June 4, 2012                       HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                    Vol. XLVII No. 42


The House met at 1: 30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today we are very pleased to welcome – I know we are very pleased, but I think we are probably going to be welcoming one of the youngest members to ever sit in the Speaker's gallery with us today – and very pleased to have with us the provincial government's winner of the meter stamp contest. We have Karlie Pinsent, who is the winner of that. She is a Grade 4 student in Greenwood Academy in Campbellton. She is here with her family today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Welcome, Karlie, to our Assembly.

We are also very pleased today to welcome – in fact, they are just entering the gallery; I will acknowledge them as they are walking in - seventeen Grade 3 students from Topsail Elementary in the District of Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: They are accompanied today by their principal, Ann Marie Conway, and their teacher, Heather Squires. Welcome to our Assembly.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we will have members' statements from the Member for the District of Torngat Mountains, the Member for the District of Exploits, the Member for the District of Mount Pearl South, the Member for the District of Port de Grave, the Member for the District of Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, and the Member for the District of Bonavista North.

The hon. the Member for the District of Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the volunteer efforts of a most remarkable member of the community of Nain.

Mr. Speaker, Rod Pilgrim has given nearly forty years of dedicated volunteer service to the residents of Nain. Mr. Pilgrim was and still is a cornerstone of the volunteer community, having set up many organizations, such as recreation committees, and has served tirelessly as a past member of the town council for many, many years.

Rod has also repaired many, many hundreds of machinery and household items for residents in Nain while not asking for or taking a penny in payment. This is especially appreciated by the residents of Nain as they do not have repair shops for costly equipment.

Mr. Pilgrim is the definition of a volunteer and his name no doubt has been put forward as a candidate for the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Awards from the District of Torngat Mountains.

I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in recognizing the extraordinary efforts of Mr. Rod Pilgrim.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, May 26, the Trefoil Central Area of Girl Guides of Canada held their very first Canada Cord Awards at the Brittany Inns in Lewisporte.

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Cord presentation is the second-highest award any girl can receive in all her years with Girl Guides and can only be awarded after they meet the requirements of the three-year program.

Mr. Speaker, from Bishop's Falls, the recipients were: Chelsea Baker, Samantha Martin, Shae-Lynn Slade, and Danielle King. From Botwood, the recipients were: Erin Ball, Julia Collins, Kelsey Saunders, and Brianna McGrath.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating these recipients on their dedication to the Guide movement and for this prestigious recognition.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in this hon. House to recognize the Mount Pearl Lions Club for their tremendous contribution to the City of Mount Pearl and indeed to the Province as a whole. This group of community-minded volunteers are actively engaged in such activities as: the Adopt-a-Highway program, participation in the Frosty Festival, blood donor clinics, Christmas hampers for the needy, Christmas shoe box campaign, eyeglass recycling program, Peace Poster Contest, and the running of the Mount Pearl Santa Claus Parade, just to name a few.

They also contribute financially to many worthwhile programs such as the School Breakfast Program, sponsoring of sports teams, high and junior high school scholarships, and the Mount Pearl Youth Opportunity Fund.

Mr. Speaker, we have often heard the expression that volunteers are the heart of our community. This group is certainly a testament to that. I would therefore ask all members of this hon. House to join me in commending the Mount Pearl Lions Club for the great work they do in the community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize a lady who was a foster parent for fifty years. Today I pay tribute to Louise Lane of Makinsons for her caring, sharing, and enhancing the lives of over 160 children.

Mrs. Lane opened her doors to her first foster child in 1961, was a birth mother for two children, and adopted three children during her life. She was widowed at the age of forty-two with four of her own children and five foster children at the time.

As the family grew, so did her home, with the addition of another room constructed mostly by her sons to accommodate the next child who came her way. She commented that when a child left, it was like giving away one of her own children.

Mrs. Lane is now gone, but her legacy of love, devotion, caring, and sharing will live on in the lives she has touched. In her last years, while battling illness, she still shared her home with children in need and on the day of her passing was caring for two foster children.

I ask all hon. members to join me in recognizing a woman who gave her love to everyone who passed over her doorstep.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House to recognize the outstanding efforts of residents of Charlottetown, Labrador and surrounding areas, as well as those residents in Corner Brook, who both held cancer relays this past weekend and raised a tremendous amount of money for cancer research, treatment, and prevention.

It was an honour for me to participate and speak at the rally held in Charlottetown. There were a total of seven teams participating, with team members travelling from Red Bay to Cartwright to show their support. Three of these teams were all youth participants, which truly demonstrate the compassion and caring nature of our youth.

This was their seventh annual relay, which raised approximately $15,000, bringing the total over the past seven years to approximately $140,000. It was a very cultural evening, with the team, Trapping for a Cure, from Pinsent's Arm being named the most spirited, and the team, Fishing for a Cure, being the team that raised the most money.

