March 22, 2012                        HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS              Vol. XLVII No. 12


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

I am very pleased today to welcome to the Speaker's gallery, a former member of this House and currently the Member of Parliament for the riding of St. John's East, Mr. Jack Harris.

Welcome, Sir, back to our galleries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I thought by now he would have been long gone to Toronto. Welcome, Sir; I hope you enjoy the Assembly proceedings this afternoon, and you will note that they probably have not changed much since you left.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we will have members' statements from: the hon. the Premier; the Member for the District of Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi; the Member for the District of The Straits – White Bay North; the Member for the District of St. John's Centre; the Member for the District of Terra Nova; and the Member for the District of Burgeo – La Poile.

The hon. the Premier; I understand she has leave for the member's statement today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in this House today to recognize the extraordinary efforts of a school community in my district. The students, teachers, and parents of Roncalli Elementary School in Airport Heights demonstrated community-minded compassion and commitment to others with their fundraising results for the Canadian Cancer Society's Shave for the Brave.

On Monday, March 19, Roncalli Elementary hosted its first Shave for the Brave and it was an outstanding success. Mr. Speaker, forty-eight people participated in the shave, including forty-three students, two teachers and three parents, raising over $24,000.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: That amount raised, Mr. Speaker, makes Roncalli Elementary the leading school for money raised by schools all across Canada participating in this year's Shave for the Brave.

To introduce the idea of holding a Shave for the Brave, each grade level was read a children's book based on a true story of a little girl named Alex, who, when faced with cancer decided to help herself and others by setting up a lemonade stand to raise money for her local hospital. This young girl's courage was contagious and now there is a foundation set up in her name with over $1 million raised!

On the day of the Shave at Roncalli Elementary, they held their own lemonade stand with all proceeds going to Young Adult Cancer Canada (YACC), an organization supporting people aged fifteen to thirty-nine facing cancer challenges. Mr. Speaker, from the lemonade stand alone, $584 was raised with Kindergarten to Grade 6 students donating their spare change for a cup of lemonade.

A very special seven-year-old that I know – my own grandson, Jack – will participate in the Shave for the Brave on Monday in memory of his poppa.

Mr. Speaker, with this example of caring for and giving to others in compassion and human kindness I am uplifted, encouraged and inspired once again by the children of this wonderful Province. I know our future is secure, not just because of our natural resources and our good governance but because of people these children are and the adults they will become.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating all members of the Roncalli Elementary community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, I experienced a fine night of entertainment at the LSPU Hall on Victoria Street in St. John's – part of my constituency, of course. I cannot tell you how many such nights I have enjoyed over the years.

Since 1975, The Hall, as it is fondly known, has been home to the Resource Centre for the Arts. RCA received the Southcott Award in 1984 for its preservation of The Hall. As you might expect in a building that was built in 1922 – and indeed, parts of its foundation date back to the original 1789 building – there has been continuous upkeep. A major two-year renovation saw The Hall emerge in 2010 newly refurbished and even better suited to meet the needs of St. John's performers and audiences. I am happy to say The Hall now is fully accessible.

Mr. Speaker, there is hardly an artist in the Province who does not credit RCA and the LSPU Hall with some of his or her success. I will not begin listing all the artists who have performed there because we could be here all day celebrating them.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating RCA on almost fifty years of nurturing the artistic community of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the volunteers of my district who keep our homes and businesses safe.

I commend the members of The Straits Fire Department for the commitment they have shown to firefighting and search and rescue. Like volunteer fire departments everywhere in the Province, the people at The Straits Fire Department never know when they are called upon to risk their lives to save other people.

Their thirty-two active members are a committed team that, although they are volunteers, maintain a professional attitude about all the work that they do, including ongoing training. Of course I could not commend the firefighters without also paying credit to groups like the Flower's Cove Lioness Club, who work to raise money for the essential gear and other supplies used for lifesaving volunteer work.

The Straits Regional Fire Department takes a regional approach to serving its thirteen communities, operating under the Northern Peninsula Regional Services Board.

Mr. Speaker, I ask hon. members to join me in congratulating The Straits Volunteer Fire Department and other community organizations that raise funds to keep them going.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute an extraordinary organization headquartered in my district. THRIVE Community Youth Network, St. John's, connects youth, social workers and volunteers. They are building networks and community at an amazing pace.

I recently attended the launch of CASEY, a coalition challenging youth sexual exploitation. This and other programs of THRIVE, St. John's are making a real difference to at-risk youth.

Street Reach targets youth with multiple issues, helping them break down the barriers that keep them from asking for help, and connects them to programs that can help them.

Youth at Promise is a basic literacy program that provides a supportive learning environment for youth facing significant barriers to the regular education system.

The amazing Velocity Program focuses on life skills and personal development through adrenaline-based adventure activities for teenagers. Youth learn to overcome adversity while creating and enhancing connections within the community, and increasing healthy lifestyle choices.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in celebrating the ongoing contributions of THRIVE, Community Youth Network, St. John's. They are instrumental in not only redirecting but sometimes saving the lives of our youth at risk, and they deserve our support.

Thank you, THRIVE and bravo!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to recognize and congratulate a personal friend and former classmate of mine, Dana Cox, wife and mother of three beautiful children who has been battling cancer since she was first diagnosed in June of 2010.

Last night at the Delta Hotel, I attended A Night for Dana. It was a concert organized through sheer miraculous faith. After Paula Tessier, Development Officer for the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation had heard a song Dana had written on the way home from her radiation treatment, she arranged a meeting between Dana and a company from California looking to get involved and help raise funds for the foundation.

Mr. Speaker, from that meeting the rest is history. The concert was fantastic and so inspiring. Dana sang, No Time For You, a defiant song written to her cancer. She then went on to perform alongside the band, Abbey Road and Canadian Music Hall of Fame's legendary rocker, Rik Emmett- much to the delight of the hundreds of Dana's friends and family in attendance.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me in recognizing Dana's fighting spirit and her recent accomplishments. Keep up the fight Dana, you have so many people in your corner cheering for you.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo – La Poile.

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

I rise today to congratulate Lieutenant Lloyd Rossiter, of Ramea, upon his receipt of Cadet Instructor Cadre Lifetime Achievement Award on December 12, 2011.

This award is presented annually to recognize members who have made outstanding contributions to the Canadian cadet movement. Lieutenant Rossiter was one of fourteen persons from across Canada to receive this award in 2011.

Lieutenant Rossiter enrolled in the cadet instructor list in 1968 with 29Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corp Churchill in Ramea, where he served in various capacities including Executive Officer and Commanding Officer. For his service, Lieutenant Rossiter has received the Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal, the Canadian Forces Decoration and numerous distinguished Navy League of Canada awards.

In addition to his contributions to the sea cadets, Lieutenant Rossiter has had an extensive and lifelong involvement in various organizations in his community, including his current duties as Mayor.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending congratulations to Lieutenant Lloyd Rossiter on his receipt of this prestigious award.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to highlight our government's significant investments in cardiac care. Since 2008, we have provided approximately $15 million to Eastern Health for advanced cardiac care services and diagnostics, and infrastructure enhancements. These improvements to our cardiac care program benefit all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Our substantial investment in cardiac care has helped to ensure timely access to cardiac bypass surgery in this Province. Since the establishment of national benchmarks for cardiac bypass surgery in 2005, our Province has consistently met the wait time benchmark of 182 days.

Mr. Speaker, having the best tools available to diagnose and treat cardiovascular disease is essential to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. As noted in the Throne Speech, our Province is now considered a leader in cardiac care. In fact, health care professionals are travelling to our Province to learn best practices. We have invested in the latest in new technologies, which are key to recruiting cardiologists. I am also pleased to say that this past year we successfully recruited two new cardiologists.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Our overall provincial investments in capital equipment and renovations have allowed for the purchase of new cardiac monitors that will let cardiologists in St. John's monitor a cardiac patient anywhere in the Province. These investments have also allowed for the opening of a third cardiac catheterization laboratory at the Health Sciences Centre, which became operational in February 2012.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the recent successful completion of the Health Care Foundation's Give from the Heart $10 million capital campaign. Our government provided $4.5 million toward this goal to assist in the redevelopment of two of the cardiac catheterization laboratories and the addition of the third.

The Health Care Foundation was established to support the adult hospitals of St. John's. I commend the foundation for its dedication and commitment to helping us improve our health care services through initiatives such as the Give from the Heart campaign. Our focus on cardiac care further illustrates that we will continue to make strategic investments to enhance vital health care services throughout this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While I recognize the fact we have made significant investment, and I am happy to see we have attracted many professionals, especially in cardiac care; simply because we have the highest rates of heart disease, heart attacks, and bypass surgeries, I am sure those two new cardiologists are going to be quite busy.

As we tout the cardiac care program today, we still have to recognize the fact that there is a petition still at Health Sciences, though, where we have 100 cardiac care nurses, with their names. They are not quite so happy with the level of safety today and they are still expressing those concerns to us. In actual fact, we have seen a decrease in morale, because they feel that no one is actually listening to them. We still have Dräger technicians that are on site since the install, Mr. Speaker.

So, the experiences that we are seeing today with some of this equipment are causing some concerns – but before I sit down, I do want to recognize the fact that we have met the benchmarks of 182 days. We do see that as a positive, but we cannot forget the fact that we have some wait time areas, especially in joint replacement and in emergency room wait times, that we need to address.

I also want to recognize the fact that we have many foundations across this Province that are doing some great work, and we need to recognize and thank those volunteers that are making significant investments in equipment across this Province on a day to day basis.

So, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Obviously, I am pleased with the way things are going in cardiac care, and we all recognize that our record regarding wait times, diagnostics, is really improving, and our equipment has improved. However, Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised that the minister is not acknowledging the significant problems with the new cardiac monitors – I was shocked she put them into her statement – particularly the fact that the false alarms that are coming from them –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, the false alarms that are coming from them, which the minister is not acknowledging, are real. They are causing stress among the workers, and they are causing stress for patients. With hundreds of occurrence reports having been filed, she cannot talk exclusively about the success of this piece of equipment, and she should not do so until the problems are fixed. We need assurance in this House – as do the health care workers – that if that problem is not fixed in short order, they have to look at the results of these cardiac monitors, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to highlight the Province's well-known East Coast Trail, which has been named one of the world's top twelve adventure destinations by the National Geographic Society.

This is, in fact, the second time in two years that an area of the Province has been recognized by the National Geographic Society. In 2010, the Avalon Peninsula was ranked as the world's number one coastal destination.

This renowned society is now praising the East Coast Trail system as a "prime spot for adventure tourism, one that delivers hikers to a world of sea stacks, oceanside headlands, icebergs, and deep fjords." We are delighted that they have discovered the trail and are helping us promote the trail throughout the world.

The 260 kilometre East Coast Trail system passes through more than thirty communities and has contributed to the development and sustainability of tourism businesses along the trail. As well, use of the trail system extends beyond the peak tourism season into fall and spring hiking and winter snowshoeing.

This accessible trail is thoroughly enjoyed by residents as well visitors to our Province and encourages active, healthy living.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that the East Coast Trail is a provincial gem which provides both recreational and economic opportunities.

I invite everyone to experience our world adventure destination by hiking along our incredible East Coast Trail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I am not surprised at all to hear that the East Coast Trail has been named one of the world's Top 12 Adventure Destinations by National Geographic. I have had the opportunity, on many occasions actually, to walk parts of that trail; I will admit not all 260 kilometres, though. The development of trail systems around our Province is something that we all recognize as an important opportunity as it supports community growth. Even in the minister's own district, he has some fantastic walking trails, and in my district as well.

All of this supports a healthy and active lifestyle for the residents and the people who visit our Province. We all know that as a tourism opportunity it promotes our Province as an adventure destination.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, this is a terrific honour well earned by the East Coast Trail Association. The trail itself is a result of the many years of hard work by countless volunteers of the association.

I would like to remind the minister, however, that the association is raising alarms regarding the very serious threat of encroaching coastline housing, putting the trail at risk. There have been very well attended public meetings this week alone in Torbay on this very issue. The minister needs to act immediately with legislation to save this international treasure from encroaching developments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period.

Oral Questions

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The utilities board in Nova Scotia will hold a review of the Muskrat Falls Project once the commercial arrangements are finalized. They will evaluate other options to meet the energy needs and will focus on the cost to Nova Scotian ratepayers. Emera will file with the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board late this year and the review will take between six and ten months to complete.

I ask the Premier: You have already said that you have examined other options, so given the delay in finalizing the term sheet with Emera, why not give our PUB the same opportunity to explore other options to satisfy the power demands of our Province? Give our ratepayers the opportunity to know what else is available.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I keep coming back to the most basic principle surrounding Muskrat Falls. We need power, as indicated by Manitoba Hydro International, so what are the options? The options are, Mr. Speaker, Gull Island, Muskrat Falls, refurbished Holyrood with small hydro wind, wind itself or natural gas.

Gull Island is not possible because we cannot get through Quebec, Mr. Speaker, wind is not an option and we know that natural gas is not an option. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: What options are you talking about? What is it you want us to explore? We have explored everything. Muskrat Falls is the lowest cost and best option to secure the future of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: On behalf of the people of the Province, I think we have a right to know what the other options are. Let's table it, let's see what the report says. They are not in that box.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: They were not allowed to ask those questions, remember? That was the restriction that government put on them. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the Premier would not allow the PUB to look at other alternatives or even discuss the effect Muskrat Falls will have on ratepayers in this Province.

I ask the Premier: Why are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians getting less of a review of the project than Nova Scotians when we have the most to lose?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as I have said in the past on numerous occasions, Muskrat Falls and the Lower Churchill development have been reviewed for forty years. In 1980, Vic Young, then Chair of Newfoundland Hydro, recommended to proceed with Muskrat Falls.

Our PUB, Mr. Speaker, began their work in June and if I look at that, that is six or eight months, whatever period of time. During the Decision Gate 2 process, Mr. Speaker, wind in terms of more than just the eighty megawatts of wind was screened out by Nalcor as not being an answer to our problem, as was natural gas.

