to be at loggerheads with our provincial court judges. We did not give a true appreciation of the concept of judicial independence, and a lot of times you are negotiating with the people who you are asking to be your judge. That is where the problem comes in. The minister did not allude so much to the financial piece but, basically, you have all heard the old saying that he who pays the fiddler calls the tune. That was one of the basic problems. The government was paying the provincial court judges and if you use that analogy, he who pays the fiddler calls the tune, that was not appropriate. Just because the government might be paying the provincial court judges - because of the concept of judicial independence, that did not give you the right to call the tune. That was the big issue. It seemed to be somehow, and it is contrary to: How can you expect a judge to be totally, absolutely independent if at the same time you control his or her pay check? So, we got past that, thank God, after ten years of saying no, no, no. Some people said, well, the reason for it was, not that we did not want them and that we did not pay due respect to the concept of judicial independence, but we were simply in a case where we did not have the money to pay. Again, that was determined not to be sufficient reason. There are some things, regardless if you can or cannot afford it, you have to do. You might have to compromise somewhere else, but there are certain things you have to do. So we got past it, the tribunal concept was adopted, and away we go. Here we are now; we are getting these tribunal reports with some regularity.

I notice from this particular one here, the issue of an actual policy as to judicial indemnity was never dealt with before. It is an evolving process. They are still trying to figure out, what are the components we are in need of, that process, and this is where these two recommendations are coming from.

At least now the tribunal, all three persons on it, have said yes, the concept, in principle, is warranted, of having a policy concerning judicial indemnity, and they are going to proceed to draft some terms and conditions and give it further consideration so that they can flesh it out and ultimately arrive at a decision.

We would be supportive, certainly – we were, as a government, supportive of the tribunal concept and we are supportive of what is coming out of the tribunals here in terms of recommendations.

I note the minister's comments - he made several comments - the one he made in particular about Chief Justice Wells giving a speech to the Rotary. I appreciate that. I think that is a good move, as well, because too often judges were expected to live a cloistered life. You get appointed to the bench. You are supposed to have an appreciation of how society works, because you obviously bring the mores of society, and everything else, into your decision-making process when you are sentencing someone in society. Yet, by the same token, they were sort of muzzled and expected not to say anything.

I think it is good, within reason, that judges not be out every day spouting their theories, or certainly not their personal opinions; but, in terms of giving some insight into how the courts are working, why certain things are happening on their benches and so on, and how they approach certain issues, I think that is good, and we have seen more of that in the recent past. We had the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Justice McLaughlin, out giving several speeches in public. I think that is good stuff. It adds to the quality of our system and it adds to the educational component of the public because we need to know from them, the judges - not just based on a particular fact situation, but these public pronouncements and speeches that they give, give us some insight into the system and that is helpful.

So, I agree, I like to see what the Chief Justice did there and I look forward to more of it. Another example would be Chief Justice Green. Albeit he did not appear before the board of management here last Friday as a judge, it is nice to see. He filled the role with the Green commission and he filed his report here, of course, concerning the MHA instances, and he took the time to come back here last Friday and explain, before the cameras again, why he thought he needed to come back, and it was helpful. That is an example again of someone who, albeit he was not here as a judge, he was here in his capacity as a commissioner and explained why he put section 45 into the new Accountability Act, so that was helpful, and I think it is helpful for the whole public when judges do that. It is very constructive and very healthy.

The minister also mentioned, as an aside, about the report that he commissioned last fall into the workings of the justice system, and that raised some controversy. In fact, I will probably ask the minister, in particular, in Question Period some day, if I get a chance, why the report is not released. I know he said today that it will be released some time, but they have to study it to decide where they are going to go with the report. It was basically a report into: Why is the justice system not working as quickly and efficiently as it ought to?

That report came out more than a month ago, and I use those particular words, more than a month, because that is very crucial in terms of the government's overall policy of the release of reports. The government tells us in their Blue Book 2003, in their Blue Book 2007: We shall release reports within thirty days. Well, there is one there that, albeit not too far out, is over the thirty day limit. The media have asked for the report. The minister said: No, we are not giving it to you until we get it studied and we decide what we are going to do.

Well, I suggest that there is a difference between what you do with the report and the fact that you release it; because, if we use that logic we will never get a report within thirty days. Government can say, yes, we made a commitment to release it, but we do not have it thoroughly analysed and decided what we are going to do. We have not implemented an action plan on that report, so therefore we are not going to put it out.

That flies in the face of the thirty day commitment. That flies in the face of openness and accountability, based on that commitment. I think you cannot have it both ways. What is wrong with keeping to the commitment and releasing the report within a thirty day period? In fact, I would think it might be helpful; because, albeit somebody prepared the report, why would you have a report actioned, a plan decided, ready for implementation, then you release the report and somebody says: Whoa, just a minute; there is another way of doing that. There is a better way of doing that.

I would have thought that was part of the feedback process and, albeit the minister commissioned the report, that he would put it out in thirty days so that, in the course of deciding what your action plan was going to be, somebody out there, God forbid - maybe the Law Society, maybe a member of the Law Society, maybe some of the judges, maybe somebody who works in a court system, maybe somebody who has been a party to a process in the court and found it to be not timely - maybe somebody could have said: Well, Minister, they didn't mention this is the report.

I find it awkward and it seems to be self-defeating when you say: Thank you very much for your report. I am not going to show anybody until I get ready for the action plan.

I thought that was the whole point. You got your report from somebody, but why wouldn't you then let everybody read it to see if they can add to it? That would seem to be the proper process. Again, the minister is only following the same course as many other ministers. Notwithstanding that the commitment is made, they just do not release the reports. Anyway, I think you cannot speak out of both sides of your mouth and say you are going to and then, on the other hand, you do not.

We will be in favour of that. Just as one final note in response to his comment about the Supreme Court of Canada appointment, I would agree wholeheartedly. There is a whole number of things that go into the mix, of course, when the Prime Minister and the federal Minister of Justice make their decision as to who it is. The last two appointments have come from the Province of New Brunswick. It is done on a regional basis. Quebec is guaranteed so many appointees under the Constitution. There is typically one appointee from Atlantic Canada and so on, some from the West and so on, and Ontario. We have had the last two come from New Brunswick. I would agree that the overbearing and overarching consideration when you appoint them should be their integrity and their ability, as understanders and learned in the law, their fairness and all of those things. That obviously has to be who would make the best judge - there are certain things that go into the mix - but there is no doubt that we have those qualifications right here in this Province. There are people in our Court of Appeal, and people in our Trial Division here who would be imminent judges and would be qualified for that.

I think the minister should indeed spark the federal minister to consider. I am not saying that New Brunswick needs to be disqualified because they had the last two, but they have had the last two and surely if there is somebody in another province who is capable and qualified, which there are here in our own, there is no reason why that Justice should not come from Newfoundland and Labrador.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we would agree with this resolution and we will be voting in favour of it.

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

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

I just have a few comments that I want to make. Yes, obviously, we will be supporting the resolution as well and voting for it. As the Opposition House Leader has indicated, it is right and proper and it is about time. So, we will be.

I want to pick up on a point that was made by both the Minister of Justice and the Opposition House Leader with regard to the Supreme Court of Canada and the fact that our time has come for somebody in the present to be nominated. The Opposition House Leader referenced the fact that we have many people, many lawyers, many judges, I should say, who have the required qualifications at this moment to be nominated to the Supreme Court of Canada. I would just like to point out - and I am sure the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women would agree with me - that when we come to look at nominations, we would want to look at both men and women because we have both men and women who are qualified for the Supreme Court of Canada. I would like to think that this government will go by what it says its commitment is with regard to equality, and that if it is going to move forward on having a voice with regard to nominations to the Supreme Court of Canada, that they will look very seriously at women in this Province who have the qualifications and put forward the name of a woman or women. This, I think, is something we should always be speaking to.

I also want to make a point that is not directly related to the judiciary but is related to the legal system itself, and I want to take this moment to make the point. There are areas in the Province where there are great concerns about unequal access to the legal system, and one of those areas is Labrador West. I was just in Labrador West on the weekend and for the umpteenth time, met with the coordinator of the women's centre there. Yes, things are happening in Labrador West and we now have a permanent judge in Labrador West, and they have a place to have their court sessions, et cetera, but women, in particular, especially when they are women who are no longer in a marital situation or a situation with a partner because of abuse or other reasons and needs to have access to court because of the situation with that partner, they do not have access to legal aid. This is a major issue for women in Labrador West.

The coordinator of the women's centre in Labrador West spends an inordinate amount of her time representing legal cases in Labrador West, having to help women deal with the legal system. She is actually doing the work of a legal aid worker, yet she is the coordinator of the women's centre. Every time I go there I hear the same story from the coordinator of the women's center, the amount of time that she has to spend helping women with the legal system because there is no legal aid. I really encourage the Minister of Justice, I know that representation has been made to him about this and I know that representation has been made to the Minister of Finance with regard to this issue, and I really encourage these ministers to look seriously at the needs of women in Labrador West, and also the needs of the women who run the women's centre. If they are going to be spending their time doing the work of legal aid workers, they are not getting time to do the work that they should be doing as the staff and the coordinator should be doing as the coordinator of the women's centre.

I am looking forward to seeing, in this year's Budget, monies allotted for legal aid to be established in Labrador West so that women, number one, can have their cases heard, that they do not have to go to court and have their cases not heard because they do not have representation of a lawyer. Number two, so that the coordinator of the women's centre can focus on what her work is supposed to be.