I also attended the Relay for Life and spoke at the Survivors' banquet in Corner Brook on Saturday. It was a fabulous show of support in the region, as well as thirty-five teams participating in the relay, and 250 attending the Survivors' dinner. This was their tenth annual relay, and keeps getting bigger and better each year. They raised approximately $54,000, and participants and organizers are to be commended for their support and dedication.

I ask members in the House to join me in recognizing the organizers, participants, and the donors who were responsible for making these Relay for Life celebrations in Charlottetown and Corner Brook a success, and the communities around the Province for the work that they are doing with Relay for Life. These events play a vital role in our Province toward the treatment and prevention of this dreaded disease.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Bonavista North.

MR. CROSS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure and honour to rise today to recognize several graduating cadets from my district. I was fortunate to attend ceremonial reviews of the 840 Indian Bay Air Cadet Squadron and 2910 Lions Army Cadet Corps at New-Wes-Valley on the 28 of April, and the 12 of May, respectively.

I have always admired the discipline and commitment of the cadets and their leaders, and I witnessed very poised performances in public speaking, music, band performance, demonstrations of leadership by youth, and lessons on first aid and survival in their static displays.

I would like to name personally the graduating cadets from my district who have been involved – and most of them, I would add, with 100 per cent attendance for all six years. From the 840 Squadron in Indian Bay: Warrant Officer First Class Lyndon Rogers, and Warrant Officers Second Class Noelle Slaney and Kaitlin Hunt. From the 2910 Lions Army Cadet Corps at New-Wes-Valley, Chief Warrant Officer Myles Burry, Warrant Officer Hillary Feltham, and Warrant Officer Megan Blackwood. Also, from the 537 Squadron at Gander, Flight Sergeant John-Charles Tulk of Aspen Cove, who travelled to Gander weekly. His father drove him, so you might say he had a driven desire to be a cadet.

I would ask all members to congratulate also two gentlemen who had the foresight forty years ago, Mr. Gerald Batstone and Walter Jacobs who were instrumental in founding and being active in all forty years of 2910 Corps at New-Wes-Valley. Mr. Speaker, I have come to realize that being a cadet involves more than marching and polishing shoes.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform this House that earlier today, on behalf of the hon. Clyde Jackman, Minister of Education, I had the great pleasure of making a presentation to the winner of the provincial government's postage meter stamp design contest, which was held to commemorate the sixtieth anniversary of the reign of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II.

Last month, we challenged Grade 4 students in school districts throughout Newfoundland and Labrador to come up with a postage meter message to acknowledge Her Majesty's Diamond Jubilee. The winning image, Mr. Speaker, will be placed on all provincial government outgoing mail for the remainder of 2012.

We chose Grade 4 students, Mr. Speaker, because it is at this level that our students are introduced to the relationship between the British monarchy and Canada as part of the social studies curriculum. They study Canadian symbols, such as Canada's Coat of Arms, and the history of Britain in Newfoundland and Labrador, and in Canada. This contest was designed to enhance our students' awareness of this aspect of our history, and our democracy, and to let them be part of the activities marking this significant event in the reign of Queen Elizabeth II.

In fact, this contest is one of a series of activities being held this year to honour Her Majesty for a lifetime of dedication to public service. For example, last month there was a ceremonial shrub planting here at the Confederation Building and, as you may know, two Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee congratulatory message books have been touring the Province for the past several weeks. They will be delivered to Buckingham Palace in January 2013.

Mr. Speaker, allow me this opportunity to thank all the students and teachers who participated in the contest. There were many terrific submissions from all over the Province, but, in the end, there had to be a winner – and that winner was Karlie Pinsent, a student at Greenwood Academy in Campbellton.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: My colleagues can see the design depicted below on their copies of this statement, as well as the envelopes featuring the new stamp. It will also be available for viewing on-line.

Mr. Speaker, Karlie and her family are in the Speaker's gallery today, a place reserved for very special guests. I invite all members of the House to join me in congratulating her, and thanking her, for coming up with this special postage meter design.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

Congratulations to Karlie Pinsent for this extraordinary achievement. It is wonderful that Karlie and her family could be here to share in her recognition today.

The postage meter stamp design contest was a creative way to engage Grade 4 students in the Diamond Jubilee and the role that Britain and the Monarchy have had to play in our history. This contest inspires the artistry of children and allows the winner exceptional recognition. To think Karlie's image is going to travel around the globe and be seen by people all around this world is very exciting. This contest is a very nice gesture to involve kids in the commemoration of the Diamond Jubilee, and anything in my mind that inspires children to learn about the history is a great thing.