Mr. Speaker, you do not need to do extensive studies, you do not need to go out and pay thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars to see the obvious. The other obvious here, Mr. Speaker, is that Muskrat Falls is the best option.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today is World Water Day. We have 230 boil water advisories affecting 162 communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, 120 of those have been in effect for more than two years.

The question to the Premier: Given your proposed budget cuts, how does your government plan to help municipalities address issues around safe drinking water that continue to exist?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad the hon. member has brought up this very important day, World Water Day, today because it is an important matter for not only Newfoundlanders and Labradorians but for all Canadians and people throughout the world. Mr. Speaker, it is also a good opportunity to highlight some of the good work that this Province has done and this government has done in addressing the needs of water supplies in this Province. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that over the last eight years since this government came into power more than $200 million has been invested in water treatment and water distribution systems throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: The drinking water safety initiative introduced in 2008 was that drinking water supplies in 114 communities were deemed a very high priority.

My question to the Premier, many of those 114 communities identified in 2008 are still on a boil water advisory today: Why have you not provided them with the necessary resources to fix their unsafe drinking water problem? Why not resolve it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, this is a very important issue for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and I am glad we have this opportunity to discuss this, this afternoon. Again, there have been significant investments done in this Province to address the issue that is raised by the hon. member opposite. I would like to also point out, there are also training opportunities that this Province leads for municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador. We provide training opportunities that occur in classrooms where there is a formalized process for municipalities and the operators of their systems to learn how to use them properly. We have hands-on training where a mobile unit would actually travel to municipalities and work with them and help them, assist them in development and operation of their own water treatment processes. Just coming up, very soon, Mr. Speaker, is the annual Gander workshop whereby experts are brought into the Province to meet with municipalities so they grasp a larger understanding of these systems.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Well, I am pretty sure today that the people in those 114 communities are going to have a lot of confidence if there is a workshop in Gander.

Mr. Speaker, Environment Canada has identified 186 waste water outfalls in Newfoundland and Labrador; 185 deemed to be high risk and must be in compliance with waste water systems approved regulations by 2020. The total cost to address those outfalls is estimated to be $410 million.

I ask the Premier: Now that this problem has been identified, what is the solution?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, we will work through the issues. As a matter of fact, these regulations - and they are not clear at this particular time because they have not been vetted by the federal government. We have been in conversations with our federal counterparts with regard to those but in regard to dealing with the issues, we will deal with them the same way as we dealt with all the other issues in Newfoundland and Labrador, by investing in our municipalities in the tune of, since the last eight years, about over $500 million with regard to municipal capital works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday I asked the Premier questions on her lack of efforts to pressure the federal government to keep the sub-centre for search and rescue in St. John's. Rather than accept her responsibility for her lack of effort, she lashed out at the Opposition MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador, and went on to say that the Prime Minister's office said that the Quebec centre would be closing.

I ask you today, Premier: Who is advising you, because what we are hearing out of Ottawa is that the Quebec centre will remain open for the next year, if not indefinitely?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I need no lectures from the Opposition House Leader on what my responsibility is to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a privilege to serve in this position, and I have dedicated my best efforts to the people of the Province and that will remain so until I leave here.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if she does not believe what I say that I heard from the Prime Minister's office, then I refer her to the transcripts, the Hansard out of the Parliament of Canada, where it has been stated quite clearly that the Quebec SAR centre will close in the spring of 2013. Most of the services will be relocated to Trenton, and some to Halifax, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It might be a privilege to serve, but it also requires action, I say to you, Premier.

What I am saying is absolutely accurate. Quebec is not closing next month, but Newfoundland and Labrador's sub-centre next month will not only see its workers laid off or transferred, it will see its doors locked and it will see the safety of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians being compromised because that service is no longer there.

I ask you today, Premier, because you have rejected an all-party committee, you have rejected getting involved with the coalition, and you have rejected any actions we have put forward on behalf of the people of this Province, saying that you would do it yourself. Tell us: What is it you are doing to stand up for the people in this Province to make sure that centre does not close next month?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am doing a number of things, as are my ministers. Mr. Speaker, we make representation to the federal government at every opportunity, underscoring how important this service is to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly those who earn their living on the water.

Whatever it is I am doing, Mr. Speaker, it must be a heck of a lot more effective than anything that is being done over there or in Ottawa, because she wants to join in with our efforts. If her own were effective, if her own MPs were effective, she would not want to be hooking up with us, surely.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not have to stand here and remind the people of this Province that it was this Premier who stood shoulder to shoulder with Stephen Harper and stood there, Mr. Speaker, talking about how we were going to see the goods delivered to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Where are the goods, Premier, when the safety of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is going to be compromised because our centre is going to close –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: – while Quebec's stays open?

I ask you today, Premier: Are you now prepared to accept an all-party committee of all political parties in Newfoundland and Labrador, including the Members of Parliament in Ottawa, to come together and to stand shoulder to shoulder to fight for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, while I may have supported Mr. Harper, the members opposite certainly did not. They did not go out and say vote for the Conservative candidates, Mr. Speaker. What they did was say vote for our Liberal MPs, because they can do the job for you; they can lobby more effectively for you in Ottawa.

What are they doing? What are they doing, because, Mr. Speaker, we are doing everything that we can at every opportunity and we will continue to press this matter every day on a go-forward basis, as we have every day since the decision was announced.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the Premier that the Liberal MPs in Ottawa are standing up every single day, as are the NDP MPs, on search and rescue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: It is the Conservative MP, Mr. Penashue, and Mr. Harper and Mr. MacKay, who are closing down the centre in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask you again, Premier: When are you going to be prepared to bring all the political players, all the leaders in Newfoundland and Labrador together, including our Members of Parliament, to fight for the search and rescue centre to be saved in Newfoundland and Labrador before the locks go on the door at the end of the month?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If it is one thing that the Liberal Opposition has down, as well as their MPs, is political posturing – shouting and roaring and having a racket here at home. We do not need a racket here at home, Mr. Speaker; you are talking to the converted when you are talking to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the federal government have a responsibility to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: They have a responsibility to the people who earn their living on the ocean, Mr. Speaker. We are holding them to that responsibility. I suggest that the members opposite do the same and they encourage our representatives in Ottawa to do the same, because the only time we hear from them is on Open Line shows here in Newfoundland and Labrador. What kind of an impact are they having in Ottawa? That is what they are paid to do, Mr. Speaker; that is their job – do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, I say to the Premier today, it is –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker acknowledges the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Premier, closing that centre – is that commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? Face the reality, Premier; your efforts are not working with Stephen Harper and his government. Your efforts have not been able to deliver the services to the people of this Province.

I ask you today: Are you ready now to gas up the bus, Premier? Are you ready now to go to the Capitol Hill and to go to battle for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to keep our centre? Our lives are just as important as the people in Quebec.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to play political games with this issue, not like the Opposition House Leader. I am not interested in that. What I am interested in is the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and that the federal government live up to its responsibility. I am not letting anybody off the hook and I am not suggesting that anybody else in this Province do it. I do not care if they represent Conservatives, NDP or Liberals; we all have a right to demand that the people who represent us in Ottawa stand up for us in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, because the Progressive Conservative Party and Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is certainly doing that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier has already let the federal government off the hook because she is choosing to take up the fight with opposition MPs and not the Government of Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Mr. Speaker, many people from our Province are traveling out of this country to receive the liberation treatment in hopes to treat MS. On September 13, 2010, your government committed to an observational study for MS patients who choose to undergo the liberation treatment. The government committed $400,000 to that study.

I ask the minister today: What is the status of this study and when can we expect to see a final report?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that study is currently ongoing. We required forty patients in the study in order to be able to have a good, comprehensive study completed. The last of those patients actually joined the study in, I believe, just March of last year, March 2011. We are looking forward to the review process happening, and as soon as we have something to report back we certainly will, Mr. Speaker. It is a very important issue for us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, last year, following a report by the Office of the Citizens' Representative describing psychiatric service at Her Majesty's Penitentiary as unreasonable, unjust and oppressive, the Minister of Justice finally committed to a peer review.

I ask the minister: Where is this peer review, has it started, and when will you release it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

That is correct. Late last spring, Mr. Speaker, we commissioned a peer review of the psychiatric services in our correctional institutions. Mr. Speaker, that was a peer review and a peer review is not something you can go out and do in a couple of weeks. We needed someone to do a peer review; we needed a consultant who practised psychiatry in a correctional setting. We could not take a psychiatrist out of the City of St. John's, or anywhere else for that matter, and do that peer review.

We had to work with the health authorities to identify a person across the country who operated as a psychiatrist in a correctional setting. It took a little while to find that person. That person had to consent to do the job, had to free up his schedule, or her schedule, make themselves available, and that has been done. The review has been done. We are waiting for the report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House of Assembly, the Minister of Labrador Affairs spoke about how wonderful the Northern Strategic Plan is working. Mr. Speaker, the Joint Review Panel for Muskrat Falls said that health services in Happy Valley-Goose Bay cannot meet current needs, let alone accommodate an influx of people with the project. The Labrador-Grenfell Regional Health Authority agreed saying resources are needed now to ensure a timely response to increased service demands.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Is her government committed to expanding hospital and health care services in Happy Valley-Goose Bay to meet urgent needs now?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of health care in Newfoundland and Labrador I do not think anyone can chide what we do at all. We spend more per capita than any other region of this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: At $4,752 per person in this Province, Mr. Speaker, we have 40 per cent of the Budget. So obviously our commitment to the health care needs of Newfoundland and Labrador are very, very significant.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I encourage the minister if she is going to answer questions to stop throwing money around and answer the question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hospital at Happy Valley-Goose Bay is overcrowded as it is now, and this area will be the site of many more industrial workplaces than at present. Mr. Speaker, this hospital is not big enough to deal with a major industrial workplace accident, were one to occur. There is a limit to how many people can even be medevaced out.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: What is her government doing to address the current and future expansion needs of this hospital?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I will try not to mention any money that we might commit. I do not know if we do not need to commit any money to Labrador or what; however, I will tell you that we will continue with the significant investments that we have already made in Labrador to see to it that the health care is the best we can possibly deliver.

That has been our history, that is what we are doing, and it is what we will continue to do in terms of health care in Labrador and in Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, but I will not give you a dollar figure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House since 2006 and I have been hearing about hospitals in Labrador. Labrador West still does not have its new hospital. It is still in the process, even though two additional mining projects were announced this year, bringing in more industrial workers.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Can they tell us when the new hospital is going to be opened in Labrador West?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, work has been ongoing at that hospital and it is still ongoing. From what I understand, Mr. Speaker, we are nine months ahead of schedule –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: – in terms of the completion of that hospital. Now, I do not know if she wants us to rush it and do half a job with it. I am not sure what she wants but, Mr. Speaker, what we are committing to is a first-class facility.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will tell the minister one of the things I want, Mr. Speaker: I want to know, given the amount of heavy industry going on in Labrador West, will this hospital be equipped for the contingencies such as major workplace accidents? We have never told been what programs are going to be in that hospital.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the services in any hospital are dictated to us by the medical profession, people who understand how it is to deliver medical service and what services are required, what services are needed. I am not going to make a decision as to what services are needed out there in the hospital. I am certainly not going to micromanage to that level. However, I will certainly take the advice of medical experts and the medical professionals who will be operating in a particular area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is very interesting to hear the minister not even acknowledge that community needs are not going to be looked at by this government in determining. Community needs are part of what determine what is going to happen in the hospital.

Mr. Speaker, government is facing patient flow problems across this Province. They have had a patient flow study – albeit from Eastern Health – for over two years, that clearly outlines the lack of home care and long-term care as a key problem. Mr. Speaker, in Happy Valley-Goose Bay alone, the hospital is full of older people in need of long-term care.

I ask the Premier: When is the government going to reveal to the people of this Province the long promised, long-term care and home care strategy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in a Province with an aging demographic, as we have, in a Province with chronic disease, we recognize better than anyone the need to continue to focus on the needs of our seniors and the need to continue to focus on long-term care, and that is precisely what we have done.

Now, while we have not yet given a strategy for them to criticize, Mr. Speaker, what we have done is we have continued to invest in long-term care. Four hundred and – I am not allowed to mention numbers, but I have to – $440 million, Mr. Speaker, every year in terms of long-term care, an additional $140 million since 2006.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Canada Water Week is ongoing with celebrations from coast to coast. Knowing that the Province has 160 boil orders still in place, 120 for more than two years, Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell the House what his department –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: – has undertaken to protect water resources for these communities and the many other unreported, unincorporated communities that do not fall under the confines of the Municipalities Act?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, my hon. member across the House has only been here for a short period of time and I guess he does not have his homework done in regard to the significant investments that this Province, this government has made to municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador for the last eight years. The poor man needs to do a little bit of research before he gets up into the House of Assembly and talks about investment in water and waste water in this Province. When we have over $500 million gone into municipalities over the last –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. O'BRIEN: Oh, they do not want to listen to numbers do they, because that does not mean anything; that does not mean anything at all to the hon. members across the House. This is what it takes, it takes investment. As well, we have invested in a comprehensive look in regard to water and quality issues in water issues in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have invested in water systems (inaudible) as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, there is a sign at the beginning of Route 432 from Plum Point to Roddickton that warns there is twenty-six kilometres of rough road ahead. Mr. Speaker, residents say this is the worst road in the Province. Mr. Speaker, tourism operators tell me the road is so bad that tourists are starting to turn back, abandoning their plans to visit tourism sites at the end of the road.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation: What is the point of award-winning tourism ads if your government has no plan to provide safe roads for visitors and residents?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, roads on the Northern Peninsula. When I went up, I think it was in 1999 or 2000, I can tell you the state of the roads up on the Northern Peninsula; they were not roads to begin with. Since that time this government has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in roads in this Province, including the Northern Peninsula.