As I said earlier, I will be voting for this resolution, Mr. Speaker, and I am happy for the opportunity to have brought forward an issue that I know women in Labrador West wanted brought forth.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General speaks now he will close the debate on the motion.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Opposition House Leader and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi for their comments. These comments are certainly all taken into account. I hear the Opposition House Leader's comments on the release of a report, but when we are in a position in the near future the report will be released.

In relation to the comments from the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, we are certainly very cognizant of the need for female judges and the need for assistance for legal aid in Labrador West. I met with the committee in Labrador West on a previous trip. I could say that in relation to the appointment of a judge to the Supreme Court of Canada, I would have no problem with putting forward the name of Madam Justice Margaret Cameron to the Supreme Court of Canada or to the Minister of Justice in Ottawa, in supporting her nomination.

Finally, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: There are a number of others.

MR. KENNEDY: Well, there are certainly others, but in terms of the female component - also, interestingly enough, if there were a female appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada it would be the first time ever that there would be a majority of female judges on the Supreme Court of Canada, if I remember correctly. I think this would bring it to five.

I have no problem with those comments, and I thank the hon. members for their comments. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

Is the House ready for the question?

The Chair will not read the complete motion. I will read the last whereas:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House accept the recommendations of the report of the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court Judges Salaries and Benefits Tribunal respecting an indemnity for Provincial Court Judges.

Shall the motion carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 16, standing in the name of the Minister of Natural Resources, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that bill 16, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Forestry Act." (Bill 16)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to rise to speak to this amendment to establish timber royalty repayment retroactive to January 1, 2008.

This is a very small amendment to this bill and it is meant to align the scheduling of timber royalty payments with timber cutting permits, forest management plans and the annual allowable harvest levels for better consistency. This was identified in a joint review between my department and the Department of Environment and Conservation of the forest management planning process back in 2003. The review was intended to improve the effectiveness of the forest management process. As a result of that exercise, forest Crown management plans are now based on a calendar year synchronizing them with plans prepared by industry. As well, forest management planning is aligned with annual allowable harvest levels which are issued at five-year intervals effective from the first of the year of issuance. Calendar year scheduling was also implemented in the area of licensing and permitting in January of last year.

This amendment provides for a consistency in all of these areas, and it is just the last loose end that we need to tie together. Moving to a calendar year is also considered a suitable time of year for operators to obtain their cutting permits, as there is traditionally a lull in forest activities at that time. Historically, the scheduling of all forest management activities implemented by the department was based on the fiscal year.

Also, for the information of the Members of the House of Assembly, a new royalty regime was put in place on January 1 of this year, and I am pleased to say that there are no increases in timber royalty rates for 2008, and some forest operators will pay lower rates under certain conditions.

Sometimes the question is asked, Mr. Speaker, why we have royalty rates at all. It is a requirement under the softwood lumber agreement. It requires us to have a royalty rate. Otherwise we are seen to be subsidizing the industry.

The Forestry Act provides government with the authority to establish royalty rates for the commercial use of trees. The decision not to increase royalty rates, and provide rate reductions in certain circumstances, demonstrates that the government is sensitive to the challenges facing the forest industry, particularly forest sector workers supporting the economies of many rural communities throughout our Province.

It is a very, very, difficult time in this industry, Mr. Speaker, as everyone in this House is well aware. We are working with the industry to overcome the challenges that face us and we hope, in the months ahead, to be able to make some good announcements.

The new royalty regime includes a broad range of forest conditions under which to reduce the royalty rate. Conditions eligible for rate reduction include: harvest in difficult terrain conditions, areas of damaged forest stands, or snow clearing to access trees to cut.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Of course, we have had an opportunity as well to look at the changes that are being implemented here. We also realize, Mr. Speaker, that the bill would amend a subsection of the act relating to the ability to make retroactive regulations around setting timber royalty rates and stumpage fees, and that the proposed changes would also allow the rates to be made retroactively on a calendar year basis, as I understand it now.

Mr. Speaker, these changes are, I guess, based purely on operational considerations that are related to the financial planning needs for commercial operators throughout the Province. We understand from some discussions that we had with loggers in the last number of weeks that this has been recommended by small-scale logging operators in our Province for quite some time. It was also noted to us that the changes could result in a rollback of the royalty rate that was set for April 2007, retroactive to January 2008.

Maybe the minister might want to clarify that for me when she has some closing comments on the bill, because I think loggers were questioning a couple of things: one, as to whether they would get a reimbursement this year with regard to that rollback, if there would be any reimbursement of funds that would accrue to small-scale logging operations in the Province as a result of any stumpage fees, or fees that they may have already paid out. The other thing they were questioning was whether a rollback in the royalty rates could be applied to fuel wood or whether royalties would be removed from fuel wood all together, because I think there was some question, Minister, around that, as to whether it applied to fuel wood or just to the logs themselves, and whether that would be eligible for the rollback and the rebate as well to those small logging companies or loggers who were participating in that program.

I think the idea was that now they are paying something like five point five cents taxes, is what they communicated to me, per cubic metre of wood. That would result in a truckload of wood being about $260 plus the tax that would go on top of that. They were not entirely sure if that was a rebateable tax, I suppose, or if it was not a rebateable tax. Certainly, I don't know the answer to that.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the changes being implemented in Bill 16, we certainly welcome it, as an Opposition. We think this change is required in the legislation, and certainly got a good understanding of that from the loggers that we have talked to; but, Mr. Speaker, I do have some concerns as well that were expressed by these loggers, not necessarily directly related to the fees but certainly very directly related to the industry itself, and that was views that were expressed by loggers on the Northern Peninsula. Mr. Speaker, they are very concerned that their contract they had with Corner Brook Pulp and Paper expired as of March 31, 2008, and that there was no renewed agreement put in place.

Mr. Speaker, for those in the public who have followed this issue, if you go back a couple of years you will realize that there was almost a complete shutdown of the logging industry on the Northern Peninsula of the Province. At the time Kruger was not prepared to make investments into upgrades that had to be done on roads, bridges that had to be built and new sections of road that had to be done, and therefore government worked a deal between, I guess, the company and the loggers and the Province in which they invested an amount of money to be able to bring that infrastructure up to standard and allow people to be able to continue to log in that area. As a result, Corner Brook Pulp and Paper agreed to continue to buy from that area up until this spring.

Mr. Speaker, that particular deal has now expired and it has not been replaced by any new agreements, and that is of concern to the people in that area. I think the minister will agree that there are somewhere around 250 people who are directly employed in the logging industry on the Northern Peninsula and many of them have bought equipment in the last number of years, especially in the last two years, that was very high priced equipment that they had to go out and obtain financing for in order to participate in the logging industry in that particular area. Therefore, they would like to ensure that they are going to have a return on their financial investments. Right now, I think they feel that there is a tremendous uncertainty around whether that will occur or not.

We did, Mr. Speaker, make some inquiries to Corner Brook Pulp and Paper on this particular issue. Obviously, there wasn't a tremendous, I guess, amount of information coming forward on the issue, but what we were able to clarify with them is that at the time they really didn't have any particular interest in buying wood in this area and that they will honour the agreements that they have in place for the barging of wood from Southern Labrador and also from Prince Edward Island, but they were not prepared to enter into, at this stage – and this is just my understanding – any new agreements on the Northern Peninsula. I guess it becomes a question for government as to what they will do to facilitate continuous activity in the industry in that area.

They have also, Mr. Speaker, in information we did obtain as well from Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, in asking them a direct question about Number 4 paper mill - as you know, that particular mill was closed down last year and number 4 has not operated since then. It has not operated since last November and we wanted to know when Number 4 paper mill would be in operation again in Corner Brook. We have been unable to get any commitment from the company, and I do not know if government has pushed to get any commitment from them on what they will do. You know, with this extra paper mill closed down, this is obviously impacting on the number of people who would be employed at Corner Brook Pulp and Paper as well as the supply of pulp wood that they would require for their operation, and therefore it is having an impact upon the logging industry in this particular area.

Mr. Speaker, this is a huge problem. I understand from people on the Northern Peninsula that the Minister of Natural Resources had agreed to meet with them back in February but substantially that meeting got cancelled and there has been no other meeting scheduled to my understanding.

MS DUNDERDALE: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: The minister is telling me across the House that she did meet with them on February 28, however the information they gave us was that the meeting did not occur. I will give you the name of the individual who gave me the information. It was an individual from the Northern peninsula and I will give that name to the minister after I finish speaking, so that the next time they can be invited to the meeting so they will know that it occurred. It was an individual who was involved in the logging industry, I say to the minister.

They are concerned that there has not been any new contract entered into between government and Corner Brook Pulp and Paper or any other company in that particular area. Of course, they are concerned they are going to be with nowhere to sell their pulpwood, and if they have no market for their pulpwood it is going to be very challenging for them to continue in the logging industry itself. As you know, pulpwood is a byproduct of the industry and if you do not have a market to offload it, well then you are restricted in the amount of logs you can harvest on a regular basis.

Mr. Speaker, we would like to see some action on that item. I know that there has been a study done. I think it was Halifax Global that did a study to look at the long-term wood supply on the Northern Peninsula and in other areas of Newfoundland and where they could look at establishing some kind of operation for the continued processing of wood. I am not sure how successful that practice was, but we certainly have not seen any tremendous innovative ideas or industries or businesses being created as a result of it. The same company also did a study in Labrador and that study goes back three to four years ago, which was a very detailed piece of work. In fact, it summarized some fairly good ideas about activity that could take place in Labrador around the wood industry, but to date we have not seen any of it materialize. We have not seen any real coordination of effort to see these ideas come to fruition, so I guess as a result of that it was an exercise that yielded little results at the end of the day.