Again, congratulations to Karlie on this achievement and kudos to all students who participated.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you to the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

I would like to thank all the Grade 4 students and their teachers who participated in the postage meter contest, and I too extend congratulations to Karlie Pinsent on her winning entry. Over the next few months a great many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and others will have an opportunity to size up her award winning entry in their mailboxes, and I would also like to applaud the Department of Education for this initiative. This contest is an innovative way to encourage our young ones to learn more about our history and our heritage. Good work!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize June as Seniors Month. This is an opportunity for the provincial government to acknowledge the lifelong contribution that seniors make to their communities and to the Province.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that older people are supported in their ability to remain independent and that efforts are made to improve their financial well-being and overall quality of life. With that in mind, Budget 2012 allocated $3.7 million to provide individuals aged sixty-five years and over, a 35 per cent reduction on driver's licence and vehicle registration fees, and other licences and fees for such things as hunting, fishing, cutting wood and camping.

This complements the goals of the provincial Healthy Aging Policy Framework which aims to recognize older persons, celebrate diversity, support communities, encourage health and financial well-being, and support employment, education and research. The framework was established in 2007 to further support and recognize seniors for their valuable contributions.

Mr. Speaker, our government has made significant investments to help enhance and improve the lives of older people throughout our Province including enhancements to the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program, increases to the home heating rebate, an enhanced Newfoundland and Labrador Seniors' Benefit, and significant tax reductions.

Our government is moving forward with its commitment to support seniors who avail of the 65Plus Plan under the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Drug Program. Through changes made to this plan resulting from savings from the new generic drug pricing policy, we have ensured that seniors covered by the 65Plus Plan will pay no more than $6 per prescription.

Mr. Speaker, part of developing an age-friendly Province is recognizing and promoting the value and worth of older persons in our Province. It is in this spirit that the provincial government will present the annual Seniors of Distinction Awards later this month. This awards program recognizes and celebrates the lifelong contributions, achievements, and diversity of seniors throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Healthy aging is a priority for our government and we will continue to support seniors' health and wellbeing throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

We know we have an estimated 85,000 seniors in our Province right now; that is one in six people. What we also know, Mr. Speaker, is that by 2025 we are expected to have one in four people living in our Province, which would be just over 127,000 seniors. We know this because we have one of the fastest-aging populations in Canada, largely because people are living longer these days and we have low birth rates.

What we also know is that seniors, indeed, in our health care system are treated differently. One of the things that we have been asking for, as other associations like the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association and the Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador, is a geriatric model of care, which is something we feel needs to be included into our health care system. This is something that is done, as I said, in many other parts of the world; we know that geriatric patients are treated differently than people that use our acute care system.

We stand today and recognize the fantastic achievements of many of our seniors in our Province. They have laid the foundation for a lot of the privileges that we enjoy today. Mr. Speaker, I join with the minister today congratulating the seniors and recognizing them for the fantastic benefits they have given to the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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.

I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. On this occasion, I would like to recognize the contributions that seniors have made and are still making to this Province. I would also like to commend the Seniors Resource Centre and the many other organizations across the Province who work hard to improve the lives of seniors and to represent those lives to all of us as elected representatives.

I am pleased that government is protecting seniors on the 65Plus drug program because of the changes to the generic drug policy. However, many seniors who are not eligible for this card have trouble paying for drugs and medical supplies. Mr. Speaker, I encourage the minister and this government to make 65Plus available to all seniors.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Thursday the Premier surprised us all by stating that $8 billion is not too much to pay for Muskrat Falls. This is contrary to the advice of Dr. Wade Locke who stated that if cost estimates were to reach that height, then the project should be reconsidered.

I ask the Premier: At what cost would you reconsider Muskrat Falls, because apparently $8 billion is not too high?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have members opposite pulling numbers out of the air and out of reports, and putting them forward in isolation, looking for commentary back. What they got was the kind of answer that that kind of a question deserved, Mr. Speaker.

When we make a decision on sanction of Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker, we will have updated numbers that are going to be different than the Decision Gate 2 numbers. They will be comparable, compared to all the alternatives, Mr. Speaker, and what is in the best interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will guide the decision with regard to sanction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The comment was made. The Premier made the comment in response to the $8 billion question. What we would like to know is - from the government's own numbers we know that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will have to pay 16.4 cents per kilowatt of power. That is based on the $6.2 billion budget that is at DG2 numbers.

I ask the Premier: What will the cost be to ratepayers in this Province if the project does indeed go to $8 billion?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to engage in speculation here on the floor of the House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, as I said we had a number plucked out of a report in isolation and a question posed by the Leader of the Third Party based on that isolated piece of information.

Mr. Speaker, we are getting Decision Gate 3 numbers now. As we get those numbers, we will do a comparative analysis to all of the alternative options, Mr. Speaker. Once we get all of that information, it is going to be shared with members opposite, Mr. Speaker. We are going to have an opportunity to debate it all here in the House of Assembly, and pertinent questions related to a change in cost will be answered then, once we understand what those costs are, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: I ask the Premier - let's make it very clear to the people who are listening. It was your comment: Is $8 billion too much to pay? You said on Thursday it was not. Is it too much to pay today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in some cases $8 billion might be too much to pay, in other cases $8 billion might the absolute right amount to pay. We can only make those decisions once we understand what the Decision Gate 3 numbers are, Mr. Speaker, and what the costs of all the alternatives are.