I say to the member opposite, what are you looking for? We have invested, we continue to invest and it is making a tremendous difference. You talk about safe roads, that investment is making those roads safer than they ever were before in the history of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, last year government announced roadwork in my district which was not done. Mr. Speaker, the fact is little work was done according to the residents. What little work was done has been washed away. They refer to it as a Band-Aid solution which was a waste of money. Mr. Speaker, penny-wise and pound foolish is not a plan.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Transportation and Works: When is his government going to provide a reliable road network for the people of the Northern Peninsula?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many ways I can say this, but this government invests a quarter of a billion dollars in roads every single year - a quarter of a billion - and that is in new road construction, let alone the maintenance money that we put into the hands of our workers. The roads in this Province – we have replaced, for example, over the last little while, when we talk about bridges, in the last four years we have replaced 190 bridges at a cost of $122 million, and someone can get up on the other side and say we are not investing in roads? I say, check the facts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, a new study from the University of Toronto shows again that students who attend full-day Kindergarten classes are better at reading and mathematics than our students who participate in half-day Kindergarten classes.

I ask the Minister of Education: Why is there no plan for full-day Kindergarten in this Province –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: Why is there no plan for full-day Kindergarten in this Province when the benefits are so obviously clear?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We as a government and the Department of Education are always exploring the options that we want to bring forth and engage our young children in. One of the things, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite seems to have missed – he probably does not research this at his level at the university, but the imperative years, Mr. Speaker, for investment in children is that critical zero to three age which we have invested in. Mr. Speaker, $4.8 million over three years to be invested in the zero to three age, Mr. Speaker – one of the best investments we will make in education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Most five-year-olds in Canada now attend full-day Kindergarten and many jurisdictions are expanding to four-year-olds.

I ask the Minister of Education: Why is this government allowing our primary education system to fall behind the rest of Canada?

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

You have time for a quick answer.

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I certainly take objection to what he is saying, that we are falling behind the rest of Canada – certainly not, Mr. Speaker. The research around the investments that we have put into the zero to three years, Mr. Speaker, came from support from researchers at Memorial, teachers in the field. Mr. Speaker, we are exploring all of the options, full-day Kindergarten being one –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to section 5 of the Local Authority Guarantee Act, 2005, I wish to table the annual report of loan guarantees provided to local governments to enable them to arrange interim financing for capital projects. I am pleased to report there were no new guarantees issued on behalf of local governments during the fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, the last report under this act was tabled on April 7, 2011, and included guarantees issued up to and including March 31, 2011. This current report covers the period from April 1, 2010, to March 16, 2012.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 49.(2) of the Financial Administration Act, I wish to table the attached list of temporary loans that were raised under section 48. of the act since my last report to the House on April 7, last year. In addition, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 55.(3) of the Financial Administration Act, I wish to report that there were no guaranteed loans paid out by the Province since the last annual report on April 7, last year.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 55.1(2) of the act, I wish to report there has been one guaranteed debt of a Crown Corporation or agency, assumed by the Province since the April 7, 2011 annual report. Therefore, I wish to table the attached list of details of this particular payout.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is the sixth time now that I have entered this petition. This is a petition regarding needed changes to the Department of Education's school bus transportation policies.

It reads as follows:

WHEREAS school district restructuring has resulted in longer bus travel times and more hazardous winter travel for rural students of all ages; and

WHEREAS due to recent school closures, children living within 1.6 kilometres face increased barriers of congested streets and busy intersections in the walk to school, and parents without cars are having more difficulty getting children to different schools on foot; and

WHEREAS only those child care centres outside the 1.6 kilometre zone and directly on bus routes are included in the Kindergarten noontime routes, causing hardship for working parents; and

WHEREAS the 1.6 kilometre policy has been in place since 1975, and student transportation policies have not been reviewed through consultation since 1996; and

WHEREAS parents are expressing the need for flexible policies for student transportation and school restructuring to meet the current needs of school children;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to conduct a review of school bus transportation policies and school restructuring to ensure safe and quality education for all school children in the Province.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

As I mentioned several times before, I took this petition on in response to concerns of constituents in my district, but now I have been getting petitions from all across the Province in support of this. Today we have petitioners from Noggin Cove, Carmanville, Aspen Cove, Frederickton, and St. John's as well.

I feel like I am making some progress here, Mr. Speaker, because I get up each day and I see the Minister of Education over there listening intently to what I have to say. He is nodding his head in quiet agreement with what I am saying. I really feel like I am managing to get through to him, Mr. Speaker. Maybe, with time, he will see things the way of these petitioners and the Members of the House of Assembly will see fit to have this policy reviewed and have new policies enacted for the twenty-first century.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition. I will read the petition:

WHEREAS the current Animal Protection Act was enacted in 1978 and is woefully inadequate; and

WHEREAS it has been almost two years since the Animal Protection Act was passed in the House of Assembly and has not yet been proclaimed; and

WHEREAS the inadequacy of the current animal protection laws is of grave and immediate concern to the SPCA; and

WHEREAS the new Animal Protection Act would ensure much more severe punishment and ultimately reduce instances of these crimes;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately proclaim the new Animal Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker, this was brought to my attention well before the provincial election. There are some people – and one in particular is Evelyn Hancock with the SPCA, and she was adamant that this act should be proclaimed. A lot of people could not understand why.

We need this act to help protect the animals. We need this for enforcement and we need this also as a deterrent for people who are abusing animals. We all agree in this House, and I am sure every member agrees, that we have to do everything we can to stop animal abuse in this Province. We understand that the majority of animal owners are responsible animal owners, but there are some who are not. This is why we need this act proclaimed. It has been almost two years – a little over two years now, Mr. Speaker, since this act was passed in the House. From my understanding it is held up on the regulations of the act.

I just urge this House to urge the government to proclaim this act immediately so that we can get on with the responsibility of giving the law enforcement and the people who are protecting the animals the tools to do their job, Mr. Speaker. I just urge the House to urge the government to proclaim this act as soon as possible so that we can help out with the animals and help out with the people who are protecting their animals.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a petition to this hon. House in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS there is no cellphone service in the Towns of St. Pauls, Sally's Cove, Cow Head, Trout River, all of which are enclave communities in Gros Morne National Park; and

WHEREAS there is either very poor or no cell service in most of Gros Morne National Park; and

WHEREAS visitors to Gros Morne National Park, more than 100,000 annually, expect to use cellphones when they visit the park; and

WHEREAS cellphone service is an important safety feature for numerous travellers, hikers, and others in the park; and

WHEREAS cellphone service is necessary to modern business development;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to partner with the private sector to extend cellphone coverage throughout Gros Morne National Park and the enclave communities within the park.

Mr. Speaker, Gros Morne Park is a fabulous tourism treasure for this Province. It is widely advertised by Parks Canada. Many of the shots that we see, particularly with Western Brook Gorge, are from Gros Morne National Park.

If you travel to Gros Morne National Park – and I certainly hope that members who have not, will, and members who have will travel again. If you drive to the Western side of Bonne Bay and leave through the Discovery Centre in Woody Point, you drive through the Trout River Gulch; there is absolutely no cellphone service in Trout River Gulch, approximately twenty kilometres long which ends in Trout River. When you are in Trout River if you go to the Seaside Restaurant, it is a very popular, world-renowned seaside restaurant. When you look at some of the names of some of the guests who have signed the guestbook and had their photos taken, you will see people like Dr. David Suzuki. Dr. David Suzuki will come to Gros Morne National Park, go to Trout River and not be able to make a phone call. It may be a nice nature trip but it certainly does not help promote our Province when people come to the Province. Advertising encourages them to come; they have a good time, except they do not have cellphone service.

In the western side of Bonne Bay there is some cellphone service, but very little. All of the people who attend the annual event for writers, the writes festival in Woody Point, tens of thousands of people attend every year, no cellphone service. There is limited cellphone service in most of the park communities. Cow Head has Theatre Newfoundland and Labrador; productions are put on for weeks on end in the course of the summer, no cellphone service. It is absolutely critical that we have cellphone service in Gros Morne National Park.

Thank you.

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I present a petition for the removal of the Englee fish plant. It is a public safety concern and an environmental concern.

To the honourable House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly showeth:

WHEREAS the provincial government has not acknowledged that they have a role to play in the removal of the condemned Englee fish plant; and…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: WHEREAS the Town of Englee has exhausted all avenues over the past seven years, lobbying government for removal; and

WHEREAS inaction has resulted in economic loss for the town, delay in new infrastructure and has become a concern of public safety as large debris has fallen into a major shipping route;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge government to immediately order full removal and environmental cleanup of this condemned property, former fish plant, in order to restore public confidence in the system and settle land issues to permit new wharf development, providing residents of Englee with a mechanism to revitalize a presently devitalized community.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

This is a very important issue and it really needs immediate action from a number of government departments to take ownership on this issue. This is something that happened in 2004. It has been a problem, it has been an issue. Something that this government has failed to address since it has been in power for the last eight years. It is ignoring important health and safety, the public issues of the people of this town. This being Canada Water Week, we really need to look at the concerns around public safety around the water supply and the potential contaminates that are involved around potentials of ammonia.

There was a federal government environmental assessment which reported that there are potential contaminants of ammonia, cancer causing agents, all kinds of oils and things like this. It is right on the waterfront there. This eroding of things can have impacts and can cause major contaminants to the sea life and the people who are living there. I ask that the government take this very, very seriously. It could be your town, and we need to move forward on this.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I bring forward this petition to the hon. House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS there is no cell service in Nunatsiavut; and

WHEREAS many individuals travel in close proximity to their respective communities; and

WHEREAS cell coverage could well have prevented and saved the life of young Burton Winters;

We the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to work with the appropriate agencies to provide cellphone coverage to the people of the Labrador Coast.

Mr. Speaker, the need for cell service in Northern Labrador is a must, and we saw this need magnified when we hauled a BlackBerry from young Burton Winter's pocket.

Mr. Speaker, I have stated in this hon. House before, lives will depend on what this government acts on search and rescue. This is no longer a political issue, Mr. Speaker, because I have witnessed every member of this hon. House stand and support a real lobby effort for search and rescue. It is time to represent our Province on this issue, and to act now and to act accordingly.

I was very disappointed yesterday, and I put this mildly, Mr. Speaker, to hear the Member for Virginia Waters passing the buck on to our federal MPs. I must point out, Mr. Speaker, that our MPs are in Ottawa, and they are fighting for search and rescue in our Province and I commend them for it.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of our Province has a duty to take the lead in protecting lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I urge the Member for Virginia Waters to step up and take the lead. As long as we are in this Province, Mr. Speaker -

MR. KENNEDY: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. KENNEDY: This is a petition, Mr. Speaker, not a speech. This is full debate. It is outside the realm of the petition.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

I go back to the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Speaker, as long as we live in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, lives will be lost. The least we can do, Mr. Speaker, is to try and minimize this loss. The issue on search and rescue will not go away.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

 

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Education, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997, Bill 13, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Education shall have leave to introduce a bill. I do not have the title to the bill.

MR. KENNEDY: An Act To Amend The Schools Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Government House Leader – An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

It is the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce the bill, 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 Education to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997", carried. (Bill 13)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997. (Bill 13)

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

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. KENNEDY: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 13 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock on Thursday, March 22, 2012, and I further move, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock on Thursday, March 22, 2012.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved that the House not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock on Thursday, March 22, 2012, and it has been further moved that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 22, 2012.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Order 7, second reading of Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991". (Bill 7)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to introduce Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991. Mr. Speaker, a court is one of the three foundations of a good justice system – an efficiently run and effective court. Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to providing individuals with a court system that is both efficiently run and effective. To that end, Mr. Speaker, we have done a number of things over the last number of years to develop such a court to a level of effectiveness and efficiency that does justice to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

For example, Mr. Speaker, we have amended the Small Claims Act to limit the amounts of $5,000 to $25,000. We have amended the Judicature Act to expand the jurisdiction of the Family Division to Western Newfoundland. We have introduced revisions to allow court clerks to act as Justices of the Peace. We have amended the Provincial Court Act so that the complaint process is taken away from the judicial council and now to a complaints council, which is really what this bill is all about. We have amended the Court Security Act to allow for perimeter screening at all court levels currently in the provincial court. We have adopted the Public Trustee Act, which removed the role of the estates administration from the courts and established an independent Office of the Public Trustee. So, Mr. Speaker, we are always committed to making sure our court system is efficiently run and as effective as possible, because it is the cornerstone of a good justice system.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments that we are bringing forth today would clarify when a judge may be removed from the panel of part-time judges and would also correct a number of cross-references that have resulted from amendments made in previous sessions.

Mr. Speaker, during the spring 2008 session, the House of Assembly's amendments to the Provincial Court Act, 1991 were adopted. They provided for an appointment of a panel of part-time judges to the Provincial Court. Mr. Speaker, part-time judges serve an important role in the functioning of the Provincial Court as they can be called upon in short notice when the need arises. That is important to ensure the continuous functioning of our courts without undue delays. Section 5.2 of the Provincial Court Act sets out the process for when the Lieutenant-Governor in Council can establish that panel of part-time judges.

Mr. Speaker, these are judges who have retired from their position as full-time judges, but wish to stay on in a part-time role. They let the chief judge know that and then the minister is made aware of that. The Lieutenant-Governor in Council appoints a panel of part-time judges that the chief judge can draw from any time he wants to. It allows for continuous functioning of the courts and provides for an extra judge to be available when the chief judge needs him. Section 5.2(7) of the Provincial Court Act, 1991, Mr. Speaker, sets out the process to be followed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to remove a judge from the part-time panel. Just as there is a process to appoint judges to a part-time panel, there is a process to remove them.

Specifically 5.2(7) states that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall not remove a person from the panel of part-time judges except upon the written request of that person to the chief judge; upon the person reaching the age of seventy years; upon the death of that person; or, upon the order of the judicial council under paragraph 23(b). Mr. Speaker, it is that last provision, upon the order of the judicial council under paragraph 23(b) that leads to one of the amendments here today.