Mr. Speaker, I want to encourage the minister and her government to look at what can be done to assist the people on the Northern Peninsula who are now finding themselves in a situation where they have no opportunity to be able to continue in the logging industry as a result of lost market and an expired agreement that was originally negotiated by government. It seems like there is some reluctance on the part of Corner Brook Pulp and Paper right now to buy wood from that particular area simply because there is no great need within the mill operation for extra wood that they would get from that area. Also with Number 4 paper machine closed down, I guess the demands they would have normally had for wood supply has also lessened and therefore the same need is not there. As a result of that, the people on the Northern Peninsula are the individuals who are losing out in terms of that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I just want to say that we do support the amendments that are being introduced with regard to Bill 16, the Forestry Act. The changes would allow for the regulation of timber royalties and rates on a calendar year basis. My questions directly around that bill were with regard to the retroactive reimbursement of fees to loggers in the industry and small scale operators, and if that reimbursement of fees would indeed be applicable to fuel wood as well. Those were the two questions that I have with regard to the bill and how that will impact the people in the industry. Outside of that, we certainly would support the legislation and we have no problem giving endorsement to it today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources speaks now, she will close the debate on Bill 16.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Opposition Leader for her questions.

I do not have immediate answers for them, Mr. Speaker. They are not simple answers because the royalty reductions are not right across the board. They are for operators who are in difficult terrain, hard to access roads and so on. The operators who have difficulty accessing wood can expect some kind of a rebate but that will not apply right across the board to all operators. I will get more detailed information on the questions posed by the Leader of the Opposition and I will provide that information to her.

In regard to the rest of her comments, Mr. Speaker; as I said in my opening remarks, we are more than aware of the difficulties that are being faced in the forestry industry worldwide, particularly here in Newfoundland and Labrador and particularly on the West Coast too, where harvesters have not only had to face the collapse of the timber market in the US but they have also had a definite impact from the closure of one of the machines in Corner Brook Pulp and Paper. So, it has been a very definite and severe impact on the West Coast of the Island particularly.

We are in regular touch with them through the Forestry and Agrifoods Agency which is centered out in Corner Brook. I had a meeting with the saw millers in February at their request. Certainly nobody was excluded on my part because I did not do the inviting. They requested to have the meeting. We did have a very good meeting. I shared with them the work of the Interdepartmental Committee that has been put together in government to deal with these issues and to try and find answers. Some of the answers lie within government and some lie within the private sector. They know all of those pieces are at work and we don't have control of all of them, but we are engaged, full engaged, trying to find solutions that will put this industry back on its feet again; and that is what we need to do. We are going to continue with that piece, and hopefully we will able to come back with something definitive in the very near term.

You know I have an open door policy. I am always happy to meet with people and talk to people, but we are going to do things properly and we are going to do things right. There was a great appreciation for that from the people involved in the industry who I met with in February and others involved with the industry who I have met with since.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move second reading of this amendment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

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

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Presently, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently, by leave.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To amend The Forestry Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 16)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At this time I would like to call Order 10, second reading of Bill 15, standing in the name of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, An Act To Amend The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act And The Municipalities Act, 1999.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 15, entitled An Act To Amend The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act And The Municipalities Act, 1999, be now read second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act And The Municipalities Act, 1999." (Bill 15)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This piece of legislation came about, I guess it is probably in the minds of people out there now, with relationship to the St. John's Harbour Cleanup. What this bill will do, Mr. Speaker, it will give the authority to the municipalities - St. John's, Mount Pearl and the Town of Paradise - the regulations to control what goes into the systems, and to prevent any toxics going into the systems emanating from residential or commercial or any other structure along the whole feeder system into the sewer system. This is important for us because, number one, I think one of the things that need to be given to municipalities is authority to be able to go in and periodically check residential homes, commercial buildings, to make sure that there is no toxic waste coming from any of those facilities going into the sewer system. If we can prevent that, then that will help make sure that the cleaning system that is going to be put in with St. John's Harbour Cleanup, that there are no contaminants going into that, and to help prevent that from happening.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to that, is that, again, when you go back to what happened prior to this, is that the municipalities would be able to find a source, but they never had the regulations to go in and investigate the origin of any contaminants – but this bill, Mr. Speaker, will allow for the municipalities to go in and find out if there are any contaminations coming from an existing facility, and that way it will prevent the waterways of our tributaries to make sure there is nothing flowing into the fresh water stream, both in the municipalities and in the areas which they represent.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is not a big piece of legislation, but it is a very, very important one because any time we are talking about our environment, and environment is a big issue today, then we need to make sure that we put in the safety net to help protect it. Mr. Speaker, that is what this bill will do.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for Port de Grave would normally respond to this piece of legislation but he got called away, so I will pinch hit for him.

We will certainly be supportive of this piece of legislation. As the minister says, it may not be a monumental piece but it is certainly important. As time goes on, of course, environmental concerns, circumstances change, not only the City of St. John's or the City of Mount Pearl but it is all municipalities, as I understand it, will have the option now to set up proper protocols and processes for persons who want to discharge certain prohibited materials.

I like the fact, too, that it covers not only the private residence but commercial, because a lot of times - I know in some communities in my district in particular, you particularly get certain kinds of commercial operators of certain businesses, and the question has been raised quite often: Where does the discharge go? Some of these materials, of course, are hazardous materials from time to time, but at least now I understand that municipalities will have the right to make the proper codes and put the proper rules in place so that they can do inspections on-site if they wish at the source and determine how these materials are being disposed of.

It is nice to see that the legislation is, again, moving forward and reflecting the new practices and the best practices that ought to exist when it comes to disposal of certain prohibited materials. We will be voting in favour of Bill 15.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Any further comments?

The hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

We, too, will be supporting the bill. I am actually quite pleased to see this bill. The municipalities are the best people to be in control of what is going into sewers. They are the ones who have access to the properties that need to be monitored and need to be inspected. So giving them the authority to do this is extremely important. They own the sewers, they issue permits to businesses, et cetera. This is definitely a real step forward.

One of my concerns, and before I say what one of my concerns is - I see this as a beginning step and I see it as part of a provincial plan that will lead to all municipalities having this authority and responsibility. So, I see two things that come with the authority. One is the responsibility, and that would mean the responsibility to put in place really good plans for living up to this bill and living up to the responsibility.

When I look right now, for example, at the bylaw that the City of St. John's has, the statements around sewage and drainage are very minimal. Now I know there are guidelines in the Environmental Act to help with this, but they are pretty minimum standards. I think it would be really good if the Province could work with the municipalities, probably with Municipalities NL. Probably the best way to do it, maybe starting with St. John's and Mount Pearl first and bringing forward ideas that come from those two municipalities to Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador for an overarching set of guidelines for what really needs to be done from the environmental perspective with regard to what is going into our sewers. We do not have to invent the wheel. There are some municipalities elsewhere that have done good work around this. For example, the Halifax Regional Municipality, and I look at their bylaw. They have put a lot of thought into it and I know there are other municipalities that have. If the municipalities are going to take this on, I think it would be really good if they were to work in conjunction with the minister and also with the Minister of Environment, with those ministries and, as I said, with the Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, to come up with a provincial-wide set of standards and guidelines as to how this can work. Beginning with two municipalities is a very good way to go because you can test things out and there can be learnings from that as well.

The other concern I have - and I am sure the municipalities have that concern as well - is to make sure that the municipalities have access to resources so that they can do direct monitoring and enforcement. Some municipalities might have the resources to be able to do it themselves and other municipalities may not. So I think there is a role for the Province with regard to access to resources as well. I think the Province has to be involved with municipalities, both in coming up with the guidelines and coming up with the regulations and standards that are required. They also have to be involved with them in setting the protocols for monitoring and enforcement so that we have Province-wide standards. Then, as I said, I think we also need the Province to be there to have funding to help municipalities when and as needed, and I think there could be a system worked out that those who need it more than others - the system would be based on need. I mean, there are various ways of doing it. I do not think it can be based on the size, so much, of a municipality, because sometimes a very small municipality may need more money than a per capita system would offer them.

I offer those thoughts to the minister. I see him nodding at what I am saying, so I think he is taking these thoughts seriously, and anything that can be done to move us forward as a Province with regard to waste management - and this is a good step towards that - is something that we will support.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the Opposition House Leader for his comments, and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. I say Quidi Vidi. My relatives are from there. Some say Quida Vida and some say Quidi Vidi. Anyhow, thank you very much for your comments.

I guess today I am not surprised by their comments, to be honest with you, Mr. Speaker, because in today's environment, pardon the pun, but in today's environment, protecting our environment is uppermost, and the most important thing that we as politicians, and we as government, and we as members of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Province, can do is to protect our environment, and this will help ensure that.

Mr. Speaker, if you remember a number of years ago, before the household hazardous waste days came by and people have paint tins, turpentine, other oil based materials, how did they get rid of them? Look at the industry that is there today, to make sure we get rid of that. Look at the education of the environment - of our students, our young people, and people in general today. How much more are we aware of environment issues than we were, say, twenty or twenty-five years ago?

Mr. Speaker, I would say to you that the issue of environment is probably one of the most - the priority list of almost everyone in Canada and in our country because it is probably the one I hear talked about the most.

With regard to municipalities, yes, it will give them the authority to do some periodic checks from different sources, whether residential or commercial, to be able to monitor this a little bit more effectively. Again, I go back and say, well, it started with the St. John's Harbour cleanup, which included Mount Pearl, St. John's and the Town of Paradise, but it is also extending. For example, Corner Brook is looking at a treatment plant for their harbour out there, in terms of that, the Humber Arm. These are some of the things that we are - we put these in place so it does not have to be there.