Mr. Speaker, certainly members of the Opposition are not suggesting to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that we sit up in the dark if $8 billion is the least cost we can pay for power in this Province. That seems to be what they are saying over there in the midst of their silly games, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Well, it is not a silly game in my mind because the ratepayers of this Province already know that they will have to pay 100 per cent of that project. That is what is important for the people that I am talking to.

Just last week we learned that Nalcor's average sale price for export energy was 4.5 cents a kilowatt hour. Muskrat Falls will cost at least 23.9 cents to produce, that is to get it to Soldiers Pond. We have also learned that Manitoba has run into problems selling its power, which costs them eleven cents. They cannot sell it for 3.5 cents to the US.

I ask the Premier: Are there any export markets for Muskrat Falls willing to pay the actual cost of construction?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I found to date in this House that the Leader of the Opposition normally does not get involved in this kind of inaccurate statement. The question becomes, Mr. Speaker, not the cost to deliver power to Soldiers Pond, but what is it costing the people of our Province?

I indicated last week, Mr. Speaker, that the average ratepayer in this Province who uses 1,517 kilowatt hours of electricity per month will, based on Decision Gate 2 numbers, Mr. Speaker, his or her power bill will go from $217 in 2016 to $232 in 2017. What Muskrat Falls will do, Mr. Speaker, it will stabilize then reduce rates. It is rather unfair that the member opposite put the question like that. Also, what about your Labrador mining projects, I say to the Member of Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: To be fair to the minister, I will ask the question again. My question was not about the ratepayers in Newfoundland and Labrador; it was for export markets.

Are there any export markets willing to pay for the actual costs of the construction of Muskrat Falls power?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, there are always export markets; when we met with the various energy advisors in the United States, the way they put it is that there will be a market. The question, you pay, or how much you will pay is one issue. Now, what we know, Mr. Speaker, is on the spot markets in the United States, rates can vary from $40 to $100 based on time of day, time of year; what the Maritime Link, Mr. Speaker, gives us is access to the markets, but the deal with Emera also then allows for transmissions costs that will cost very little to get it to the border.

So, Mr. Speaker, money can be made, but in terms of building this, we are not going to fall into the trap that other provinces, countries have fallen into, and that is allowing private companies to build what should belong to the state and the taxpayer. That is what happened with the Upper Churchill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, last week the Minister of Natural Resources stated there was not a lot of celebration around the Hebron development receiving the green light because of the ongoing issues around the third module and where it would be built. Exxon, as we know, would like to build it outside the Province.

So, I ask the Premier: Why did we negotiate and sign an agreement that allows Exxon to move this $100 million project outside the Province in the first place?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, again, the member opposite has it wrong. We do not agree that this project can go outside the Province. In fact, based on the Hebron Benefits Agreement, which is a good piece of work, Mr. Speaker, the legal meaning, the plain wording of the agreement leads us to the inexorable conclusion that this project has to proceed in this Province for the benefit of the people of our Province. We are in no way agreeing with ExxonMobil that this project should go outside. In fact, we have indicated quite strongly to them – both the Premier and myself – that we will not agree; bring us your capacity report saying no, and then we will give you our reply.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: I will ask the minister the question again. In his press conference on Friday, he mentioned that there would be significant costs to Exxon if they were indeed to move that project outside the Province.

So, I ask the minister: What are significant costs? How much is it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am not aware of how much of the appendix F, Mr. Speaker, which has the Hebron Benefits Agreement, is actually out there in the public, so I have to be careful in terms of the confidentiality clauses. Our position is that the DES and the living quarters can be built at the same time, parallel or overlapping, at Bull Arm. This is based on the two proponents here in the Province who say they can do it. Mr. Speaker, we have looked at this closely, and essential what happens, if ExxonMobil decides to go outside, then what happens is there is a dispute resolution process in place. I can tell you, significant means very, very significant penalties.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week we were briefed on Eastern Health's plan to find $43 million in savings. At that time there was no disclosure of cutting the Poison Control Centre and outsourcing this to another province.

I ask the minister: Can you confirm that the Poison Control Centre will be outsourced, and if so, who is it outsourced to?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there has been no decision made or contemplated in terms of the Poison Control Centre. It is among a list of options that Eastern Health may look at, but there is absolutely no decision made. Poison Control service line exists now; it will exist into the future. Should anything different happen, Mr. Speaker, we will be the first to come forward and let you know, but Eastern Health right now is working its way down through all kinds of options that they may consider in terms of finding the efficiencies that need to be found.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Last week the minister confirmed that reviews of the three other regional health authorities will be conducted with the same group that analyzed Eastern Health. We know that the unions and frontline staff were not consulted in the preparation of the Eastern efficiency reports.