Mr. Speaker, the judicial council of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is also constituted under the Provincial Court Act, 1991. It is constituted of four members: the bencher of the Law Society; two persons nominated by the minister; the president of the judges' association; and the chief judge who is the chairperson of the judicial council. The main function of the judicial council, Mr. Speaker, is to consider applicants for judicial appointments and make a recommendation to the minister with respect to those applicants, and also to consider any proposals for improving the services of the court.

One of the functions of the judicial council under the act, Mr. Speaker, was "to receive and investigate complaints made to it by a judge relating to that judge's judicial duties and to make recommendations to the minister or the chief judge as it considers appropriate". Mr. Speaker, the reference to a judicial council in this amendment 5.2(7) that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council cannot remove the person from the panel except upon the order of the judicial council. That judicial council is incorrect – the reference to the judicial council is incorrect. The amendments to the Provincial Court Act, 1991, in the fall of the 2008 session of the House of Assembly changed the function of the judicial council so that it no longer receives and investigates complaints against a judge or the chief judge, nor does it have the authority to reprimand, suspend or remove a judge from the court. That was taken care of, Mr. Speaker, in the amendments in the fall 2008 session.

These responsibilities are now shared by the Complaints Review Committee. That amendment in the fall of 2008 set up a Complaints Review Committee which receives and investigates complaints pursuant to section 23 of the Provincial Court Act, 1991. It is the Complaints Review Committee now which receives and investigates those complaints, not the judicial council. It is the adjudication tribunal, which was also set up in 2008, which is empowered to reprimand or suspend or remove the judge from the court pursuant to certain sections of the act.

These sections were put in, Mr. Speaker, because they allowed for an independent mechanism by which judges can be held to the highest standards, as opposed to being dealt with by the judicial council. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, the phrase judicial council now should read adjudication tribunal because it is the adjudication tribunal that is now the body invested with the authority to remove a judge from the court.

The reference of paragraph 23(b) is also incorrect in that this paragraph states that the Complaints Review Committee may, with the consent of the complainant and the judge, attempt to resolve the complaint. The reference of paragraph 23(b) should read, instead, paragraph 25.1(2)(d) and paragraph 25.2(3)(d) because these are the two paragraphs now that specifically refer to the ability of the adjudication panel to remove a judge from the court.

Mr. Speaker, the judicial council then no longer has – and has not since the amendments that were made in 2008 – the authority or the responsibility to remove a judge from the panel. That is now the purview of the Complaints Review Committee which receives the complaints, investigates the complaints, and it is the adjudication panel which makes the decision with respect to the judge.

Mr. Speaker, the other proposed amendments are really cross referencing errors and they are necessary in order to fulfill the intention of the legislation. For example, the reference to paragraph (2)(a) to (2)(d) in subsection 16.(5) needs to be amended to reflect that there are only two paragraphs in that section, not three. The reference should read paragraphs (a) to (c), not (a) to (d). These are just cross referencing errors.

Mr. Speaker, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council appoints four members to the judicial council, as I mentioned earlier, one of these is a bencher of the Law Society. The reference in paragraph 16(2)(b) needs to be amended to reflect that a bencher of the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador is appointed under paragraph 16(2)(a) as opposed to 16(2)(b) – cross referencing errors.

There is a significant one that needs to be changed, the reference to justice as opposed to a judge. Not to insult anybody's intelligence, but the official in a Provincial Court is a judge; the official in a Supreme Court is a justice. We are talking about Provincial Court judges in this case and there is reference in paragraph 24.(2) to a justice, which is an error. That needs to be amended to reflect that it is a judge in the Provincial Court appointed chairperson of the adjudication panel. That paragraph deals with appointing a judge of the Provincial Court to be chairperson of the adjudication panel.

Now, just a little bit of elaboration on that, Mr. Speaker. The Lieutenant-Governor in Council appoints the complaints panel. Two members of that complaints panel have to be judges from Atlantic Canada – either New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, or PEI; two of them come from the Atlantic Provinces. One of them, Mr. Speaker, has to be appointed chair of the adjudication panel. So, it is a judge of the Provincial Court that should be referenced, not a justice of the Supreme Court.

Section 25.5 states that "An action for damages shall not lie against" … "a person appointed to conduct an investigation under subsection 23.(2)". This again is the wrong section. It needs to be amended to be subsection 23.(4), because that is the section that authorizes the appointment of a person to conduct an investigation.

I am going through these very quickly, Mr. Speaker, because they are only cross-referencing errors. Section 31.(4) refers to a order issued under subsection (2), that should read subsection (3). These amendments are technical in nature, but the public and the stakeholders will benefit, Mr. Speaker, from these amendments, and they are necessary to fulfill the objectives of the legislation.

So, Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Court is the Province's court of first instance for all criminal and regulatory matters. Trials of the vast majority of such offences are concluded there. Provincial Court also serves as youth court, traffic court, small claims court, and outside of these areas, covered by the Family Division of the Supreme Court. It deals also, which people do not realize, with family law matters, most family law matters other than divorce matters or division of properties under the Family Law Act, which of course is the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Our Provincial Courts are the busiest courts in the Province. Consequently, we are continuously working to make improvements to ensure that it operates with the utmost efficiency. Last December, Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to announce they started perimeter screening at the St. John's location. That is to ensure the safety of the staff and the public – the users who use that court. That is the busiest court in the Province. It was never designed as a court; it was designed as retail office space. We had to do considerable modification and adjustment to that building to make it safe and enhance security as much as possible. This perimeter screening, at a cost of $300,000, is getting great results. We have installed two perimeter screening stations, developed new policies around screening; we have developed regulatory authority to conduct screening, physical searches, and had to amend, of course, the Court Security Act to do that.

It has been well received and been of tremendous benefit, safety, and social comfort to people using that facility.

Mr. Speaker, these are the amendments we are requesting in Bill 7. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these amendments. I look for other members to take part in the debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

Certainly, I thank the minister for his comments. Again, it is a pleasure and an honour to be able to stand here in this House and speak to legislation, especially legislation that I was near and dear to during my previous practice in law. Again, being from Port aux Basques, we had only a Provincial Court and the circuits around my area were all handled – there was Port aux Basques; we had the circuit court in Burgeo, and the closest full-time court was in Stephenville.

We used to have a full-time court in Port aux Basques courthouse, but that was shut down sometime ago and they moved to a circuit. I guess that tells you the tale of out-migration and decline in population. I guess the good news is a decline in the crime rate back from the 80s. But, that being said, my main concern has always been that we had an access to justice, especially when we deal with the Provincial Court, which is the first line of the court system; it is where the majority of people start off, whether it be regulatory matters, fish matters, wildlife, small claims, criminal or family.

That is why I think it is so important that we have Provincial Courts that are accessible to the public, as opposed to the Supreme Courts, which are again – there are only seven of them, I believe, and they are more spread out. The closest Supreme Court we have is in Corner Brook; then you have to go into Grand Falls.

Again, I understand that this amendment suggested here today is more of a housekeeping amendment. I appreciate the opportunity for the justice department to sit down with me and take their time to brief me on what this act proposes to do. It is not as substantive as the piece of legislation we discussed the other day, but it is still important nonetheless. Again, the minister made reference to the improvements in law and in the different, I guess, areas of law that there have been, but there are still some concerns out there when it comes to our Provincial Courts. One of them would be – I look at my own stomping grounds out in Port aux Basques; we have a circuit court that has gone now to basically three days per month that it sits. You have to hope that it is good days in the winter, or else they are not going to have a court until – they will skip that circuit and go to the next month. I have seen times when there was no circuit in December, January circuits cancelled due to bad weather; we have to sit in February, which again, is a long time when we talk about this principle called access to justice. We all deserve a fair and equal access to justice. Again, that is entrenched in whether it is our Charter or it is a constitutional thing.

Now, going back to the courthouse in Port aux Basques again, if you are ever out to the courthouse in Port aux Basques, number one, it is one of the few public buildings in this Province that is not wheelchair accessible. Whenever there is a matter involving a person with a physical disability, we have to have that matter heard at St. Christopher's Hotel. This can cause scheduling issues, which again is already an issue when we only get three days per month. I am not going to get too much farther into that. I could talk about the other lack of amenities in this building, but it is an old building. Again, I have had complaints to me while I was practicing. I had clients who had mobility issues and they did not like the fact that they could not have their matter heard in the proper courtroom.

We also look back to a few years ago. We had the one staff person who was only a seasonal staff person. They were only for the circuit. They worked three to four days a month, but that was taken out. Now we have staff coming in with the judge from Stephenville or Corner Brook, what have you, wherever the matter is heard. I do not know if there have been any savings in that. If there are, I would be interested to see the statistics, but again, another issue.

One funny one, actually; I wrote to the current Minister of Finance on this back when he was serving in his previous role. I asked about getting some high-tech equipment in our courthouse. What I wanted was a photocopier. I wanted a photocopier in a courthouse because at that point we were still using a fax machine to get copies of cases and different documents. We still have not gotten that photocopier out there, but they have put in a new computer system. The ones before were kind of dated. I do not know if they were Tandy's, but I am putting it out there. They still used the paper that had the sides you tear off. That is the kind of paper they were using. It was really, really impressive to come in after going to law school and learning all the new changes, and I come back to using Tandy computers and photocopying with a fax machine. That was really good. The air conditioning was opening up the window; that was the air conditioning we had out there. It is nice in the summer when we get good weather out our way.

Again, going back to one of the big points of this, we are talking about part-time judges. I certainly agree with the minister wholeheartedly, that part-time judges are important. We need them. We need to make sure that whether it is reason of sickness, legal conflict - or even if these judges have to take vacation, too, they are like the rest of us. They certainly deserve it and are entitled to it. It is nice to have a roster of judges who have done their time and put their time in, but are still willing to serve their Province and make sure people have access to justice.

I know Judge Robert Smith comes out to the Stephenville circuit quite a bit. He is a fantastic gentleman. He comes out and serves whenever this judge is taken away. It was one judge. We have just had a new judge appointed to Stephenville. I have already been in touch with her to congratulate her on this appointment. I am confident she is going to do a fantastic job out there. The fact is when you are in a small area, and if you have practiced law in a small area, you are undoubtedly going to have a legal conflict. You may have some ties with that family or represented somebody on the other side. It is nice to have this backup conflict judge who can come in and handle the matter. The purpose of this piece of legislation is to make sure that we have clarified and amended the law, just to bring it up to snuff and make sure we eliminate any discrepancies. A housekeeping exercise really.

I do not know if there are any plans to get more part-time judges. I hope that is something we can consider when any of the current judges who are near retirement age, ready to retire, maybe they will consent to having their names added to the list. It is funny, if you look at one of the proposed subsections they are talking about the adjudication tribunal and being appointed and taken off that panel. One of the things is: They shall serve for three years during good behaviour. Now that is one of the things I certainly hope is not an issue when we are talking about judges, is whether they have good behaviour or not. I have not seen it yet, only once have I seen it. Actually, a few years ago the justice department went to appoint a judge up in Labrador but after they went through the vetting stage they realized this judge had some issues in his past and that appointment was quickly turned around. I guess the vetting process in that case did not go so well. Usually when these judges are put on the stand they do their job, they do it well, and their goal is to uphold the laws of this Province and certainly of this country.

I just have a few more notes made here. When we talk about provincial courts, one of the things we can go back to is this access to justice. One thing we do have, I believe it is ten provincial courts but we have a huge number of circuits. I have a serious concern that there is an active effort to reduce the number of circuits. That is a serious concern. If you look on the West Coast, we have circuits in Port aux Basques; we have a circuit in Burgeo. If you go up the Northern Peninsula, in the Member for St. Barbe's district, St. Anthony is a circuit, Plum Point is a circuit, Rocky Harbour is a circuit, and Port au Choix is a circuit. If we think about what the cost is, they probably could use a fulltime court up there; maybe a bit better system set up there. We want to make sure people have this access because at the end of the day it should not cost me anymore so that I have access to justice than it should cost somebody in a larger centre. It should not cost me more to have to travel two-and-a-half and three, three-and-a-half hours to have my matter heard and a person in Corner Brook can have their matter heard and they just have to walk over to the courthouse. That is a necessary cost that must be always maintained. We have to make sure everybody is treated the same.

I have seen cases now recently where we had the number of circuit days cut down. What is happening is we are saying, well, let's have it heard in Stephenville; lots of time in Stephenville. Let's have it heard there.

That is not fair to these people. If they have to travel into Stephenville, that means they have to take time off from their jobs and then they have to pay to get in there. Any practising lawyer will tell you a number of times where they go in for a 9:00 o'clock matter but their matter is not called until the afternoon, it is just the way it works. When this happens to a person, they have to take a full day off. Depending on where they are coming from they might have to take a night off, they might have to stay in a hotel. It is an issue, we need to maintain that and that applies all over this House. There are members across who deal with this issue, members on this side deal with this issue. We need to make sure that people are on the same level playing field.

I will put that out there. I know the Justice Minister is aware of this issue, and we are going to make sure we do not do anything to further cut this system so that the only way you can have fair justice is if you live in a big centre. It is the nature of this Province that we have a very large and diverse geography. That is a fact. It is always going to cost a certain amount to live in this Province, so the government needs to make sure that if you are living in Port aux Basques, if you are living in Bonne Bay, anywhere, you are getting the same treatment.

Going back to the Provincial Courts, talking about the importance of what the minister is putting in here. When we talk about Provincial Courts, some of these judges have a very, very heavy caseload.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: An hour-and-a-half a day, Andrew, really, really important; an hour-and-a-half a day (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: I would say to the Government House Leader, it is longer than an hour-and-a-half a day out in Port aux Basques when they have the matters all backed up. I would say that we deserve an equal access to justice here.

We talk about the big caseloads. I know in Stephenville the previous judge who was there; she handled a lot of matters. I know there are times when she could be a bit – she was writing her judgments on the weekends. This was a judge, like many, they have families and want to have time. We need to make sure that we have these part-time judges there who can go and fill in and make sure that all the matters are heard in as quick and expedient a manner as possible.