Again, as I said, this lives up to one of the recommendations when the agreement was signed on the Harbour cleanup, with the federal regulations, so this takes care of that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 15, An Act To Amend The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act And The Municipalities Act, 1999, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act And The Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 15)

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

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act And The Municipalities Act, 1999," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 15)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, and that I do now leave this Chair.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

CHAIR (T. Osborne): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to move Committee consideration of Order 10, Bill 15, An Act To Amend The City Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act And The Municipalities Act, 1999.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 15, An Act To Amend The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act And The Municipalities Act, 1999.

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 and 3.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 and 3 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 and 3 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 City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act And The Municipalities Act, 1999.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill with or without amendment?

MR. RIDEOUT: Without amendment.

CHAIR: All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to move Committee consideration of Order 7, Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act.

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 and 3.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 and 3 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 and 3 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 Forestry 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?

MR. RIDEOUT: Without amendment.

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

CHAIR: Shall I report progress and ask leave to sit again?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bills 15 and 16 passed without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bills 15 and 16 passed without amendment.

On motion, Bills 15 and 16 passed without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said bills be read a third time?

MR. RIDEOUT: Presently, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently, by leave.

On motion, report received and adopted, bills ordered read a third time presently, by leave.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With the consent of the House I would like to move third reading of Bill 10, Order 2 on today's Order Paper, An Act To Repeal The Bulk Sales Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that this bill 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 Repeal The Bulk Sales Act, Bill 10.

MR. SPEAKER: An Act to Repeal The Bulk Sales Act 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 Repeal The Bulk Sales Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 10)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to move third reading of Order 7 on today's Order Paper, third reading of Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Forestry 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 Forestry Act, Bill 16.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 16 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 Forestry 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.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move Order 10 on today's Order Paper, third reading of Bill 15, An Act To Amend The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act And The Municipalities Act, 1999.

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act And The Municipalities Act, 1999," Bill 15.

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act And The Municipalities Act, 1999, 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.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to move Motion 1 on today's Order Paper, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to Consider Certain Resolutions Relating to the Advancing or Guaranteeing of Certain Loans made under the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, Bill 19.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole and that I do now leave the chair.

All those in favor, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

CHAIR (T. Osborne): Order, please!

We are now debating the related resolution and Bill 19, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957.

That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the advance of loans to and the guarantee of the repayment of bonds or debentures issued by or loans advanced to certain corporations.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to stand today on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, to introduce to the House for consideration, and hopefully approval, Bill 19.

Bill 19 is an amendment to the Loan and Guarantee Act. The Loan and Guarantee Act was originally passed by this Legislature back in 1957, so it is not a new piece of legislation, but what happens from time to time is that as the government, as the Cabinet, on behalf of the people of the Province, guarantee certain loans, then the Loan and Guarantee Act has to be amended to reflect legislative approval for those loan guarantees. So, from time to time the Cabinet will approve a bunch of guarantees, for example, related to municipal financing, where municipalities all around the Province will be able to arrange with their banking institutions to raise their share of money for capital improvements, for example. The municipalities' share of that financing is eventually guaranteed by all of the people of the Province through an amendment to the Loan and Guarantee Act here in this Legislature.

From time to time, Mr. Chairman, originally from a directive of Cabinet, the Province will see fit to issue other loan guarantees. It might be loan guarantees in the fishery, for example. It is not something we do a lot of any more. There was time when loan guarantees to fish processors, for example, in this Province, practically every operator - I should not say every one, but certainly a large number of fishing processing companies in this Province - when I was Minister of Fisheries back in the 1980s, would have gone out of existence if there had not been government loan guarantees that would have been issued by the government of the day to support their particular activity. Eventually, those guarantees have to be ratified by the House.

Now, you might ask, what would happen if a guarantee was to go into default and there had not been any legislation passed by the House amending the Loan Guarantee Act of 1957? Well, the act is structured such that, if that eventuality were to come to pass, the government is bound anyway, the government is bound by Order-in-Council, to pay up on the guarantee if the recipient of the guarantee were to slip into default and the financial institution were to make a call on the government.

That is the parameter of the piece of legislation that we are dealing with here today. It is a bill that, from time to time, over the course of decades now, will come before this Legislature for amendment to reflect the work of the government in supporting municipalities in particular, but not limited to municipalities, in supporting other activities, economic activities around the Province in the form of loan guarantees.

I suppose one of the largest loan guarantee pools that we have out there today, outside of municipalities, Mr. Chairman, would be the guarantee provided to fish harvesters to build and purchase fishing vessels, for example. I mean, many of those loan guarantees are now up in the $2 million range and each of them are guaranteed, really, in this kind of a form. There is certain other legislation that we have to enable that to happen, but it is still a guarantee that is provided by the people of the Province to a lending institution on behalf of an investor.

The bill that we are dealing with today, Mr. Chairman, provides guarantees or provides legislative approval or legislative sanction for guarantees that are already in place, as I indicated. These guarantees are outlined in the notes to the bill. I will briefly mention them so that the people of the Province - members of the House know what they are all about, obviously, but anybody in the Province who might be wondering what those guarantees are for, and who are the recipients of the guarantees, what institutions or what individuals are recipients of the guarantees, I will briefly run through them for that purpose.

Clause 1 of the bill would amend the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957 by including the Newfoundland and Labrador Immigrant Investor Fund Limited. Now, the Newfoundland and Labrador Immigrant Investor Fund Limited is a Crown corporation. It is a Crown corporation that was established in April 2005 and the purpose of that Crown corporation was to receive and invest in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador the Province's monthly allocation of funds that were received from participation in the Government of Canada's redesigned Business Immigration Program.

For the benefit of members, the Government of Canada has a Business Immigration Program whereby people who want to immigrate to Canada can do so, on a number of conditions. One of those conditions is a program that they invest so many dollars into certain industries that are eligible for immigrant investor funds in Canada. Those funds are then distributed to the provinces. We get our share of those funds on a monthly basis; however, the repayment of those funds - those funds come into the Province and they can be used, loaned by the government to lenders to invest into tourist development ventures, to invest into economic development activity. I believe some governments use that fund, for example, to build hospitals, clinics, other pieces of public infrastructure, but suffice it to say, for the purpose of this bill, the money that is loaned under this fund has to be guaranteed as to repayment by the Province. Therefore, if the investment goes sour, somebody is left holding the guarantee so that the original investor, the immigrant, is able to receive their funds back, with interest, and that is guaranteed. So the guarantee as to repayment is provided by the Province under the program, and the guarantee that the Province will have outstanding for the fiscal year 2006-2007 as a result of that program is about $18.5 million. It is $18,613,874, to be exact, so that guarantee is included in this piece of legislation that is before the House this afternoon.

Bill 2, Mr. Chairman, again would amend the Schedule to the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957 by extending the $50,000 loan guarantee to the Newfoundland Symphony Orchestra. Now, this guarantee to the Symphony Orchestra runs from March 31, 2007 to August 31, 2010, and it was approved by an Order in Council back in 2008. The extension to this loan guarantee is necessary if the Symphony Orchestra is to have its operating line of credit secured with its bank. Therefore, the Province as part of our – you know, it is a cultural initiative really that this particular institution, who could not secure lending without the Province's participation or without a guarantee in some form, came to the Province and the Province saw fit to issue a guarantee, guaranteeing $50,000. It is not a lot of money in the overall scheme of what the government is involved in on a daily basis, not a lot of money, but it is important to the Newfoundland Symphony Orchestra that they be able to access their operating line of credit so that they can operate on a daily basis and pay their bills as they become due. That is the second clause in the bill, and it deals with that particular guarantee.

Clause 3 of the bill, Mr. Chairman, increases the net provincial exposure on behalf of the Labrador-Grenfell Regional Health Authority, from $9 million to $14 million. Mr. Chairman, members will probably recall that in an Order in Council going back to 2002, the old Labrador Health Corporation had its operating line of credit in place where the Province was guaranteeing any drawdown on that line of credit in excess of $5 million. That guarantee was put in place with no expiry date, and it was ratified by an amendment to this Act that passed through this House in 2004.

We now, of course, have the Labrador-Grenfell Integrated Health Authority, a new authority which assumed, when it was put in place, assumed the original liabilities and the original banking arrangements of the old authority. Consequently, Mr. Chair, in October, 2007 the authority renegotiated its banking arrangements and increased its operating line of credit up to $24 million, with the Province guaranteeing any drawdown in excess of $10 million. The first $10 million is on the health authority's own dime, no guarantee from the Province, but anything in excess of $10 million, up to $24 million, which of course is $14 million, any drawdown on that part would be guaranteed by the Province, and the Province would be on the hook, so to speak, if the authority were to default in any way.

Clause 3 of the bill, Mr. Chair, also would amend the Act to extend the $2.1 million loan guarantee that was issued to Torngat Fish Producers Cooperative, and it would extend it from May 31, 2007 to May 31, 2011. That loan guarantee had been approved by Order in Council back in 2007.

Now, members know, Mr. Chairman, that the Torngat Fish Producers Cooperative is basically a cooperative owned and operated by the Inuit people of Northern Labrador, and in the process it operates fish plants, I know, in Nain and probably Makkovik, certainly those two. It used to operate in all of the Northern communities back a number of years ago, but I believe today it is probably limited primarily to Nain and Makkovik. that cooperative is very, very important to the people of Northern Labrador, in those communities, and it is found that in order to be able to keep operating a loan guarantee is required from the Province.

Mr. Chairman, I should say, in my opening remarks I indicated that it was not uncommon when I was Minister of Fisheries back in the 80's to have loan guarantees outstanding to fish processors in the Province, but it is uncommon today. As far as I know, the only fish processors in the Province today who have loan guarantees from the government are the two cooperatives, the Torngat Fisheries Cooperative in Northern Labrador and the Fogo Island Fisheries Cooperative on Fogo Island. I stand to be corrected, but I do not believe there are any other loan guarantees outstanding in the fishing industry today, other than to those two cooperatives.