I ask the minister: Will she now commit to ensuring that frontline workers are consulted in the review of the three other health boards?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, HCM will in fact be engaged to help us with this particular benchmarking operation. It is not an operational review; it is a benchmarking operation that we are doing. In terms of engaging frontline staff and union people, that is not part of a benchmarking process. The benchmarking process, as I explained the last day that I was here in the House, actually works on accumulating the data. When it comes time to making recommendations, those recommendations are actually made by staff in the regional health authority; directors are consulted, managers are consulted, and then the recommendations come up. It is the ground up-approach. Recommendations do not come to us from HCM and then are imposed downward, Mr. Speaker. That is not how a benchmarking process works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A licensed practical nurse workforce model report for our Province was completed in January 2012. Of the 229 funded LPN seats in the Province, the report recommended cutting it to 185 seats.

I ask the government now if they have reviewed this report; can you confirm the total number of seats and the amount of funding that will be put in place for the LPN program in September of this year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the LPN program in Newfoundland and Labrador is offered through the College of the North Atlantic. The College of the North Atlantic certainly has no plans to reduce just for the sake of reducing. What we want to make sure is we look at the labour market needs and the needs of the health boards. Based on their projected labour market gaps, we want to ensure that the College of the North Atlantic funds an LPN program that meets the labour market demands of this Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The workforce report recommends that Burin, St. Anthony, and Happy Valley-Goose Bay no longer offer the LPN programs at those campuses. It also recommends that the sites in Corner Brook, Stephenville, and Clarenville be reduced from a total of eighty-four seats down to fifty-five seats.

I ask the minister if she can confirm whether or not the LPN program will continue to be offered at all the campuses and if she can confirm for me the number of seats in each of the programs.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, at this time I cannot say what places will offer the LPN program or the numbers. What I can say is that the College of the North Atlantic is very interested in offering the LPN program in the places and with the numbers that are dictated by the labour market and meet the needs of our health boards, Mr. Speaker.

We want to make sure that we do not provide overcapacity in the market and we respond to the needs. Mr. Speaker, the type of analysis that is being undertaken through Health and Community Services, the Department of Advanced Education and Skills, and the college is to make sure that we are able to provide the right number of seats in the most appropriate places in the Province, Mr. Speaker. This is not about reducing for the sake of reducing or increasing for the sake of increasing. It is making sure we have the appropriate analysis done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, last week in the House, the Premier touted changes that they made to the Long Harbour development agreement. One of these changes was Vale Inco's agreement to remove a clause that would have allowed them to delay the project schedule for such reasons as a shortage of labour.

I ask the Premier: In retrospect, would you not say that removing the clause has been to the detriment of local workers, as Vale now looks outside the Province to keep pace with the schedule?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the labour force secretariat in the Department of Advanced Education and Skills has been working with Vale in partnership to ensure that we are able to provide the opportunity to the people of this Province to meet the labour market needs.

Mr. Speaker, the way the hiring happens at Vale in Long Harbour at this time is that the unionized members from Newfoundland and Labrador have first opportunity to be hired. If there are no unionized members within Newfoundland and Labrador, the next step is to hire qualified people from Newfoundland and Labrador. At that point, if there is no union members and no others outside the union in Newfoundland and Labrador, the next qualifications or the next step to hiring goes to union members within Canada. Outside of that, Mr. Speaker, if there are no union members within Canada, the opportunity goes in an international level, which I will explain (inaudible) –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I am still not sure why the clause was taken out.

Mr. Speaker, as part of the revised development agreement signed in 2009, Vale Inco committed to a target of 77 per cent of total project employment between 2009 and 2013 to happen in the Province.

I ask the Premier: Two years into this four-year agreement, can you tell us what percentage of project employment is happening here?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when we have a look at the Vale agreement that had been entered into by the former Liberal Administration, the only benchmarks that had been included in that contract were for fair and full opportunity for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. There was not one hour of work required to be provided to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians by Vale, Mr. Speaker.

Now, over 70 per cent of the work has to be done here in this Province. That is a negotiation that was done by this government, Mr. Speaker, when there was a delay in implementation plans and we were able to re-open the agreement. Mr. Speaker, we have monitored that. We monitor the employment at regular basis in Long Harbour, and all targets are being met.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, twenty workers from Thailand just started work at the fish plant in Bay de Verde. Unbelievably, the Fisheries Minister has admitted he has not even aware of this development.

I ask the minister: How could he not know there was a fish plant employer in this Province looking for foreign workers, when he is the minister overseeing the industry, and numerous plants have closed under his watch?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in this House many times, the Department of Advanced Education and Skills wants to ensure that the people in Newfoundland and Labrador have every opportunity to participate in the labour market in this Province. We are prepared to partner with any employers who may be experiencing labour shortages to ensure that the people of this Province have the appropriate training and skills to move into positions.