Going back to the circuit courts that I am talking about, it can also present an issue when we talk about the Charter rights, to have your matter heard as quickly as possible. If you are getting circuits cancelled due to the judges being unavailable or due to weather cancelling the circuit - nobody wants to drive out over the Wreckhouse in the middle of winter. We need to make sure we have these judges here who can sit back and take over and make sure that we have time there so people can have their matters heard. It is a matter of human rights when you really think about it here.

We do need more court time in some of these rural areas. I know the courts here in St. John's have been plugged lately. Out our way we might not have as much time but those days are certainly filled. I am sure the Member for St. Barbe can tell me, when we get the court there she is busy all day, from 9:00 o'clock right to 5:00. I have had matters where, because I wanted to get them done during that circuit, I have had four-day trials. After four days and we are not done, we will sit after supper because we want to get that matter done. If not, I might have to wait two months to conclude my trial or give my closing submissions. That presents an effect on my ability to prevent a defence on behalf of my client. That is why I say the extra time is there. I know there is pressure when it comes to monetary concerns, but it is my duty to put that out there.

I would commend the minister on one of the things he noted in relation to courts, and that comes to the Small Claims Act. That was a long overdue thing. To raise the limits on this from $5,000 to $25,000 made a huge difference. People who might be just over that $5,000 threshold - and they have to go to Supreme Court, which has increased costs, increased time and increased procedural wrangling - and now we have increased that. I am happy with that. I know a lot of people are taking advantage of this change.

To be honest with you, Mr. Speaker, I do not have a whole lot more to say on this issue. I think it is procedural in nature. I am hoping we do get some more part-time judges. I hope we continue to make sure that the complement of judges are always maintained and that we are taking the best possible people for those jobs who are on that list.

Those are my comments here today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice, if he speaks now he will – okay, I guess we will recognize the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very grateful for the work of part-time judges. They bring experience and expertise and continuity to our court system. The other thing they bring to our court system is that they can be a benchmark for change and they can bring with their experience and their many years of serving the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, they can bring both tradition, but also they can be the bridging link to modern practices. Our justice system and our courts must be a dynamic and evolving system and we would hope that is what is constantly happening in our justice system and in our court system.

One of the things that perhaps must be considered is the whole modernization of our justice system, of our court system. We know that basically what we are dealing with here is the procedural issues and cleaning up some legislation.

One thing that we really need to look at, and that we have heard from judges, and that we have heard from people in the justice system, is the somewhat antiquated state of the infrastructure of our court system, both in our infrastructure and then also the way that we conduct our business in the court system, in terms of our handling of information, and the administration of the processes in our court system. Our main Provincial Court building in St. John's is over 100 years old, and it is a beautiful heritage building, but proves to be very – aside from being predominantly wheelchair inaccessible, it is overcrowded, and was built initially to house three judges and staff, and it has more than doubled in that.

It is one of the busiest courts in our Province, and we find many people that – although there have been some modifications made in the past while, where there is now a wheelchair-accessible washroom on the first floor, the rest of the building is virtually inaccessible if you were to use a wheelchair. This impacts not only our citizens who are seeking justice, our citizens who need to use the court system, it also impacts who can work in our court system. It impacts whether or not a judge who uses a wheelchair can work there. It impacts whether or not lawyers can work there. It impacts whether or not clerks who may use wheelchairs can work there. This is not accessible justice, and it is not accessible employment.

We also know that in modern thought in courts and in justice, there is an understanding that the architecture and the structure of a court building must reflect the purpose, must reflect the activities, must reflect the stature of our court system in the Province. So, it is very evident that what we need in our Province is an overall master plan for new infrastructure for our court system, that we need reform in our infrastructure. There is no plan at this point. There has been no plan tabled that is a long-term plan to address the inadequacies of the infrastructures province-wide for our court system. We need to see a long-term plan. Without a long-term plan, we do not have benchmarks to see where it is we are going or whether we have made any progress.

The Court of Appeal in St. John's on Duckworth Street is a building that I have toured. It is basically inaccessible. There is a door that you go down a long pathway, you go down a driveway in around to the back of the building, then the big metal door that is not even regulation size for wheelchairs – somebody has to open it from the inside – and then you are pushed in. Then you go through aisles of files of the court filing system in the basement. Then you come to a very antiquated elevator. Again, we love our heritage buildings and they serve a purpose, but for our courts of justice that should be accessible to all, they do not serve that purpose well.

We know that there have been improvements made, but they are simply band-aid solutions because of the problems that are presented and because of the architecture and the age of the existing buildings. We do need a new court complex. We need a new court complex that is accessible to all, that is safe, and that is functional.

Courts are about our social stability. It is about how we live together and how we make decisions about what to do when people violate the rules and laws that we have. Aside from the actual infrastructures, there is also the management of information and technology. We have not in the Province modernized that. We need a new system that handles information. We need a new electronic system that not only makes it more efficient for the court system, but then consequently makes it less costly for litigants and would reduce costs for court procedures.

It is incumbent upon the government to remove as many barriers as possible to justice for all the people of the Province. I would like to say that we are grateful for the work of the part-time judges who bring this expertise and continuity to our court system.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice, if he speaks now he will be closing debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pass my thanks along to the members of the other parties for their comments with respect to this bill, and note the concerns that they raise with respect to matters of access to justice and court infrastructure. These are ongoing issues, Mr. Speaker, with the Department of Justice. Some of these are in the purview of the chief judge who controls schedules and access to courts and so on – and circuit courts as well.

We are certainly very much aware of our infrastructure needs in corrections, especially with the need for a new court precinct in the City of St. John's, but we have also court needs in other parts of the Province. We have situations, Mr. Speaker, where court is being held in Lions Clubs and in rooms up over bars and clubs and so on. So, the need is there. We also recognize with respect to our heritage building downtown the infrastructure deficiencies in that particular building.

Mr. Speaker, these are issues that are ongoing in the Department of Justice and we are committed, as I have said earlier, to ensuring that we have the most efficiently run and effective court system that you can possibly have in this Province because it is a cornerstone of an effective justice system.

Mr. Speaker, with that I move this bill and I move to second reading.

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

Just one moment, please, to confer with the Clerk.

[Speaker confers with Clerk]

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you to the Clerk.

It has been moved and seconded that this bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991, be now read the 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 Provincial Court Act, 1991. (Bill 7)

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

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

MR. KENNEDY: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 7)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Order 8, second reading of Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Family Violence Protection Act.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I moved, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Family Violence Protection Act, now be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Family Violence Protection Act, Bill 8, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the Minister shall leave –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: No, I think I am –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Family Violence Protection Act". (Bill 8)

MR. SPEAKER: Sorry, to the Minister of Justice.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to introduce Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Family Violence Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker, family violence has devastating consequences for families and communities throughout this Province, and in order to put an end to this cycle of abusive behaviour, this government continues to make family violence prevention one of its top priorities.

Mr. Speaker, this government, in 2006, put a lot of teeth into the Violence Prevention Initiative program, and that strategy that focuses on the prevention and early intervention of violence relating to those in populations most as risk. These strategies, Mr. Speaker, were outlined in our document in 2006 called Taking Action Against Violence 2006-2012. That Violence Prevention Initiative, there are nine departments engaging in that. The Department of Justice is only one of the nine departments, along with representatives from community-based agencies that comprise this Violence Prevention Initiative.

In addition to all the work that our Victim Services division does in the Department of Justice, Mr. Speaker, some of the actions that have occurred underneath the Violence Prevention Initiative, we have done a number of things developing victim services and learning resources on the court preparation for children, for example. We have revised and delivered the RNC's program, STRIVE program, to empower students to take ownership of the issue of youth violence. We have ads on television with respect to "Respect Women". We have delivered training on family violence legislation in forty inter-agencies in the Province. We have implemented a Family Violence Protection Act, which was drafted with input from community and justice system representatives and proclaimed in 2006.

We have conducted research and an analysis on specialized family violence courts and, Mr. Speaker, I have implemented a Family Violence Court in the Province, currently in its fourth year. Mr. Speaker, we have continued the minister's Committee on Violence Against Women, which my hon. colleague the Minister of Finance – when he was the Minister of Justice – established; that minister's Committee on Violence Against Women meets quarterly.

Mr. Speaker, we have developed information packages on court procedures for shelter staff. We have made improvements to courtroom facilities to accommodate the needs of vulnerable witnesses, including investment in closed-circuit TV. We have improved translation services and interpretation services for Aboriginal people in the justice system. We have had joint training with police and social workers on family violence and the investigation of child sexual abuse. Mr. Speaker, we are committed, this government, to the family violence initiative and invested heavily in family violence prevention in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, some of the guiding principles which direct the work of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador Violence Prevention Initiative are: People have a right to a safe and secure environment. Health, well-being and productivity are enhanced in a violence-free environment. Violence is a choice and is preventable. There is strong evidence that effective intervention can reduce and prevent violence.

Mr. Speaker, prevention of violence is everyone's responsibility. The elimination of violence requires a comprehensive response, including prevention, public education services and enforcement of the law. Criminal and other acts of violence and abuse require effective consequences, including punishment under the law.

Mr. Speaker, as part of our work on this important issue, The Family Violence Protection Act was introduced in December 2005 to help protect family members who were affected by family violence. Mr. Speaker, the legislation provides a speedy and accessible process to allow a victim of family violence to obtain an emergency protection order from a provincial court judge without having to give notice to the alleged abuser. These applications, Mr. Speaker, are made ex parte, meaning without having to give notice to the other side; they are quick, effective, and accessible means to get emergency protection. Mr. Speaker, it is around this emergency protection order that this amendment is based.

This emergency protection order, EPO as we call it, can remain in effect for a maximum of ninety days. It cannot be extended and it cannot be renewed. It does not replace the other remedies available under the Criminal Code, under the Family Law Act, or other federal and provincial legislation, but it complements that legislation. It complements these remedies. It is quick, immediate, and done in an emergency situation.

An application for an emergency protection order may be made by a person who has lived or is living in a spousal relationship or an intimate or family relationship with the abuser and has been a victim of family violence. It can also be made by a lawyer or a police officer on behalf of that person who is a victim of family violence.

The emergency protection order, Mr. Speaker, is a way to address the immediate safety of victims of family violence, as I just mentioned. It provides legal protection to victims, but is not a criminal charge. It is just a way to expedite a person's safety. It is not intended to decriminalize violence, on the other hand. It is not meant to decriminalize a violent act and if there is reasonable or probable grounds, then a charge can be laid. It is for an emergency and it is immediate.

Now, an EPO may contain a variety of terms. It can order an abuser not to go to places where the victim regularly goes, not to communicate with the victim, and to stay away from the victim. It may allow the victim to stay in the home and order the abuser to leave the home. It may allow the victim temporary control over the use of personal property, such as the family car for example, or the use of the family bank account. It might provide for the seizure of weapons. There are any number of things the EPO can give for that period of ninety days.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the legislation also contains a review procedure within thirty days. Most of the time, the abuser was not given notice of the application. He has thirty days to receive that notice to look for a review of the order. He can ask to have the order varied, or terminated, for that matter. It also provides the opportunity for the respondent, the alleged abuser, with the right to apply to have the order set aside. There is a review process, but that review process is also in the Provincial Court. Any application to set aside an order, to terminate an order, or vary an order has again to be heard by a Provincial Court judge. The respondent has the opportunity then to review evidence, to call witnesses in support of his request to have the order reviewed, or even to cross-examine witnesses who were brought in the first place. That is a review process, Mr. Speaker, that is available to the respondent.

Mr. Speaker, what happens, if the outcome of the application for review is not favourable to the respondent, in other words if the judge confirms that the emergency order is going to stay in place for ninety days, then that respondent has no other opportunity for appeal. The same token, Mr. Speaker, if the judge terminates the Emergency Protection Order or varies it in some way before the expiration of ninety days, then the applicant has no opportunity for further review. There is no further additional opportunity beyond the review of the order. Our Province is unique in this regard, Mr. Speaker, because most other provinces have another level that they can go to.

Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province have had the benefit of the Family Violence Prevention Act in place now for five years. As part of my department's continuous review of the justice legislation to ensure the continued protection of vulnerable populations and fairness as well in the delivery of services, and in partnership with the judiciary, members of the bar and the stakeholders, it is now felt appropriate to propose an amendment to the Family Violence Protection Act.

The proposed amendment, Mr. Speaker, would provide either party to an emergency order, their statutory right to seek leave to appeal through the court of appeal, but only on a question of law or jurisdiction. They cannot review the facts, cannot review the merits of the case, the possibility is open for review, appeal on a question of law or jurisdiction.

That is not about rehashing the facts of the case or the merits, but really it is about ensuring whether or not the Provincial Court judge had the jurisdiction in the first place to make the order, or whether it is compliant with the constitution and other paramount principles of law. It allows for an appellate provision, which is not there now, and which is brought to our attention that it really needs to be there. It is an assurance that the Provincial Court does not overstep its legal authority under the current legislative scheme.

Mr. Speaker, these applications are made ex parte. That automatically sometimes gives prima facie case for the Charter infringement, a person's individual rights. Mr. Speaker, it might also conflict with other legislation. For example, if the judge makes an order that conflicts with the Divorce Act. The Divorce Act is not in provincial jurisdiction, or the Family Law Act, or the Children's Law Act. These are Supreme Court jurisdictions. If the order has a provision that deals with these, then it may be in conflict. Neither can the Provincial Court interfere in property rights because that is not the jurisdiction of Provincial Court.