The government makes no apology for that, Mr. Chairman. We believe that supporting cooperatives, particularly the fisheries cooperatives, is an important piece of our economic development strategy, and we make no apology for it. In fact, we are delighted to be able to do it. Of course we look forward to the day when it is not necessary any longer for the taxpayer to stand behind a commercial operation like those fisheries cooperatives, but in the interim and until those cooperatives can satisfy their banking institutions that they can stand on their own, then I believe it is reasonable and I believe it is prudent that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, through this Legislature, support those cooperative ventures in the form of a loan guarantee.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know if there are any further detailed questions from any of my colleagues on the other side of the House. If there are, I will certainly be happy to provide whatever information I can in support of this particular legislation. Very likely there will be members on the government side who would like to speak to this legislation as well. Of course, all of us in this House understand that this is in House terms a money bill and while it is money bill that deals with loan guarantees under the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, it is an opportunity if any member wishes, I guess, to raise any issue in general as it relates to the overall finances and the financial administration of the Province.

While we are dealing with an amendment to the Loan and Guarantee Act, while we are dealing with certain aspects of loan guarantees relating to certain business in the Province, it is not beyond the realm of possibility, I suppose, that members, particularly members in the Opposition, may have some other things in their mind that they would want to discuss during the consideration of this bill.

The government will be happy to provide whatever information that is required, whatever information we can provide, but the bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is that this particular bill authorizes, legislatively, approval for loan guarantees that have already been issued by authority of the Cabinet under the appropriate legislation of the Province, but also, as part of that legislation, requires legislative approval by this Legislature during the course of the guarantee.

On behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, I am pleased to be able to give this introduction to the resolution that will be given effect in the form of a bill a little later on once the resolution is passed. I am pleased to be able to put the resolution before the House and request the House's positive consideration of this particular piece of legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased to add some words to the debate today over Bill 19.

I listened very attentively to the minister as he introduced the bill on behalf of his colleague today. Mr. Chairman, I do have some questions around the loan guarantees that are contained within the legislation and the one loan guarantee that speaks to the Newfoundland and Labrador Immigrant Investor Fund Limited. It says it secures the repayment of the total of the monthly allocations received by funding during 2006-2007 fiscal years. I guess my questions are around how this fund is accessed through immigrant investing companies that are in the Province. Is it those that chose to set up and establish in Newfoundland and Labrador and operate here, or is it people who have immigrated to our Province that may see an opportunity for business in other provinces or even other countries and therefore they can use this investment fund to help them establish themselves in that kind of business as well? I would be interested to know if it works in that way or not.

Also, I am wondering if there is an equivalent investment fund that exists as well for people who are residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, non-immigrant individuals who wish to have investments into business. Is there a similar fund within government that allows them to be able to access monies for investment as well, and what the criteria would be in that case as well? Is it just for investments within the Province or is it also for investments outside of the Province in other areas of the country, or even other countries for that matter?

Mr. Chair, I also have some concerns - not necessarily concerns I guess - around the amounts of money that is being signed off here in loan guarantees for the Labrador-Grenfell Health Corporation, but I do have something I would like to add in the way of comments around that. That is this, at some point I think that government has to take some responsibility for the lack of funding that is being provided to Labrador-Grenfell Health Corporation. It is quite obvious from internal studies that have been done by government themselves, as well as external documents, including the analysis and review being done by the Auditor General, that Grenfell-Labrador Health Corporation is one of the health corporations in this Province that has been underfunded in terms of the amounts of monies they require to provide for services as a health corporation. While a loan guarantee allows them to be able to run a line of credit or to borrow the amounts of money they need to keep their corporation going on an annual basis, is this the answer? I would think it is not the answer, and I think government needs to look at the longer term solution for this particular health authority.

We have already raised, in the House of Assembly on several occasions, issues that have primarily been a problem within this heath corporation. A lot of it deals with the delivery of services from a community health perspective, and that is ensuring there are the right complements of social workers, addictions counsellors and support workers within that health care corporation. Quite often they are operating, as we all know, in an area with extreme geographic challenges that poses tremendous costly transportation in order to access the communities they serve. So we all know that this health corporation - it is very unlikely that they could project accurate numbers in terms of what their costs for community based servicing is going to be on an annual basis because they never know how many children they may have to remove from a community, they never know how many cases they may need to have to deal with in terms of addiction services. We also know that some of these communities in that health authority region have the highest suicide rate throughout the country. Therefore, I think they need to be given adequate supports in order to deliver the services that are required of them. So far we have not seen that. Consistently, year over year, we have seen deficits coming forward from this particular health authority. We have seen accumulated debt that extends over a long period of time that has not been responded to by government.

Today I am not opposed to loan guarantees for Labrador-Grenfell Health, or any of the individuals who are listed in this particular bill, but I am concerned that by allowing them to continue to run deficits and larger lines of credit is not the answer to delivering appropriate health care services in that region. Therefore, I would like to ask the government and the minister to start using some of this surplus budget that they have. We all know that government this year will run surpluses of well over $1 billion and there is absolutely no reason why they cannot be adequately sourcing a health authority in this Province that have been documented, both by the Auditor General and by others, of having insufficient resources from a financial perspective to operate and to deliver services from a community heath perspective.

Mr. Chair, I wanted to point that out because I think that needs to be considered. I am sure that government is considering all of these things as they go into a budget process, but I think once the problem is pointed out on a continuous basis, at some point it needs to be dealt with. I say that because of issues that we have raised. Most of these issues - again, I will stress - have been around community health but a lot of them have been around delivering health care in a unique area of the Province, where quite often there are services that are required to be delivered in the Labrador region, in particular, that are often not necessary or the same requirements or demands are not placed upon them in other health authority regions.

I look at things like the transportation costs, where a lot of patients have to be transported by air medevac, not road ambulance. We all know that air medevac costs substantially higher than road ambulance fees. Therefore, in cases where patients are going to clinics all along the North and South Coast of Labrador they are often going to be required, in any kind of an emergency situation or any kind of situation that requires further testing or diagnosis of a doctor, that they will have to be airlifted to the nearest hospital, which would either be in St. Anthony or Happy Valley-Goose Bay in most cases. Those are costs that most other health boards in the Province do not necessarily have to deal with at the same rate and the same level. So, there are unique situations that exist within this board and I think it would be good rationale by government to certainly look at other ways in which they can help this board balance its books and continue with the delivery of service to the people of that area, and be able to do it without compromising their long-term debt situation. Right now it is being done and the service is probably being met, but it is being met with a larger debt being accumulated and I do not think that is the right approach.

Mr. Chair, the other issue this bill addresses is the issue around the loan guarantee for Torngat Fish Producers. I think everyone in this House of Assembly who is familiar with this company, which is a co-operative company that has been formed by the Inuit people which extends over a long period of time, will realize as well that without loan guarantees like this they would not have been able to diversify the nature of the fishing industry on the north coast of Labrador and probably would not exist today without that kind of guaranteed support from government. Those who do not realize this only have to look at the tremendous obstacles that any company faces that works in the north, and especially one that is marginalized in its profits like Torngat Fish Producers would be. They will find that any company which operates in communities like Torngat fisheries does, that each and every day they do not have the luxury of just sticking their fish on a transport truck and having it sent directly to markets. They have to deal with the fundamental processing that is required and storage that is required for a period of time before it can be transported, first by containerized shipping and then by road to the market that it needs to get to. So this not only poses challenges for a company, but it poses a great deal more expense for them than other companies are often faced with.

Torngat Fish Producers which would normally operate today, I think, in the communities of Makkovik and Nain, is where their main bases of operation would be, has become major contributors to employment of the Inuit people on the north coast, and not only through their harvesting of fish but also through the production of fish in their plants. They have a very successful crab production plant in Makkovik. In fact, I guess they are happy this year to see that their quota actually increased for crab on the North Coast of Labrador. So they will be harvesting a little more crab resource this year than they did last year. Of course, in the southern end of 2J in my own district, there was also a marginal increase in crab this year, which are all good signs that the resource is stabilizing, because for a long time we have had reductions in quotas in those areas, I think probably consistently for a period of eight to ten years. It is now comforting to see that there is actually some regeneration and re-growth in the industry to a point that not only has it stabilized, but you can actually see some increases in those quotas.

Torngat Fisheries has contributed to the employment needs of the Inuit people in Nunatsiavut, and they will continue to do so. If a loan guarantee is required for a company like that to operate, well, I am all for it. I think government is doing the right thing in providing that kind of resource to a company like this which operates in a very challenging environment.

I went through it, as well, in my own district when the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company, I think back when the current Minister of Fisheries was the Minister of Fisheries in the late 1980s - I think he probably would have been the minister at the time who would have also signed off on loan guarantees for the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company at the time who were just getting started on the South Coast of Labrador in setting up their first fish processing plants; in places like L'Anse-au-Loup and Mary's Harbour at the time. What we have seen from that company, because they have had the support of government when they needed it, because they had good leaders and good management in their company over the years, they have grown the company to be very independent and self-sufficient. They have able to expand to have processing facilities in Charlottetown and Cartwright, and Pinsent Arm and Mary's Harbour and L'Anse-au-Loup over the years, and all very viable operations that are processing everything from crab and shrimp and scallop, to all kinds of groundfish. As a result, Mr. Chairman, they have been able to contribute massively to the employment needs of people in that particular area. Whenever you have companies like this that are prepared to invest and set up for the long term and to ensure that there are going to be benefits that are accruing to the people in that local area, obviously if they need some support from government to be able to meet their financial obligations, as long as they are delivering on their end of the deal I don't see anything problematic with that, and we would certainly support it.