In relation to the question posed by the member opposite, Mr. Speaker, the Temporary Foreign Worker Program is a program that is administered by the federal government. An employer in any province, including Newfoundland and Labrador, if they want to hire workers under that program, they apply to the federal government.

It is a good question, Mr. Speaker, and I hope his has one of his Members of Parliament standing up and asking the same question in Ottawa today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe, for a quick question.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, search and rescue services in our Province have been stripped bare by the Harper government. Now we learn the Coast Guard vessel the Harp, which services the vast Labrador Coast and Straits area, is being decommissioned.

I ask the Premier: Can you confirm that this vessel is being taken out of service, and has there been any consultation with Ottawa about the consequences of this type of reduction and how the gap will be filled?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, for a quick response.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The only thing I can confirm for the member opposite is information that I have been provided. I have not talked to the minister directly, so I am aware of media reports. We have also received information through local officials. As I have said a number of times, I will be meeting with the minister in the next seven or eight days and I will have more specific information. What I can say is my understanding is that the Harp is coming out of service. The vessel is not stationed in St. Anthony, as has been reported; it is actually stationed here in St. John's. It is my understanding that at present there is about 40 per cent of work being outsourced from the federal government for navigational aids. That 40 per cent will be increased to 70 per cent, which will provide more time for the current vessels to do the same work that is being done now.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Health and Community Services. Last week we were told cutbacks are necessary at Eastern Health because we are spending more money on certain services than other Canadian hospitals. We do not know what hospitals were used in the benchmarking exercise carried on by Eastern Health.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Will she give us the names of the hospitals used in the comparison?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is a long list of hospitals that have been used in this benchmarking process. Mr. Speaker, some larger hospitals that obviously would compare with the Health Sciences, then some smaller, some medium sized hospitals; but, Mr. Speaker, what I would be happy to do is table that information for the member opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister and hope that perhaps we can have that information by tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, despite her protest to the contrary, when it comes to health care in this Province the buck does stop with the minister. Although Eastern Health has said it has good reason and evidence for making cuts, we have not seen the detailed analysis behind the decisions.

I ask the minister: Does she have the full analysis of the data that led to the decisions to make these cuts, and will she share that information with the people who own the health care system?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that data cannot be shared. I answered that question here before and I am sure I will probably answer it again, that data cannot be shared. You are looking at private information from health care facilities from across this country. Mr. Speaker, when we entered into the process we knew we could not share that data with anybody else, just as we do not want our data shared with anybody else, Mr. Speaker. So, no, the data will not be shared.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

A disappointing answer, so now we have to take their word for it.

Mr. Speaker, we learned this morning that Eastern Health is considering contracting out the poison control phone line for children. Two thousand panic-stricken parents call this poison control line each year. How can a call centre located in urban Ontario possibly deal with an immediate need for an ambulance in Twillingate?

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: If she can assure this House that she will not allow the privatization of the poison control phone lines at the Janeway 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, again, as I have indicated earlier today in response to the same question, at this point in time, we are not looking at cutting out that particular service from Eastern Health. Eastern Health is now undertaking to look at a number of different recommendations. That recommendation may well be among it, it may not be, Mr. Speaker. We will have to wait and see what recommendations come forward, but at this point in time that line is up and running. It will continue to run.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Hebron agreement clearly stipulates the construction of three modules, one of which, the Utilities Process Module, is to be subject to international competition for bid. Recently, the Minister of Natural Resources was quoted in the media that he wants the third module also built in the Province and will fight to ensure it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: If government wanted the module built in the Province, why did it not make project approval contingent on the third module being built in the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The intent of the Hebron Benefits Agreement is to ensure that the people of our Province benefit from our natural resources, that we are the principal beneficiaries of these resources. Mr. Speaker, we have three significant modules being built, and there are issues of capacity. When you are looking at first oil in 2017, you have to be realistic.

Mr. Speaker, we were told in December that both the DSM and the DES could not be built in Marystown. So at that point, ExxonMobil's perspective seemed to have some validity. Since then, two proponents have come forward and said we can build the DES at the same time or overlapping the living quarters in Bull Arm. As a Province we are standing up; the Premier has indicated to ExxonMobil, I have indicated to ExxonMobil, this work has to be done here, Mr. Speaker. So I do not know what more we can say. It is an issue of capacity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

Mr. Speaker, late last week we heard Canada had lost its NAFTA challenge with oil companies regarding the level of funding for research and development they must provide in the Province. This funding is seen as one of the benefits to the people of the Province from offshore oil productions.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Could he tell us what are the immediate implications for research and development in this Province that stem from this ruling?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The C-NLOPB imposed certain conditions in relation to research and development. Several of the oil companies did not agree with that decision. They chose to go to court. From our perspective as a Province, Mr. Speaker, we feel entirely within our right to ensure that there are such agreements as research and development, gender diversity, and the types of agreements that keep the work in this Province.