Mr. Speaker, if we ever get a Court of Appeal decision, and if the opportunity arises down the road after this amendment comes in and Court of Appeal makes a decision, then that will clarify those issues and establish the law and clarify the law on Emergency Protection Orders.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice has reviewed domestic violence legislation in other provinces and the amendment that we are suggesting, it would not be unique at all to this Province. Domestic violence legislation in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut specifically incorporate a provision for a right to appeal to the Court of Appeal on a question of law or jurisdiction. Other jurisdictions, Mr. Speaker, have a different mechanism in place. When you get an EPO in a Provincial Court within seven days it has to be confirmed by the Supreme Court, in some jurisdictions. Then, it becomes the order of the Supreme Court. Once it becomes the order of the Supreme Court, it automatically opens up an appeal process. It can be confirmed by the Supreme Court or appealed through the Court of Appeal.

The right of appeal in this case, Mr. Speaker, would be to the Court of Appeal directly, and this is to ensure that such matters are handled expediently and the applicants would not be burdened by the unnecessary layers of appeal. Now, it can be done during the ninety days or it could be brought to the Court of Appeal after the ninety days. If it is a matter of law to be decided or a matter of jurisdiction to be decided, it does not depend on the ninety days of the duration of the EPO, it can be done any time afterwards because it a question of law or jurisdiction that has to be established, not the merits of the EPO.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment enhances the objectives of the Family Violence Protection Act and ensures a continued protection of vulnerable populations, specifically women and children and guarantees fairness in the delivery of services. Stakeholders would be much better served as such an appeal process would be more apparent and accessible and provides a broader range of remedies.

Mr. Speaker, this is a legal remedy, it is a legal issue. It gives equal opportunity to the responder and the applicant. It is equally fair to both sides. If the respondent feels aggrieved by the decision of the Provincial Court, he can appeal. If, on the other hand, the person who makes the applicant in the first place, the abused person, if she is not satisfied or he is not satisfied then he or she has a right to appeal.

Mr. Speaker, we have discussed this matter, we have consulted here with the Provincial Advisory Council for the Status of Women and also with the Women's Policy Office who are in very much support of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to present this bill, and I look forward to the comments from the other side.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

Again, it is an honour to stand and speak to this piece of legislation, the Family Violence Protection Act, the amendments suggested. I would suggest that by looking at just the size of the amendment it looks very small and simple but it is one of utmost importance for a number of reasons. That is certainly why we are in support of these amendments.

When we talk about family law, family law is probably one of the worst areas to practice in. It takes a toll on everybody involved. Certainly, the parents, the children, the extended family and friends, and even the people who are not directly involved, whether it be court staff or lawyers. It can be hard having to slog through family cases, especially when they involve issues of violence. It is really difficult, it is heartbreaking to sit and deal with those. This piece of legislation specifically presents a very, very quick and timely remedy to an immediate situation, which is good.

What we are doing here, this suggested amendment is just going to strengthen it but at the same time present an extra layer of judicial review. That is never a bad thing to have an extra set of eyes on something to make sure that things were done right, and that one side was not wrongly prejudiced. That is the unfortunate nature in many legal matters, or matters where there is one side versus the other, is that it is my story versus your story. Unfortunately, there are cases where people do not always say – they say what they have to, and that is why it is nice to have an independent person to come in after the first decision has been made – in this case, of a Court of Appeal – to look at this. Again, it protects the rights of both sides; the applicant and the respondent. That is the important thing here, because even in cases such as these where we have facts and scenarios that can be very horrendous, we must always protect the rights of both sides involved in this. Especially an emergency protection order, which sometimes there are consequences where we are keeping two people apart is one thing, but when you are talking about families and having kids gone, it is just a terrible issue.

When we talk about this section, we have cases where having that – it sort of ties into the first piece of legislation when we talk about access to justice. The emergency protection order itself is done in the Provincial Court. When we talk about places with circuit courts, they do not always have that immediate close-by avenue to go and make sure they get this emergency order done right away. Thankfully, there are other organizations and entities that can take advantage of this for them, whether it is the RCMP or the RNC. A group can make sure this is done, but in a lot of these cases you are dealing with people at their lowest points. They are desperate. They do not know what to do. They may be in a situation of severe abuse. Knowing that they have someone who can go and make sure this matter gets into court right away and gets the emergency protection order done is very important. That is a great thing.

That being said, as we all know, especially anybody who has practiced and anybody who has watched any kind of news, there are cases were justice was not done. The wrong decision was made. When you talk about criminal cases, there are people who have been wrongfully convicted. It happens. It is a sad reality to the judicial system that this is going to happen. Sometimes this can happen in these situations that involve EPOs.

Once you go in and get this emergency protection order done, you have the right, within ten days – if an emergency protection order is made against an individual, that person has the right to make sure that their side is heard. A judge is going to sit down, hear the facts, and make a decision. By putting that extra level, that extra layer of support in, we now have the ability to go to the Court of Appeal to have an appeal judge look at this. That only gives us reassurance that the right decision is made, and that is what everybody should be worried about.

One concern I did have at first is when we talked about the Court of Appeal. Traditionally, the Court of Appeal has only been here in St. John's. That is obviously not what I would call fair access to justice. If you have to travel to St. John's from a rural area to have this matter heard, it is a significant cost. Now with the very beautiful court that has been built out in Corner Brook, it is a fantastic building, and the Court of Appeal has sat out there. That is good, because it has made it so much easier for people to have that judicial review done without having to drive across the Island. That is a huge expense to drive across and then you have to find a place to stay. We are not getting into the cost of people to look after your family, to pay for your babysitting, you are taking a day off work, and it might be a day off your annual leave. So to be able to go to Corner Brook and hopefully have this matter heard in one day is a great thing for everybody. If not, if you live out in my area, that is at least a minimum three-day trip. You have to drive in, that is a full day on the road, you are in court for a day, and you drive back the next day. That is three days. Now that it is done in Corner Brook, it is a great thing.

In looking at this piece of legislation, I can confirm that I have had an opportunity to discuss this with the Gateway Status of Women's group out in my district in Port aux Basques. They have been advocates. In fact, I have done a member's statement already on the good work they have done. They have been advocates on behalf of women for thirty years now. Any time something like this comes up, they are my first point of contact to get their input, to get their thoughts. They are obviously very happy with the Family Violence Protection Act. To know that we are adding another section in, that protects both sides, is always a great thing, so they are in support of that.

Susanne and the staff in the Gateway Centre are very vocal, supportive of women, and making sure that women are – especially when we are talking about situations of violence, they are outspoken and very solid. They are great protectors and supporters of women. I am glad that they have given this to me; they have given this their blessing really, to know that there is another judicial review to look at – whether it is the applicant or the respondent – to make sure that justice is done here.

The Family Violence Protection Act ties into so many things. When you talk about a women's centre out in Port aux Basques, they take a lot of cases. They take women in off the street. They have had to leave abusive relationships; they have nowhere to go. To be able to come here, maybe even under a protection order – I know there are clauses where it allows the person to have exclusive possession of the home, but sometimes you do not always want to stay in your home. Sometimes you want to get away from that place. You do not trust it; there can be all kinds of different factors at play. The ability to go to this women's centre is vital.

One thing that they have brought up in the past – again, we can say it is connected or not – is the fact that they do need more housing out their way to make sure that in situations covered under EPOs and family violence, there is more social housing available to take care of these women and sometimes men who are in bad situations and need a place to stay. I look forward to seeing where we go with that. These women's centres are always looking for more funding, as they should be, and as they deserve.

I would say, looking back at the legislation here, sometimes we talk about – thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes when we look at this legislation, it is funny how you can have something that is a stack of documents high, but very housekeeping, very minor, non-substantive in nature. Then we have one presented here today that is really two pages, just a few clauses, but is of vital importance to this Province.

When we look at the practical application of these emergency protection orders, the fact that we can get into the Provincial Court right away – again, going back to what I discussed earlier – and even, it ties into the part about the judicial panel and having part-time judges. We need the availability of people to have these matters heard in a timely fashion. Anybody that has children knows in situations where they are not – if they are away from their children, they do not want to wait and add stress and pressure to the situation. They want to have the matter heard right away. They want to make sure that they can get into court, get their matter called, and have a judge look at it and decide whether they are going to make the order or not. That is why it ties into a section that is mentioned here again; it might not be noticeable, but when we talk about – every emergency protection order should contain a provision that advises the applicant and the respondent that they have the right to make an application.

Any time you are dealing with stuff like this, the fact that we need to make sure that people know about their rights – it is one thing to say it, it is one thing to talk about it, but people need to know and have made known to them; again it is never a bad thing to have too much notice when it comes to situations or issues of this nature. Again, when we talk about an emergency protection order, an emergency protection order is done ex parte as opposed to inter partes. If it is done ex parte, it means this application can be granted without the respondent knowing about it. You bring it into court – and again, that is obviously how it has to be done in a matter of this case where we are talking about an emergency. It is kind of hard to have an emergency dealt with if you have to track down the other person and let them know, look, this is what we are doing.

This is ex parte by nature; you go into court and it becomes effective once we make the respondent aware that an order has been granted against them. Then we need to make the respondent aware that they have a right to appeal this. They have a right; if they think that the order against them is wrong, they do not agree with the facts, they say the person is making this up or fabricating, obviously they have a right to present their side too. Every side has the right to present their side of the facts and that is why we trust judges as the arbiters, as the triers of fact, to listen to both sides, to listen to the facts. Again, this is all done in a sworn format; you lay out your facts, you swear that it is true, you put it in, the judge looks at it, and in many cases they will grant that order.

The big thing then is to make sure that this person, this respondent, knows about it, that they know they have a right to contest it, and then if they chose to contest it again, they can have it heard. That is why it is also important to make sure that a respondent, right or wrong – whether they did something horrendous or not, they have a right to have their matter heard in a Provincial Court close to them. They need to have an equal access to justice too. Everybody deserves that, no matter who they are or what they have done. Again, they can have their matter heard and then the judge can decide whether to leave the order valid or void the order; but to know that, depending on the decisions made, whether we are going to vacate that order or whether we are going to uphold that order, knowing that you now have the right of leave to appeal. You can bring this matter into the Supreme Court in Corner Brook, which is now the Court of Appeal, and that this court can hear the matter and you have the safety of knowing that at least you have had two sets of eyes on these facts. The way it works in many of these cases, you do not agree with it, but at least nobody is going to say you did not have the right to have your matter heard expediently, heard fairly, and heard by more than one person.

Again, that is never a bad thing to give people that right to have this judicial review. We have seen cases in this Province where we needed extra judicial review to make sure people had the justice that they were due. Unfortunately, in our judicial system, the fact is that sometimes justice is not served. My first boss actually told me, the first lesson he taught me was that the law and justice are two separate things. I always had to make sure that I remembered that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what I would say, just in summing up here and clueing up, there is not much more I can speak to about this, just how important it is. We need to make sure that this extra provision, once it becomes proclaimed, which I am sure it will be, that it is made known to everybody out there, men and women, so that people have an awareness of the law. As we know, ignorance of the law is certainly no defence.

So, again, I appreciate the time to be able to speak to this law. I appreciate the minister's comments on it, and I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Kent): The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: I am very happy to have the opportunity to speak to this bill, Bill 8, and the family violence protection order.

Thirty-one years ago I worked as a social worker at the Health Sciences Centre and I established the first protocol for the identification and treatment of battered women who came into the hospital. At that time, it was before the whole issue of violence against women was in the public agenda. It was not in the newspapers, it was not on the radio, it was not on the TV, it was not part of our vernacular, and it was not part of the legal system. Things have changed very much since then, but certainly then we knew how important emergency protection orders were.

I also was lucky enough to be on the committee that started the first transition house in Newfoundland and Labrador for victims of family violence, for women and their children. Again, it was at a time when there was a lot of resistance, when there was no acknowledgement of family violence. I remember it was four days before we opened, and I was helping a woman who had come into emergency at the Health Sciences Centre. She was in her sixties and she had been brutalized by her husband for years. She came into emergency as an overdose. It was something that women did in those days because there was no public acknowledgement of violence in the home. She attempted an overdose because it was one way of her getting out of her home, into an emergency room in the hospital and into safety.

We were going to be opening up our transition house in four or five days. She had nowhere to go when she was released from the hospital, so we decided to take her in before we were officially opened. Here she was, she had a few hairs on her head and they were rolled up in pink sponge rollers, and she was a tiny thing. She was a woman who had slept in her clothes instead of pyjamas every night for years because she was afraid of her husband at night. She slept on the couch. We brought her to the transition house four days earlier than it had opened. Then she wanted to speak at our grand opening. She talked about how appreciative she was that there was a safe place for her to go. As a matter of fact, she said: I want to thank you so much for taking me to the "transmission" house, because it saved my life. This is a woman who really was able to shift gears. Her life was very much changed and impacted by the changes that we see in our legal system and the services that are developed to help families, children, and families in need who are the victims of violence. Again, throughout my work as a social worker, whether it was in the emergency department at the Health Sciences Centre or through the transition house, we saw so clearly how important emergency protection orders were and how things have evolved in our justice system and in our court system.

I remember for a period of two years giving education programs to the police. Again, this was before the issue of violence against women, and family violence was out there on the public agenda and there was so much denial. We had so much work we had to do to educate people about these issues. It is very heartening to see how much progress has been made, how much progress has been made within the RNC, how much progress has been made within the medical system, how much progress in education has been made within the justice and the court systems.

This particular piece of legislation, it is good to see. That brings us to the Court of Appeal. I would like to just speak a few minutes about the Court of Appeal and some of the challenges that are faced in the Court of Appeal in Newfoundland and Labrador presently.

It has been noted that there has been an increasing number of litigants who come to the Court of Appeal now unrepresented. As a matter of fact, it is now over 51 per cent of people who come to the Court of Appeal, appellants who are in fact not represented by legal counsel. There are perhaps a number of reasons for this. One of the main reasons is the cost, the high cost of having legal representation. Also, at times when our court procedures are perhaps unnecessarily lengthy because we do not have a complete modernization of our justice system, have we, in fact, as a society priced the justice system out of the reach of the average person? Unless you are very, very low income you cannot access legal aid and we know how costly it is to engage lawyers and to engage that whole process.