Mr. Chairman, in talking, I guess, about the fishery I should talk for a few minutes about the sealing industry that is ongoing today. I was pleased to see the Minister of Fisheries today make the statement that he did in the House of Assembly, because sometimes I wonder if maybe we are too silent when it comes to the seal hunt and the sealing industry. The fact that government had a representation at the European Union to voice the concerns of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and indeed Canadians as it refers to the policy of the European Union on the importing of seal products, I think is very key and very important.

I know that the minister knows this. In fact, I had the opportunity to run into him when he was speaking at a protest downtown a few weeks ago on George Street. It was a beautiful sunny Saturday afternoon, the snow was melting, and it was good to see the people in this Province out supporting the sealers and the seal hunt in Newfoundland and Labrador. To have so many different speakers there that day, speakers from government, as I said the minister, but also speakers who work in the industry themselves, who are advocates for the fisher people who are involved, to listen to people who have businesses around the sealing industry, whether it is producing the fur or whether it is producing the seal oil capsules, to see those people out there in solidarity, it was good to see and it certainly made me feel proud as a resident of this Province.

Of course, I had an opportunity later in the day to say a few words as well, just to voice the views of my constituents in terms of where we have been with the seal hunt. It has been, I think, an industry that has not only been a source of pride and a source of income for all of our families but it has been one of the ones that we have probably had to fight the hardest in order to try and uphold the integrity and the credibility that that industry deserves and has often not received.

CHAIR (Collins): Order, please!

I would like to remind the hon. member that her speaking time has expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will certainly reserve further comments on the bill to a later date.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: You have leave, if you wish to carry on.

MS JONES: Thank you.

Since I have leave, I will carry on and just finish my comments.

Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, it was only back, I think, last year or the year before when we ran into some first-hand experience of what it was like to deal with anti-sealing groups in this particular industry, and it was at a time when the activists were scouring the shores by helicopters and taking flight over sealing vessels and seal hunters who were on the ice right along the Coast of Labrador and down through the Coast of the Quebec Shore.

I remember at that time when these helicopters wanted to land, and they wanted to park their helicopters in communities throughout my district and let their camera crews off and send them out to the ice, and things like this.

Mr. Chairman, I realize the unrest and the torment that was caused in the communities with local people, because they are very friendly and very welcoming people, and they were not at all pleased that someone would be coming to cause them harm, to affect their livelihood. They were not taking kindly to the presence of these individuals and they very kindly asked them to leave and come back when their mission and their intent was of a better nature than the one that they had on that particular day.

Mr. Chairman, that was hard for these people to do simply because, by nature, they are welcoming individuals, but they were not prepared to welcome people who wanted to intentionally do harm to their families and to affect the livelihood that they were providing for their children. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, they were bound to take a stand and they did ask them to leave.

Mr. Chairman, I remember last year when I was down on the Quebec Shore, actually down in Blanc Sablon, and at that time there were a number of representatives from the anti-sealing movement who were in Blanc Sablon. They had checked into a facility there, and they were going out to monitor the hunt. I remember joining in a rally and a protest with the fisherpeople from the Quebec Shore, the hunters, and the hunters from my own district, and their families, to send a message that they were not welcome.

Despite the best efforts of our people to extend to the anti-sealing groups the impact that they are having on our livelihoods, and how they are affecting this industry in our Province, they have not been listening and they have not been tolerant to the civilized espousal of our position around the industry. That is unfortunate, because that tells you something about the nature of the people you are dealing with. It tells you that they have little regard for other human beings and they have little regard for those who have to toil day after day to earn a living in communities that make up the isolated coastlines of our country.

Mr. Chairman, I think the most telling comments in regard to the animal rights activists and the Sea Sheppard Society were the comments made by Paul Watson just recently when he was referring to the families and the individuals of those who had been tragically killed, from the Magdalen Islands, in their actions of trying to pursue a livelihood in the sealing industry. I think it was not only uncompassionate and inconsiderate but it was remarkably inhuman of any individual to make such comments, and to make them in such a public and such an uncaring way as this individual did. I guess all of those things have given us some insight into the kind of individuals we are dealing with, and most recently the incidents of where they obstructed hunters and vessels at sea that were participating in the sealing hunt.

I have to commend Loyola Hearn, as the federal Minister of Fisheries, for taking some action here. We have been a long time asking the federal government to do due diligence in terms of monitoring what has been going on out there in the seal hunt year after year, and to take the actions that are required, and I am pleased to see that, as the minister responsible for this in the country, he has finally moved forward to do that and to bring to bear the court system on those people whose actions have been illegal and inappropriate. Therefore, they should be accountable to the laws that are set in our country. There should never be exceptions to the law, no matter who you are dealing with, and these people should certainly be no exception as well.

Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my comments there. I am sure there are other people who would like to participate in the debate.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Business.

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to stand today and have an opportunity to speak on Bill 19, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957.

Sometimes, you know, we look at loans and think they are a negative thing. In fact, I was sitting there thinking about what I would talk about today in terms of this bill. I remember my good friend from across the way who used to sit over there, probably where the Member for Conception Bay South is sitting now, Anna Thistle. She used to speak and say: You know, this is a money bill, and when there is a money bill we can talk about anything. It doesn't matter; we can debate and talk about anything when there is a money bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: And she did, too!

MR. ORAM: And she did, too, as my hon. colleague says here. She certainly did. She managed to have lots of latitude in talking about any type of money bill. In fact, I remember, Mr. Chair, it was that very member who spoke, I think, seventeen hours on the Budget debate, broke a record. I do not think anybody will be able to break that record ever again, because I think after that painful few days we changed the legislation so we would not have to go through that any more, Mr. Chair.

In all honesty, it is good to talk about anything that is positive for any industry, any person in Newfoundland and Labrador. The fact is that certain businesses, co-operatives, and certainly all businesses for that matter, need to be able to borrow money. You need to be able to get money so you can invest and you can do things within your business that need to be done to actually build a business and build your profit margins. Again, this is no different.

I was reminded of another story, before I get into what I wanted to talk about. I remember when I was young – I say young, but when I was twenty, which was a few years ago – and just getting on my feet. I remember wanting to go out and buy a new car. I felt that I should go out, probably, and borrow the money to buy a new car. There was nothing wrong with that, because most of my friends borrowed money. In fact, everybody I knew around, they would borrow money to buy a vehicle or buy a house, those sorts of things. My father-in-law, at that time, could not believe that I was going to go out and get a loan. He found it very strange. He said: Do you know what? I have been on this earth for sixty years and I have never, ever, gotten a loan. I have always paid for everything in cash.

That is a wonderful thing to be able to say, but not everybody can do that, I say, Mr. Chair. In fact, not every business can do that. If you can do that, that is good and that is commendable, but the fact, as I said, is that not everyone can do it.

When we look at what guaranteeing loans to such people as the Torngat Co-Op for fish processing, how important that is to that particular company, I realize today that this is important, that government step up to the plate and provide guarantees so that these companies can grow.

I listened to the Leader of the Opposition for a while, and generally I agree with everything she said, but she did make one statement. She said: I don't think government is actually going about using the right strategy here. They are not actually doing the right thing here.

That is fine. Maybe there are other ways of doing this, but when I started to think about this I thought, without the support – and she did allude to this afterwards, I wasn't sure of where it was going – of loan guarantees, I say, Mr. Chair, this company probably would not be able to exist. This co-operative would probably not be able to exist, but today –

MS JONES: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to clarify that the minister has taken my comment out of context. When I talked about the issue of whether the loan guarantee was appropriate or not, it was in reference to Labrador-Grenfell Health only and whether government should be providing money to fund this health care corporation as opposed to letting it go further in debt. I would like to clarify that for the record.

CHAIR: A point of clarification. There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Business.

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do apologize, because I did understand it differently than that. Having said that, I still think that government should provide money for health care authorities as well. In fact, now that you mentioned it, I did sit on a health board for a while, and while on that health board there were times when we did have to borrow money. We had to have money in order to be able to do what we needed to do in health care. The fact is, you do not always borrow money because you are not going to get the money or because the money will never come. Cash flow is a very important part of borrowing money.

Mr. Chair, when we look at even the health care authorities who need money today to continue their programs, then it is a very normal thing to do, to go out and borrow money, and you need government to guarantee those particular monies that you need to borrow.

Mr. Chair, even though I may have taken what the hon. member said out of context, the fact is I can't agree with her on that issue either, which is probably a huge surprise here today.

Having said that, I want to go back to the fish processing business. If you look at what the fish processors have to do, in Labrador more specifically - and I have to say I am no authority on Labrador, I do not pretend to be an authority on Labrador, but my good friend and colleague here, the Member for Lake Melville, has educated me a lot in terms of what Labrador is all about, what challenges people face in Labrador. I have gone to Labrador several times and I have talked to several people in Labrador about their challenges.

If you just look at one thing in particular, and that is transportation, transportation is a huge issue for Labrador. You can process fish in the Town of Glovertown or you can process fish in the Town of Bonavista or you can process fish in the Town of Dover, all those particular places, and the challenges are not the same in those particular communities as you would face in Labrador, I say, Mr. Chair. Just trying to get the fish from point A to point B can sometimes be a huge challenge. Government recognizes that and this government has said time and time again, whatever it needs to do to support the people of Labrador, whatever it needs to do to support industry in Labrador, that is what we are all about. We will do whatever it takes, Mr. Chair, to ensure that this co-op, along with other co-ops, will continue to work, will continue to provide work, will continue to find a way to ship their products and will continue to find a way to diversify their plants and to find more species. That does not come easy.