This primarily lies with the federal government, Mr. Speaker. We will see where they are going to go. There is a dissenting judgment, for lack of a better term. At the end of the day we will continue to fight for research and development. We see it as a key aspect of continuing exploration in our offshore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Is research and development a requirement in the agreement with Hebron now that it is approved?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency.

What role, if any, did this government play in the process of bringing temporary foreign workers to this Province from Thailand?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

MR. FRENCH: Absolutely none, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Harper Government's pay-less wages plan for foreign workers will degrade working conditions for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Will this government immediately revise our labour standards to specifically regulate and protect foreign workers in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, there are obvious issues when it comes to foreign workers in general coming to this country. As I mentioned to the hon. member last week, Mr. Speaker, we have an FPT meeting set for this fall. I know it is one of the things on the agenda. I will certainly be speaking to it at that time, expressing any concerns we might have as a Province.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you one thing this Province does, and does very well; that is protecting the rights of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and their ability to find work here in our very own Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The incident last week with the Beaumont Hamel brings to light that protocols need to be reviewed with the ferry system in the Province.

What is the plan government had in place with regards to protocols that were to be used in any case of emergency?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, it was an unfortunate incident last week involving the Beaumont Hamel. We do have protocols in place to ensure the safety of people aboard and safety in general, Mr. Speaker. There is an investigation going to be carried out about that particular incident. I am certainly not going to get ahead of that. When that investigation is complete and I have the information, if there are any adjustments that need to be made, Mr. Speaker, you know that we will move forward with those adjustments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When the Beaumont Hamel incident broke, the minister held an information session and said that there were no injuries when, in fact, there was one injury that we knew about and two confirmed later that evening.

What protocol did his department follow to find out about the situation in regard to injured passengers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, an unfortunate incident. The safety of the people is uppermost in their minds, certainly of this government, and I am sure the crew on board. Everyone walked off that boat that particular day and no one presented themselves with any serious injury.

In incidents such as that, as we all know, for example, a rear-ending in a car, there is sometimes twenty-four hours before some of these symptoms show up, and there were symptoms that showed up. People presented them to their medical doctors or whatever, and fortunately, Mr. Speaker, there were no serious injuries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In light of that information, it would be nice to know that some of these people would be first-aid equipped, that sort of thing, in order to respond to some of that.

I ask the minister: There were obvious injuries at the time of the incident in Portugal Cove – St. Philip's. What emergency services were called to wharfside to assess possibly injured persons? Because I don't know if any of these workers had the experience to do it.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: I say to the hon. member across the way, if you are indicating that our crew certainly did not react in the right way, it is shameful. These people who man these vessels do have experience, they do have the capacity, but if no one presents themselves for first-aid – again, if they did, they certainly would have been accommodated, but they all walked off, they went about their business and, of course, some time during that day, some experienced symptoms, and they did the right thing. They went to the right place; they presented themselves to medical care. Again, I am hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that there are no serious injuries and that these people will continue to move forward in a healthy way.

Again, I say to the member opposite, everything that could be done was done. I wait for the investigation, and if an investigation shows that there were any gaps, I will deal with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Does she plan to oppose Harper's pay-less wage policy and this practice of taking advantage of foreign workers and using them to drive down wages and working conditions in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should run for federal politics, because most of the questions he is asking here today, a federal NDP candidate should be asking, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government protects our own workers here in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is our number one priority, and it will remain our number one priority, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired, I am sorry.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I would like to raise a point of order in relation to comments that were made by the Member for St. John's North on Thursday, May 31, 2012.

I am looking at the official transcript of Hansard, Mr. Speaker, in relation to the presenting of the petition, at page 2058. At that time, the Member for St. John's North says, "I am happy to enter this petition, which has been signed by thousands of people across Newfoundland and Labrador."

Mr. Speaker, we obtained a copy of the petition and I see approximately twenty or thirty signatures on the petition. There is obviously an obligation on any member in this House, when presenting a petition, to ensure that accuracy – to ensure that statements made to this House, Mr. Speaker, are ones that can be relied on.

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the point of order, Beauchesne states on page 96 that, "Points of order are questions raised with the view of calling attention to any departure from the Standing Orders…". Standing Orders 90 to 92, Mr. Speaker, deal with our petition. Standing Order 92 states, "Every Member offering a petition to the House shall confine himself or herself to the statement of the parties from whom it comes, the number of signatures attached to it and the material allegations it contains."

Mr. Speaker, there is obviously and clearly a breach of Standing Order 92, Mr. Speaker, and I would suggest that this is a very serious matter where we have a Member of the House of Assembly who stands up and says, "I am happy to enter this petition, which has been signed by thousands of people across Newfoundland and Labrador."