This is not a disparaging mark against lawyers, but basically that the system is very, very costly for people. We have to look at the levels of income, the low levels of income that are capped for people to access our legal aid system. People coming to the appellate court unrepresented means that they do not have the skills or the expertise to bring in full research of the law, which then ties the hands of judges or justices in terms of using the full extent of the law, and the full reach of the law in looking at precedence. There is not a full use of precedence and of research. We know that what happens then is that judges, because the appeals court is very technical and complicated, people without lawyers can run into trouble trying to represent themselves. So then judges and clerks will try to help, and this moves our system. We know we have a system that is an adversarial system, but by judges moving down into the arena moves us more towards an inquisitorial system, which is not the system we employ in Newfoundland and Labrador. So people will either opt to not go to the appeal court because they cannot afford it, or they will go to the appeal court. There has been a drop in the number of appeals that go to court, but there has also been an increase in the number of people who will not be represented in court.

Oftentimes for Small Claims Court, the fee for the lawyer, for your legal counsel, often is in excess of the claim that litigants are going to. Also, litigants are often in fear of running into having to bear the cost of the other side if they lose their appeal. So that is a deterrent. At this point in our society, economics should not be a deterrent to social justice. Our justice system can only be fair and equal and it can only be social justice if it is accessible to all citizens. It means then that the appellant courts are only accessible to individuals who are wealthy or individuals who can qualify for legal aid. That is a very small proportion of our citizenship. It means that many people, in fact, do not have fair access to our justice system.

There are also problems on the civil and the commercial side because we are seeing more and more civil and commercial cases being taken to arbitration and not going to the appellant court. Consequently this means they are not relying on precedence and that our laws do not become modernized.

Our laws are not tested, and again, middle and low-income people, middle and low-income business owners, commercial owners, do not have access to the appellate court because they cannot afford it. We know that judges or the Attorney General can instruct for paid representation, but the criteria are very, very strict in this area. It has to be shown that the person has applied for legal aid and has been turned down. There has to be merit of case proven and it has to be proven that the person cannot argue their own case.

We know that the Chief Justice of Canada has spoken out on numerous occasions about the lack of true, fair, and equitable access to our justice system. This is a justice deficit. If our citizens cannot access our justice system, there is a problem. We need an overall plan for our justice system. We need a ten-year plan with measurable benchmarks so we can determine whether or not there is progress.

When was the last time that we had a full review of the administration of our court system and the way that it is structured? There is no long-term plan as to the modern management and structure of our justice system in Newfoundland and Labrador. We know that there has been a new Chief Administrative Officer of an office that has been established and there was going to be a review drafted by 2008. We have not seen that. We know that, for instance, in BC, they are undergoing a complete review of their justice system, and they are doing it in a very coordinated way. We know that it is very complex, but it is absolutely crucial. If we are to have a justice and a court system that is truly equal, that is truly accessible, that is truly fair, then these reviews have to be done, because our court system is not treating all citizens fairly and equally, because they do not have access because of the financial deterrents to use the court system.

This should be of great concern for all of us, for the citizens and for the court. This is about keeping our court system dynamic, evolving and responsive to the needs of all citizens of the whole Province. It is not a static reality, but we have been treating it like a static reality rather than taking the measures we need to take to make sure that it is evolving and responsive to the changing needs of our society and to the changing needs of our citizens.

I would like to thank the Speaker for this opportunity to speak to this issue. It is my hope that in fact we will see a review of our justice system with a ten-year plan, with measurable benchmarks, so that we as a society will have an evolving, dynamic system.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I was very pleased to hear this afternoon the hon. Opposition Justice Critic support the amendment to the Family Violence Protection Act. I was pleased to hear that the member was in support, so I thank the member for his support on this bill. That is great.

Mr. Speaker, when you talk about family violence, family violence is everybody's business. Not only is it everybody's business, Mr. Speaker, it is in every community in our Province, and it is a very important issue. Family violence, most of all, Mr. Speaker, is an abuse of power within relationships. It could be a relationship within the family, it could be trust or dependency, and it in some cases endangers the survival, security, or well-being of another person. Mr. Speaker, that is a very serious issue and obviously it is something that we cannot condone.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, the Family Violence Protection Act and this amendment, revolves around a very basic premise. It revolves around a basic premise that every citizen in Newfoundland and Labrador has the right to appeal. At this present time, Mr. Speaker, this particular piece of legislation lacks that. It lacks the opportunity for every citizen in our Province to have the right to appeal.

If you refer to other legislation throughout the country, Mr. Speaker, most other legislation has a mechanism in place that allows for the right of appeal. Similar legislation, Mr. Speaker, in other parts of the country – I believe there are eight or nine other jurisdictions that have in their legislation the right to appeal - this would only bring our particular act in line with other legislation throughout the country.

Family violence, Mr. Speaker, is a serious issue, but it is an issue that the provincial government has taken measures, through this Violence Prevention Initiative, to reduce. The Department of Justice, Mr. Speaker, is a member of the initiative. There are nine other organizations –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. members that the Member for Port de Grave has the floor. I ask for their co-operation.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, the Department of Justice is only one of nine other organizations within the Province that has been working on this initiative and they have made significant strides to reduce the incidents of family violence within our Province.

This amendment, Mr. Speaker, will allow the Court of Appeal to intervene and reverse a lower court judgement if there is a legal error in the judgement of the lower court. Such an appeal process, Mr. Speaker, will provide oversight to the Provincial Court with respect to the issuance of Emergency Protective Orders pursuant to the Family Violence Protection Act. That is important, Mr. Speaker.

I heard a member opposite talk about another set of ears, another set of eyes and another lens. I think it is always important, Mr. Speaker, that we remember that when we are passing any type of legislation we need the opportunity for another set of eyes and another lens on that legislation. By putting this appeal mechanism in place, we now are allowing the Court of Appeal to be that set of eyes, that set of ears, to review the lower court decision.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, in this Province and in every other province in this country we live day to day with family violence. We never know when it is going to approach one of our doors, Mr. Speaker, and we do not know what it is going to be. It could be physical abuse, it may be psychological abuse, it could be just harassment, people stalking one another, or it could be verbal abuse. The member opposite, the Member for St. John's Centre, talked about the lady, afraid to go to bed and slept in her clothes because she was afraid of her husband. Mr. Speaker, that goes on every day of the year in Newfoundland and Labrador and we need to have good legislation that protects those people.

We never know, Mr. Speaker, what goes on inside of our own doors. Most forms of family violence are crimes in Canada. Although the Criminal Code does not refer to any specific family violence offence, an abuser can be charged with an applicable offence. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things – it could be criminal harassment, sometimes called stalking, it could be uttering threats, it could be assault, and not only physical assault or assault with a weapon but verbal assault, aggravated assault. It could in fact, in some cases, be confinement – people afraid and confined to their own homes. It could be intimidation, Mr. Speaker. Any of these things could be a criminal offence – but this is not a criminal offence, this is a protection order. In other jurisdictions, as I stated earlier, in the other nine jurisdictions throughout the country, they all have this right of appeal.

The existence, Mr. Speaker, of family violence in our community affects our safety, it affects our security, it affects our health, and most importantly it affects the dignity of individuals. It affects our individual and collective ability to live free of fear. I cannot imagine what it is like to be living in an abusive relationship, Mr. Speaker. I cannot imagine what it is like to be living in a relationship where at night I do not feel comfortable going to sleep, or when I walk in the door I do not what I am going to face. It must be a very uncomfortable feeling when that person walks in their own home and they do not really know what is going to happen to them that evening.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot happening – in my district, in my area, O'Shaughnessy House is a shelter for battered women, and it is providing a great service to the people of our region and our district. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that as we go forward, there will be more of these opportunities so more women have an opportunity to go seek shelter in a time of need. I think that is very important. Mr. Speaker, these particular shelters not only are places of comfort, they also provide education and awareness, and help these people get out of the cycle, because many of these people have been in the cycle of abuse for years and years and years.

So, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to this today. I also thank the minister for giving me the opportunity to speak. I think it is a basic right that every citizen of our Province should have a right to appeal, and I am very glad to support this amendment to the legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

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

I thank the hon. members opposite for their comments, their contributions to the debate, and the support of the amendment, as well as my colleague from Port de Grave. I now move that this bill move to second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read the 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 Family Violence Protection Act. (Bill 8)

MR. SPEAKER: The bill has now been read the second time.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Family Violence Protection Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 8)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, Order 10, second reading of Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that Bill 10, An Act To Amend the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, be now read the second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act". (Bill 10)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to introduce Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, to this House for second reading.

Mr. Speaker, we live in an ever-changing and mobile society, and it is not unusual for people who are separated to live in different provinces, different territories, or even different countries than where their former spouse or children live. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, it is very important that our interjurisdictional support orders legislation progress to facilitate better access to justice for families in the Province who are dealing with interjurisdictional support orders. This amendment will ensure they receive the financial support they need and are entitled to.

Mr. Speaker, the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, often referred to as the ISO, was passed by the House of Assembly on December 19, 2002 and proclaimed in force on March 31, 2003. The ISO is based on a model statute that has been adopted, Mr. Speaker, by all provinces and territories. The ISO allows parents residing in different jurisdictions, such as another province, territory, or country, to obtain and vary support orders through a streamlined application process, and sets out a framework for support orders from one jurisdiction to be enforced in another.

In the absence of authorizing legislation, support orders of a foreign jurisdiction will be of no effect outside of that jurisdiction. There has to be reciprocal agreements between the jurisdictions. The objective of an ISO is to facilitate agreement among jurisdictions with substantially similar laws, to recognize and respect the support orders made by each other. That is what this amendment, Mr. Speaker, is all about.

Mr. Speaker, we are not only talking about this Province here. These amendments have been recommended to all provinces and territories by a federal-provincial-territorial working group comprised of representatives of all the provinces and all the maintenance enforcement programs in Canada. This working group was established to assist provinces and territories in identifying possible amendments to interjurisdictional support orders legislation, to ensure uniformity and to address issues and concerns that have been expressed by different provinces and territories since they each implemented the legislation.

To date, Mr. Speaker, amendments have been adopted in Manitoba and Alberta, and Saskatchewan is considering the amendments during their spring sitting. We will be the fourth province to bring these amendments in, but the other provinces are all in progress and they will all be done.

Mr. Speaker, the mandate of that working group that I referenced earlier was to conduct a review of the provincial and territorial interjurisdictional support orders legislation, do a complete review of all the interjurisdictional support orders, and to develop a list of possible amendments to the legislation given the experience that the different jurisdictions have had since the legislation was implemented; review the legislation in light of the provincial and territorial discussions, Mr. Speaker, concerning the United Nations or the Hague Convention on the international recovery of child support and other forms of family maintenance.

The proposed amendments in this bill will assist parties involved in the interjurisdictional support cases by enhancing the procedures to obtain or vary or register support orders of enforcement. This will be done, Mr. Speaker, by increasing accessibility, simplifying certain aspects of the court process, clarifying certain provisions of the legislation, and reducing time limits so applications can be concluded without unnecessary delay.

The amendments, Mr. Speaker, will clarify, for example, that support orders that are recalculated by the Recalculation Office in Corner Brook, or a similar child support recalculation service in other Canadian jurisdictions, can be recognized and enforced in the other jurisdictions. Mr. Speaker, sometimes support orders are given for certain amounts of support to be paid to one of the parties, and every now and then that support has to be recalculated. Whereas the initial order might be enforced, this amendment now will clarify that the recalculation orders can also be enforced.

Child support recalculation services provide an effective means for child support orders to be updated without the need for another court application. You had a court application the first instance; there will be no need for a court application for recalculation. This recalculation, Mr. Speaker, is done on the current parent, whatever parent is paying. As the income is increased or updated, then the recalculation of the support can also be updated. This amendment will ensure that recalculation can be enforced in the other jurisdictions.

Amendments will also assist the parties, and the Support Enforcement Program for that matter, to clarify often the confusing issue of what law applies to an interjurisdictional matter. It will help the courts in that matter as well. For example, a court order made in a Newfoundland and Labrador court is presumed to be made under the law of this Province, unless the order specifies otherwise. The duration of a support obligation granted in another jurisdiction is governed by the law under which the support order is made in that jurisdiction. When a Newfoundland and Labrador court is deciding on a support application, the court must first apply the law of this Province and will only be required to consider the foreign law if a support or variation order cannot be made under the law of this Province. Some clarification of jurisdictional law will be made by this amendment.

The word ordinarily, Mr. Speaker, appears in many of the provisions of our act to refer to where the person ordinarily resides. We are changing the word ordinarily to habitually to ensure consistent language with the Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and the other Forms of Family Maintenance. This Hague Convention is yet to be ratified by Canada but the provinces and territories are currently in discussions with the federal government with respect to the Convention. All the other provinces are using the same amendments. There is no legal reason for changing the word except to be consistent with the Hague Convention. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the French equivalent has always been, and I am going out on a limb here, habituellement. Where is my friend from Stephenville? This will not change the French version of the act of other jurisdictions.

One of the things this amendment will do, too, Mr. Speaker, which is significant, it will reduce the eighteen-month period allowed by a court to receive additional information or documents that are requested to twelve months. Now, Mr. Speaker, if an application for a variation of a support order is made in a jurisdiction and the court requests further information or further documentation, you now have eighteen months for the other jurisdiction to get that information in. We want to reduce that time, it is far too long, and we think we will reduce that time to twelve months to ensure that matters are adjudicated in a timely manner with information that is as current as possible.

Another thing the amendments do, Mr. Speaker, it authorizes the director of support enforcement to confirm that a person resides in that jurisdiction. If this jurisdiction requested another jurisdiction in the country information on whether or not a respondent lives in that jurisdiction, then that jurisdiction can now confirm or deny that that person lives there. The director would not be authorized to release the address, but at least it gives you information as to where the respondent lives. That way the director of support enforcement has access to a number of provincial and federal databases which may indicate the location and makes it easier and expedites the process of bringing the support of the application.