In fact, Mr. Chair, whatever business you may be involved it takes cash. You need to spend money to make money. A lot of times we don't actually see that, but the fact is that I have talked to a lot of fish processors around this Province and a lot of fish processors are telling me that it is very, very, very difficult to raise capital; and not only fish processors. I go to a lot of business people, obviously, because being the Minister of Business I get calls all the time on trying to find ways to raise capital, to increase someone's business, to build the business more, to start a new business – and the fact is that a lot of these chartered banks are certainly not very business friendly at times. I heard one fellow say, in order to get a loan you have to give away your first born.

I say, Mr. Chair, the fact is that government sometimes sees the need to step in. In fact, in my own department we have different funds available for businesses, and my department, of course, primarily deals with inward investments, so companies from outside the Province come in. Time after time you will see that we have programs within government to help business. We have programs to provide money to business, we have programs to provide loans, we have programs to provide grants, and this is no different, Mr. Chair. We do what we have to do to ensure that businesses, to ensure that people, continue to work.

As I said, in a perfect world, in a world where you do not need to borrow, then that is fine, you would not need this bill. We could throw this bill out and say, we do not need Bill 19. But the fact is that we live in a real world where people have to borrow money. Everyday people have to borrow money. People have to try to find means and ways to raise cash, to be able to continue on, to be able to build their business, to be able to build even their own households. Can you imagine, Mr. Chair, if you were to go out tomorrow to buy a house – let's just say you are a young person just getting out of post-secondary education and you have student loans that are sometimes as much as $30,000 and $40,000 and $50,000, I say, Mr. Chair, and you get out of that educational institution and right away the first thing you need to do is you have to find a means of transportation to get from your home to the place where you are going to go to work. That is the first thing you have to do. Right away you are $30,000 or $40,000 in debt from your student loans, and now you have to find a way to buy that particular vehicle. Not only that, but in order to get a home to live in you have to try to find $200,000 to buy a particular house. How do you do this without having to go out and borrow money?

A lot of people find themselves in the situation where they do not have the cash to be able to buy a house, they do not have the cash to be able to buy a vehicle, so therefore they have to depend on going out and getting loans. What happens a lot of times, Mr. Chair - I remember this, I remember back in 1985 or probably 1984, when I bought my first vehicle. I remember going to the bank to get a loan to buy my car. I will tell you what it was. It was a Daytona Turbo Z – dreamcar! It was what I always wanted. I went out there, I say, Mr. Chair, as funny as it may seem, I went out to the bank – I will not say what bank – but I went to a particular bank and went in to see the bank manager, and I said, I need loan, I have to get a loan, I need to borrow $20,000 to buy this particular dreamcar that I want. The bank said, okay, no problem, what do you have for collateral? I said, well, that could create a bit of a problem. I do have a stereo and I think that was pretty well it that I had at the time and they did not accept that for a $20,000 loan. They said to me, who can you get to come in and guarantee this loan? I said, boy, I am not sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mother.

MR. ORAM: My hon. colleague says mother, but, no, it was not mother.

Who can you get to guarantee? How can the bank be sure that you are actually going to repay this money? We do not know what your credit history is. We do not know if you are actually going to pay this money back. I remember going back to the house saying, boy, I really want that vehicle but I do not have the money right now, I have to get somebody to guarantee that loan. In order for me to get my hands on that vehicle, in order for me to sit behind that steering wheel, I have to get somebody to guarantee that loan. I remember picking up the phone and phoning my grandfather. I could usually con him into doing thing for me. So I called my grandfather and I said, I was to the bank and I need to get a loan for a car and I was wondering if you would, and I think the word was, co-sign the loan or guarantee the loan? Without hesitation, Mr. Chair, he said, certainly, not a problem. I will come to the bank and I will sign that paper for you and I will guarantee that loan. In other words, if you do not pay it back then I will pay the money for you. I say, Mr. Chair, he must have had a lot of faith in me because we walked down to the bank, and how things changed. When he walked into the bank with me and sat down and said that he would guarantee that particular loan, all of a sudden I saw papers going, there was no problem at all, and when we walked out of that bank that day I walked out with that check to be able to buy that car.

I am trying to tie this together, I suppose, to use an example, but as I said before because this is a money bill I can do what the member used to do from across the way. The fact is that-

CHAIR: Order, please!

I like to remind the hon. member that his speaking time has expired.

MR. ORAM: Just to clue up and make my point?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

CHAIR: Leave is granted.

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You know, in the same way that I had my grandfather guarantee my car loan, government guarantees loans for certain co-ops and for different things and different people and different places that need to have the funds to operate and to be able to continue on in their business.

I am very pleased to say that I certainly support Bill 19. I realize how important it is and I am sure that if not everyone in this House, most everyone in this House, realizes how important it is that government step up to the plate and support business and support whatever we have to support to grow our economy.

Thank you, Mr. Chair..

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: On a point of order, Mr. Chair..

CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MS JONES: I asked questions on Bill 19 as it related to the Immigrant Investment Fund and I would like to give the minister leave to answer those questions, please.

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

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

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 19, a bill to amend the schedule to the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957.

As the House Leader said, a money act gives us an opportunity to talk about anything we want to talk about. In actual fact, I do not have to go too far away from the script of this bill to speak to some issues that I am aware of and concerned about. We have a variety of loans here, one actually totally different from the other. The first one, in particular, I would like to speak to and have a couple of questions about as well, which I hope the House Leader will speak to when the time comes.

Like the Leader of the Opposition, I have concerns about the Immigrant Investment Fund, not that I do not think we should have money that goes out to immigrants who come here, but what I am not sure about - I do not have a lot of information about this fund and I am hoping the House Leader will be able to give us some before we vote on this bill. I would like to know, is this fund used as an incentive to bring immigrants in or is this fund used once immigrants are here? Then when we do give these loans to investments, are theses loans for business projects that are going to happen here in this Province or are they for business projects that could happen anywhere in Canada? We have to make sure that, number one, if we are going to have this Crown corporation, which we do have since April of 2005, that if we do have this Crown corporation and if we are going to invest money into immigrant businesses, businesses that are started and run by immigrant people, then we need to make sure that it is also benefiting us. I, too, would like to know, is this money going to immigrants who do the investments here in this Province? That is very important for me to know, because I really do not know.

I would like to speak a bit to the notion of this kind of a fund as an incentive to get immigrants to come. Now, I do not know if that is the goal of our Province. I do know that the federal government is big on business immigration in order to get immigrant entrepreneurs to come to Canada, but there are various ways to define an entrepreneur. We have a situation here in this Province that still bothers me. We have immigrants who are living in sanctuary. One of those, for example, is Alexi Kolosov who has been at the West End Baptist Church now for a number of years, and he is still there. That kind of situation is something that should really bother us because Alexi Kolosov was a full member of our society here in Newfoundland and Labrador. He had a trade. He worked at his trade. He became a grandfather here in Newfoundland and Labrador. His grandchildren are here. Because of a quirk of our immigration laws, this man has ended up in sanctuary. Now, I just sent a message to find out what his situation is. He is still in sanctuary, but it turns out that he is eligible for a new humanitarian appeal in which his case will be looked at again. Now that is really good and that is coming after years of being in sanctuary, but I would like to know where our government is in supporting the cause of an Alexi Kolosov. It is just as important to support an Alexi Kolosov as it is to support an immigrant who is here without any problems, without any restrictions. So I would like to see our government look into what it can do when we have these kinds of situations.

As I said, Alexi Kolosov operated out of his trade. He has a wonderful ability in working with wood, working with his hands, is skilled in his trade and was making a living. For the last several years he has had to put all of that on hold because of a quirk in our immigration laws. So I do not think it is too late. We know he is going to be able to do another appeal on humanitarian grounds and I hope that would work. I would like to think that our government and our department which deals with immigration issues, HRLE, would be there to support an Alexi Kolosov and to assure that Alexi Kolosov can continue living here, can come out of sanctuary and become a full member of our society again in this Province, because that is what we need.

It is the same way with the Portnoys. Right now, down in Marystown, Ms Portnoy and her children are still living in sanctuary down there. Now we know that Mr. Portnoy actually was sent out of the country, but his wife and children are still here because they were not outside of sanctuary when he was apprehended by the RCMP and was sent out of Canada. The same way with the Portnoys, they had a business. They were running a business. I think it was a pizza parlour that they had down in Marystown. Again, there was a quirk with our immigration laws that caused Mr. Portnoy to have to be sent outside of Canada. I am not saying these are not things that have to be worked through. What I am saying is there is something wrong with a system that has a woman and I think her four or five children - I think it is five now - down in sanctuary in a church basement in Marystown.

If our government can work hand in hand with the federal government on something like the Immigrant Investor Fund, I would like to see provinces being able to work a bit more hand in hand with the federal government. I am not saying it is the Province's fault that we cannot do that. I am saying that the Province should be saying to the federal government that when there are issues like this, the provincial government should have more input into helping immigrant people who are in their province. Because of the nature of Quebec - Quebec, of course, does have a fair bit of control over their immigrant laws, but there is a case for there being more co-operation between the federal government and provincial bodies. I think it is quite distressing that the federal government, Immigration Canada, behave so much unilaterally and does not get itself involved with federal governments when it comes to what is happening to immigrants within provincial jurisdictions.