In this Province, Mr. Speaker, the Support Enforcement Program, which is operated in Corner Brook, is the designated authority. They are responsible for reviewing and processing the ISO application made by claimants who reside outside of Newfoundland and Labrador seeking to vary or change or challenge a support order within the Province, or the claimants who reside within Newfoundland and Labrador who wish to vary, change, or challenge a support order made in another jurisdiction.

That Support Enforcement Program falls under the responsibility of the Department of Justice and is a publicly funded program. The program was set up, Mr. Speaker, to enforce all child and spousal support orders on behalf of parties in whose favour these orders have been made.

Mr. Speaker, some interesting statistics with regard to our Support Enforcement Program. As of March 31, 2011, the Support Enforcement Program in this Province had 7,124 open, active accounts or approximately 647 files for support enforcement officers. The program collects $32 million annually in support payments, and it contributes $2.5 million back to the Province in recovery of Income Support benefits paid. Since the program was established in 1989, it has collected over $387 million in support benefits for individuals. There are some interesting numbers released by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics Centre on Canadian Maintenance Enforcement Programs that speaks to our Support Enforcement Program here in this Province. The Support Enforcement Program in this Province is at the top of the list in the country in most major statistical categories; for example, a 97 per cent collection rate, which is phenomenal – 97 per cent. It has a 77 per cent compliance rate with the regular monthly support due, and it has the lowest number of amounts with arrears at 37 per cent. Mr. Speaker, these numbers speak volumes with respect to the benefits of the enforcement of support orders and interjurisdictional support order legislation in this Province, as well as the success of the Maintenance Enforcement Programs in the country.

Mr. Speaker, approval of these amendments is necessary as the interjurisdictional nature of the legislation are dependent upon all jurisdictions having substantially the same laws, or similar laws, to recognize, honour and support orders made by each other. I might find out, Mr. Speaker, that a lot of these amendments are already in practice and, in a lot of cases, we are codifying what already exists.

We heard today members across the way talking to access to justice issues, these proposed amendments will promote increased access to justice for the families of this Province who are dealing with interjurisdictional support orders.

Mr. Speaker, again, I thank you for the opportunity to discuss these amendments to the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act. I look forward to the debate of the other members.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise and am pleased to see that the government has introduced this legislation. This legislation is very important legislation and will be very useful on enforcing support orders, not only enforcing but in managing support orders. I am pleased to hear the minister report some of the collection rates. In fact I have, within private practice, been retained by Support Enforcement to collect support arrears. When it gets to the point that people have to be dragged into court to collect support arrears, they are not very happy customers, they are not at all pleased. On occasion, it has been necessary to ask the judge to instruct the police to go get them. It is not a crime not to have the means to pay child support, but it is a violation of a court order if you have a support order, you have the means to pay, and you fail to pay that support order.

There are many issues, particularly with interjurisdictional support orders, and a lot of this is brought about because of the nature of our workforce. Our workforce is probably the most mobile workforce in the country; we have people who leave here to go to, more principally, Alberta right now. They have support orders in place and sometimes they do not have support orders in place, but finding them sometimes if they do not wish to pay can be a real chore, and also the provisional support order management between this Province and some other provinces can be really problematic. In a case that I can recall, an individual came to me with support arrears – and this was approximately a year ago – and the support order was from the 1990s, there was a substantial arrears amount. Support was still accumulating even though the three children were all in their twenties, two of them had their own children, so he was, in fact, a grandfather and support arrears were accumulating. After obtaining a provisional support order here, that provisional support order was filed in Ontario. According to the court last August, that provisional support order has still not been processed and he is still having child support garnished from him at fifty-eight years of age and this is a tradesperson who has had shoulder replacement surgery, hip replacement surgery, and all sorts of issues. This could have been resolved more quickly if we had a better system for dealing with provisional support orders.

In dealing with provisional support orders, my view is that once the other side has been served in another jurisdiction if they have thirty days and they have not responded, then a reverse onus should apply. It should be deemed that the provisional support order or variation order could become law if the person has not responded. In the case that I am referring to, their legal counsel has already responded to me and, technically, we have an understanding that there will be no arrears recovered and the support will discontinue. It falls off the radar screen and the other party has no incentive to agree to a variation even though we are talking about people with a support order from a long, long time ago which is still accumulating arrears.

In regular instances, there is a deficiency in my view in how we recalculate income when somebody refuses or fails to file tax returns. At this point you could have someone in this Province, for example, making $50,000 a year and they are paying child support based on $50,000 a year. They move to Alberta and they start making $150,000 a year; the federal child support guidelines would indicate that figure of child support should go up substantially.

If the person refuses to file a tax return, the automatic amount will go up by 10 per cent, so there is a disincentive for the person who has a higher than 10 per cent income to file any tax returns. My view is that the 10 per cent threshold, the automatic increase, should probably be 25 per cent or 30 per cent, to make it high enough that if you do not file your taxes, which by law you are required to file, but if you are not filing your taxes in order to avoid paying the appropriate amount of child support, then the 10 per cent threshold and the annual increase should go up quite substantially.

The legislation is well intended. If not the legislation, then the area of law that is contemplated is probably as complex as it becomes. Most lawyers, when you say conflicts of laws, will look back and they will shudder at the good old days of law school. Generally, you did not want to rush in and do conflicts. Conflicts is when you cannot figure out what court to go to, what law to use, who is on first, and who is on second. Generally, you would have had that more in the case of businesses and maybe estates; somebody dies here, the house is there, and the other stuff is someplace else.

With the nature of our mobile workforce, it is critical to have this legislation that is being proposed as current as possible and as comprehensive as possible, while at the same time being as simple as possible – if it can be comprehensive and simple, easy to understand, yet comprehensive because it will deal with a multitude of issues.

There also will be individuals who will move back from Alberta, Ontario, or any other place, who have had a high income, and maybe they have an old support order in another jurisdiction which is still in place. Now, they have decided to come back home for maybe 50 per cent of the income and they are happy to do so. They have a support order from someplace else that they are dragging behind them like a ball and chain. There is a significant possibility for hardship on the part of the payer. In the case of the recipients, there is no doubt that child support and spousal support – but mostly child support – should be enforced vigorously. I cannot imagine any explanation why a parent would not support a child. Nothing ranks higher in judgment enforcement than child support, not even taxes. A person must pay child support.

This legislation is potentially very good legislation. Admittedly on a first blush, it is complex legislation. For me – somebody who has practiced in the area, someone who has lived in four Provinces, practiced law in two – this is complicated legislation, but important legislation. It will be very useful legislation.

The view that I take with a lot of our legislation is if we can make it as favourable to the people in our own jurisdiction as we can, then we should certainly do so. When we are looking at interjurisdictional application, it needs to be balanced. If there are cases where there is no similar legislation in the other jurisdiction, then I believe that we should fill the void to the advantage of our people and have our courts the authority to be able to interpret, adjudicate, apply, and put in place remedies so that we do not have people who suffer because we have a mobile workforce.

I look forward to more debate on this bill. I look forward to the opportunity to make recommendations and I thank the minister for bringing this bill before the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, you got it right today.

It is a great privilege to get up here today and to speak on this bill, Bill 10. As the hon. member across the way for St. Barbe made notice, this is a very good bill; it does a lot. The main gist of this bill is to make sure that we support the most vulnerable people in any separation or any break up at all, which are more than likely the children. This is a very important legislation that we put in place, things that will make their lives a little easier.

I know the minister and the hon. member are both involved in law so they can basically speak about the law part of this part of the legislation. Now, I am not a lawyer but this part of the legislation affects me; it affected me in my life. As most of us know, the way it is these days, marriages do not last forever in the majority of circumstances, I being one, so I know what happens in marriages -and they are very difficult. It is a difficult time. It is difficult for the two people who are separating.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are honest.

MR. K. PARSONS: I am honest. I am definitely honest.

They are very difficult for the people who are separating, but they are also very difficult when there are children involved. It is so easy for us to look at - as people who do separate, get bitter, get mad, get upset, and it is never easy for whoever is involved. This legislation today, it is very important that we make sure we do things for the people who need the help the most. It is not the two people who are separating; it is the children who are involved.

This legislation today makes it easier for us to be able to go to different jurisdictions. Like the hon. Member for St. Barbe noted, a person could be making $50,000 in Newfoundland, all of a sudden that person gets an opportunity to go to Fort McMurray and makes $150,000. So his obligation to his children, or her children – it could be the other way around. Obviously, if a person is making $150,000, he is the person who brought those children into this world and he should be obligated – or she should be obligated, because it can happen both ways – should be obligated to those people.

What this legislation is doing, it is clarifying a lot of different parts of the legislation but it is making things work in a more timely manner. As the minister said earlier, it is reducing the time from eighteen months to twelve months for documentation to the courts, so the courts have to react a lot quicker. He also mentioned about the parties working together. He also mentioned that this is something that all jurisdictions right across Canada, in every province, in the territories, and federal government, all put a working committee together so that we do the right thing. So Newfoundland and Labrador, we are in with everybody else. If there are people moving from different parts of Canada to Newfoundland, the jurisdictions in their parts of the province can come to our support enforcements to make sure that the people who are the most vulnerable, the children, get what they fairly deserve. That is what this is all about.

Like I said, marriage today is a different thing than it was when, I am sure, my mother and father got married. I know a lot of people today do not get married. They live common law. They will not walk down that aisle for some reason or another, and that is their choice. There are so many people - I know a lot of my friends who have children and their children are twenty-five and twenty-six, twenty-seven years old and they never, ever got married. That is their choice, but they still have an obligation to their children. No matter where they move to or what they do, if they decide to separate they have that obligation to the children. This is part of the act where we have to make sure that we are taking care of our children and this is what it is.

It is a great, great act and I comment the minister for doing a great job and bringing this in, and I fully support it.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill 10.

I have been a marriage commissioner for about eight years and it has been a very interesting process. I do not see my role as a marriage commissioner to advise people or to counsel them; however, I do meet with the couple. I meet with them to try to design a wedding ceremony that would be appropriate for who they are. I did on two separate occasions say to two separate couples: You know it is harder to get out of it than it is to get into it.

Victor Hugo is one of my favourite writers, and he said, "The supreme happiness in life is the conviction that we are loved." When that goes awry and when that goes wrong, it is very complicated. We know how complicated the whole area of family law is. We know how complicated it is when these ideal unions do breakdown and fall apart.

This bill really is about the right of children to be supported. We all know that children do have rights. They have rights to be supported, they have rights to education, they have rights to housing, and they have rights to security.

This is about money and support. We all have heard stories, and I have in my work as a social worker, about mothers or parents at Christmastime or when school starts calling the parent who is not providing the financial support that they are supposed to, begging for money; begging for money for Christmas gifts, begging for money for new sneakers or books for school, or a new school book bag. We know how incredibly difficult that has been for the custodial parent and how incredibly difficult that has been for children. Even though perhaps the children do not know the full extent of what the disagreement is about, they can sense that tension in the home.

We also know how difficult it is for the custodial parent when they know that the other parent does have money, that they can help support the child and are being negligent.

I support this bill. Many lawyers have said that interjurisdictional situations are an absolute nightmare – an absolute nightmare – so it takes time, it takes money, and it takes effort to try and track down what should be rightfully belonging to children to help support them so that they can flourish.

Any kind of legislation, any kind of adaptation that actually can facilitate that process is welcomed, but also on the condition that we are protecting people's human rights. I am happy about the recommendations of the Hague Convention, where the response will be yea or nay, whether a person lives in a certain jurisdiction.

Because this is about money, and again this is about social justice, I would just like to take a moment to talk about the issue of legal aid, the issue of eligibility for legal aid, and that we know again that the price of litigation, the price of defence has increased over the years and the low cap for eligibility for legal aid simply is not high enough. People have gone into debt to try to defend themselves, or people have gone in debt to pursue justice. In a society where our justice is based on social justice, on fairness, and on equality, people should not be deterred from their pursuit of justice because of economics. This is not acceptable at this time in our society.

There are so many lawyers now who are doing pro bono work for people who are economically disadvantaged and cannot access the justice system, and they are to be commended. It is my hope that in the Province we will have a review of our justice system and our court system to ascertain why is it that we have fewer people going to the appeals court. Is it because of money? Why are more and more people representing themselves? Is it because they cannot afford representation? If people cannot afford representation, it means that in fact we have a higher danger of false accusations and false accused, and that we also have less access to our justice system.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I thank the hon. members for their participation in the debate and for the points that they raised. Mr. Speaker, anytime you get topics on social justice, topics like family violence, topics like interjurisdictional support orders and support for families – anytime you are dealing with legislation dealing with the vulnerable, it always sparks an interesting debate.

Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of the Department of Justice's record over past years in bringing in legislation and in implementing and updating amendments to the legislation. It is a case of having the best justice system possible and it is a case of improving access to justice, especially for the vulnerable. Mr. Speaker, in reference to the social justice agenda, we are extremely happy with the improvements we have made to the system over the last number of years.

I thank the hon. members and my colleague from Cape St. Francis for their comments and I will move this bill to second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read the 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 Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act. (Bill 10)

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

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

MR. KENNEDY: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 10)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bills 7, 8, and 10.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Verge): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991". (Bill 7)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 5 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 5 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 Provincial Court Act, 1991.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: We are now considering Bill 8.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Family Violence Protection Act". (Bill 8)

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 Family Violence Protection Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Bill 10.

CHAIR: We are now considering Bill 10.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Interjurisdictional Support Orders 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'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 26 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 26 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 26 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 Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those in favour, ‘aye'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move that the Committee rise and report Bills 7, 8, and 10.

CHAIR: It has been moved and seconded that the Committee now rise and report Bills 7, 8, and 10.

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 (Kent): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte, and Chair of Committee of the Whole and Deputy Speaker.

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to the referred and have directed me to report Bills 7, 8, and 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 Bills 7, 8 and 10 without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MR. KENNEDY: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said bills be read a third time?

MR. KENNEDY: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bills ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I move seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, that this House do now adjourn.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

This House stands adjourned until Monday at 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon.

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