I am really happy to be able to use the moment of Bill 19 to once again speak to these issues. I think maybe a year ago I may have raised them at one point. I really would encourage the Minister of HRLE, who holds the responsibility for immigration, to consider what I am saying with regard to looking at how a province can more directly influence Immigration Canada with regard to particular cases. There is something systemically wrong when we get people who have been active members of the community, who have had children born in the community, who have their roots down in the community and they have to go into a situation where they have to be thrown outside of the country - because this is what would have happened to these people - and then reapply again to try to get into a country where they have lived for maybe five, ten and even more years. That is happening throughout Canada. It is not just happening here but it is something that, as a Province, we should be concerned about, that our federal laws do not take into consideration that when somebody has been in a place in Canada for a period of time and has really become rooted in the community, that that should become the overriding thing which gets looked at. We get all tied up in a lot of red tape in this country around immigrants.

It is good that we take part in the Business Immigration Program. I am not against it, and I am not against the amendment here with regard to the guarantee of $18 million-plus, but I use this opportunity to encourage our government to speak to the federal government with regard to federal-provincial relationships around immigration issues and, while we worry and are concerned about business immigrants, that we not put all of our money in that one basket and that we deal with other issues that immigrants have to face.

The other thing that I would like to – well, I will just mention this because it is nice to mention. I am really glad to see loan guarantees for the Newfoundland and Labrador Symphony, because the Symphony plays a very particular role in Newfoundland and Labrador. It just does not bring wonderful music to people who get to go to them and see their concerts. It just does not do that. It does that, and it does it very well, and I am quite pleased that sometimes I get to sing with it as a member of the Philharmonic Choir. So, as a person who is involved in culture and arts myself, I am really glad to see that the Symphony actually does get a loan guarantee from the Province, but the Symphony is also a training ground for kids from all over the Province who are in our music school. These young musicians, at different points in the year - not all the time, but at different points in the year - get to play with the Symphony, and they cut their teeth with the Symphony as musicians who are in our music school. So, the loan guarantee for the Symphony is not just helping a handful of professional musicians, which we are doing, but it is also really helping the development of the younger classical musicians in Newfoundland and Labrador; and, while the Symphony is located in St. John's, the students who get to be trained in the Symphony and get to be mentored in the Symphony come from all over the Province, so it is very good that we are doing this.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would like to remind the hon. member that her speaking time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MS MICHAEL: I have leave, and I will take a few more minutes if that is okay.

CHAIR: By leave.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

I won't do everything that I want to say on the next point but I do want to mention it, and that has to do with Labrador, the Labrador-Grenfell Regional Integrated Health Authority. I want to use the opportunity to talk about some of the things that were said to me when I was in Labrador this past weekend.

I have, over the last twenty-five years, visited Labrador quite often. While I am not from Labrador and I do not profess to speak for people from Labrador, at the same time, in my role as leader of a party, I have gone to Labrador quite frequently since I have become elected. As I said, I have a history of connection with Labrador and have spent many times going back and forth to Labrador over the past twenty or twenty-five years.

On this trip, I experienced the conundrum of what is going on in Labrador West right now, and that is the conundrum of an area of the Province that is growing rapidly because of the new developments at IOC but has a lot of problems developing because of that growth. We do have to speak about it.

I was only there two days, this time, but everywhere I went people would come up to me and would talk about issues that were concerning them, and there were a number that were, I think, very serious to the people who spoke to me. I will not go into detail but I want to name them.

One which I want to speak a bit about is the affordable housing issue, and it is a major issue. I had a couple who came to me and the man said – actually, they were on the plane with me. They spoke to me in the airport. He was actually born in Labrador West. He does not live there now. He was there visiting his mom, and he described her living situation. She is a widow now and, in the apartment that she is in, in the building that apartment is in, there is mould all over the place. He said to her: Mom, we have to get you moved out. You have to go somewhere else. She said: Well, I can't. First of all, there is no place to move - because they have a real zero level when it comes to vacancies – and, secondly, she said, at least here my rent is affordable, and the way things are going now there aren't affordable places to go to even if there was a vacancy.

I have heard that story many times and I met with the co-ordinator of the Women's Centre, as I usually try to do, and she told me how it is getting more and more serious for women, the lack of affordable housing.

We know that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing sold quite a number of units up in Labrador West a few years ago, when they were selling off property, and there are places in this Province where it made sense to sell off the property - I have no problem with them doing that; there were places where there were Newfoundland and Labrador units that just were not being used because there were not people to go into them - but I have to think it was a bit short-sighted to have done that in Labrador West, and it is very troublesome to know that there were units there that people could have been living in.

I really encourage this government to put pressure – well, I don't want to put pressure on. I think there has to be discussion between this government and Newfoundland and Labrador Housing about what can be done about getting them involved in a bigger way in Labrador West with regard to the lack of affordable housing, because the needs up there are not five or ten units.

The way in which the market has gone crazy, both in terms of houses as well as rental units up there, is bad. It is not of the same magnitude as what we hear on the radio in Fort McMurray, but it is of the same order. It is really quite frightening, what is happening to housing: people, for example, renting rooms in a trailer, or mobile home, and each room being rented for over $500 a month in a mobile home. Now, we all know the size of the rooms in mobile homes, so we do have a serious situation.

I have heard some say: Oh, no, it isn't serious; we have all this building going on. The building does not mean anything. I went up to Wabush yesterday and I saw all the new lovely houses being built in Wabush. There are some people who can afford those. Those who are going to get a job in the mines probably can; but, the thing is, the women that the Women's Centre is dealing with cannot. They cannot go there. This widow, whose son was taking to me at the airport yesterday, she cannot go up and there and buy a house for $300,000 or $250,000 – that is the order of some of them that are being built – she cannot go there.

So we do have a serious affordable housing situation, lack of affordable housing, in Labrador West, and I am happy to be able to get the opportunity today to bring that to the floor. I won't go into any detail about the lack of hardtop on the Trans-Labrador Highway. I won't go into detail about the hospital that was promised, and now we don't even know where it is going to happen. I won't go into any more details about that, since my time was up and I will not abuse the leave that was given me, but I am happy to have been able to make the point about the affordable housing.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do not know if I will be able to respond to everything raised by my colleagues, particularly colleagues in the Opposition, but let me first of all say the guarantee that is part of this loan guarantee bill as it relates to the Immigrant Investor Fund Limited is related to the Government of Canada, the national immigrant investor fund. It is a Crown corporation, yes, set up in Newfoundland and Labrador to receive immigrant investor funds from immigrants who come to Canada. They come to Canada and in order to be able to get into Canada to get up on the queue, to get up on the list, they have to pay a certain amount of money. It is a federal program. That money goes to the federal treasury and is apportioned across Canada to the various Provinces of Canada to use – and there are guidelines on it – for investment into certain infrastructure or economic development opportunities or whatever. The provinces, all of the provinces, that receive their proportionate share from that fund provide a guarantee so that the federal government, at the end of five years, can repay the immigrant who invested in it.

There is no requirement that those investors live in the province where they are investing. There is no requirement under the federal fund that an immigrant from Hong Kong, paying under that fund, has to live in Newfoundland and Labrador. The requirement is that they have to immigrate and live in Canada. Canada then apportions that fund proportionately to the provinces and we get our share.

My colleague here, who was minister - the fund is administered by INTRD on behalf of the Province - tells me, that is the way the program works.

We have another program that deals with immigrant investors, a provincial program. There is a requirement under that program that those investors have to be residents and live in Newfoundland and Labrador, but that is not the program we are dealing with here. This program here is solely a program that receives, on behalf of the provinces, our share of the Immigrant Investor Fund that comes to Canada as a result of investors paying to immigrate to Canada. We get our share of that fund and the immigrants can live anywhere in the country.

I know my colleague for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, in particular, raised the case of certain individuals that have run into immigration problems as individuals, as families. Many of us, our hearts go out to them. As a matter of fact, the Premier, on behalf of the government, as leader of the government, back a few years ago - it may well have been before the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi came into the House, but I remember when the Portnoy situation was in the news everyday in particular. I remember the Premier and the then Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs making a plea to the Government of Canada on behalf of the Portnoys, their children, and at that time unborn children, to relax where possible the immigration act and allow those people to stay in our country, and in this case in our Province.

We have, as a Province, made representation to the federal government, but I have to say, and I think it is obvious, that the federal government in most cases is not prepared to give a centimetre in terms of immigration and the immigration act. We have, from time to time, made the representation but obviously not with a great deal of success I am sorry to say. I can only report the facts as they exist.

My colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, also talked about our support for the sealing industry and the fishing industry in Northern Labrador. Those matters, I think, certainly the support for Torngat Co-op, I spoke about and will continue to do that as a government and we should. We obviously support the sealing industry in every way we can as I indicated in my remarks, in a statement that I made earlier today.

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that covers generally the questions that were raised by my colleagues and we will see where it goes from there.

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible).

[Technical difficulties]

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957." (Bill 19)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 and 3.

CHAIR: Clauses 2 and 3.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 and 3 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 Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

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): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's and Acting Deputy Speaker.

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of Ways and Means reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

When shall this report be received?

MR. RIDEOUT: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that the resolution be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this resolution be now read a first time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the advance of loans to and the guarantee of the repayment of bonds or debentures issued by or loans advanced to certain corporations.

On motion, resolution read a first time.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader that the resolution now be read a second time.

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

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: Second reading of the resolution.

On motion, resolution read a second time.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 19)

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

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957, Bill 19, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce Bill 19 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 19)

Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957," carried. (Bill 19)

On motion, Bill 19 read a first time.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that Bill 19 now be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 19 be now read a second time.

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

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 Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 19)

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957," read a second time. (Bill 19)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that Bill 19 now be read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 19 be now read a third time.

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 19)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill 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 Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957," 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.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

I thank members for their participation in the legislative agenda this afternoon. That concludes the work that we would like to do today.

Therefore, I move that the House on its rising do adjourn until Tomorrow, Tuesday at 1:30 and that this House now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do now adjourn.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

This House is now adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow, being Tuesday.

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