Mr. Speaker, that kind of behaviour, I would suggest to you, is unacceptable, and something that should be frowned upon by this hon. House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party, to the point of order.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. We would like time to look at what has been raised by the Government House Leader and respond at a later time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Government House Leader has brought attention to Hansard from one day last week, on Thursday. The Speaker has not reviewed Hansard from that proceeding, but I will undertake to review Hansard and the comments made, together with the member's petition that was presented.

Obviously, if the member made a statement in the House and it is recorded in Hansard and it is contrary to the information that the House is further tabled with, then obviously it would be a breach and then I will rule accordingly, but I will not be making any comment until I have reviewed both documents.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 2. (Bill 26)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. McGRATH: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act. (Bill 23)

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

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Extinguish Obsolete Actions In The Province. (Bill 24)

I further give notice, Mr. Speaker, that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act. (Bill 29)

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

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Optometry In The Province. (Bill 25)

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Regulate The Personal Services Industry. (Bill 27)

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Psychologists Act, 2005. (Bill 28)

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

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice, seconded by the Member for St. John's West, of the following resolution on East-West electricity corridors:

WHEREAS the federal government has tremendous power and leverage to lower barriers between provinces and forge a path toward fairness and true community; and

WHEREAS Quebec has frustrated Newfoundland and Labrador's attempts to wheel electricity fairly through that province; and

WHEREAS Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his colleagues have committed to provide a loan guarantee or equivalent financial support for the Muskrat Falls Project, which includes a subsea transmission link to the Maritimes, because it has national or regional importance, it has economic and financial merit, and it will significantly reduce greenhouse gases; and

WHEREAS the Prime Minister, in announcing funding for Ontario under the ecoTrust on March 6, 2007, said that the province could choose to use its funding to advance construction of "an East-West electrical transmission interconnect with Manitoba, allowing for the importation of clean hydroelectric power"; and

WHEREAS on September 16, 2009, the Prime Minister announced funding for the construction of the Northwest Transmission Line in Northern British Columbia and the prospect of connecting the line to Alaska; and

WHEREAS the opening of Canadian east-west energy corridors would give provinces the freedom to transmit energy to markets within Canada, create economic opportunity and strengthen the country.

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House of Assembly urges all governments in Canada to co-operate in exploring opportunities to open east-west electricity transmission corridors within Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that the resolution referred to by the hon. member will be the resolution debated on Wednesday, June 6, 2012.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that under Standing Order 11 I shall move that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 5, 2012,` and further I give notice under Standing Order 11 I shall move that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 5, 2012.

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

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on May 16, the Member for St. Barbe tabled a question in the House of Assembly requesting an update on the lobster licence buyout program, and I am pleased to give the final remarks on that answer today.

The economic sustainability element of this program is directed at the Province's South and West Coast. This element will have two components, a voluntary trap reduction program and the Lobster Enterprise Retirement Program. The voluntary trap reduction program involves a government funded buyback of traps. These funds were then used as industry's contribution to the enterprise buyback program. The federal and provincial programs also contributed funds to the enterprise buyback program, Mr. Speaker, and the federal government has already implemented the reduction in trap limits.

Additional highlights of the economic sustainability element of the FFAW proposal include the Lobster Enterprise Retirement Program uses a reverse auction format whereby harvesters bid through a government industry board to sell their enterprise. Instead of bidding higher amounts as in a typical auction, the Newfoundland Lobster Sustainability Board seeks the lowest bids offered to sell enterprises. All licences held by the enterprise would then be included in the buyback and would be removed from the industry. The permanent removal of fishing capacity would contribute to conservation objects both within the lobster fishery as well within other fisheries which the enterprise held licences.

A Newfoundland Lobster Sustainability Board oversees the Lobster Enterprise Retirement Program. The board has representation from the FFAW, the DFO, and DFA. The FFAW proposed that it be responsible for the administration of the program and for program monitoring and evaluation. Requirements for monitoring and evaluation will be determined through a strategic planning process led by the FFAW.

The FFAW proposal, Mr. Speaker, fits within industry and government's approach to the lobster fishery. In addition to rationalization initiatives, the federal and provincial governments support efforts to improve lobster science, enhance the resource, restructure the industry, increase conservation and environmental sustainability, and improve lobster product development and marketing. The overall objective is to help improve the viability and environmental sustainability of this fishery.

This work is being completed in partnership with industry, federal and provincial jurisdictions, and research organizations such as the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation, Atlantic Lobster Science Centre, PEI, and Memorial University's Marine Institute. Overall, the lobster plan can be viewed as part of a holistic approach to rationalize, restructure, and sustainably develop the Province's lobster fishing industry.

The lobster plan also fits within the overall recommendation of the 2007 Fisheries Resource Conservation Council Report on the Atlantic Lobster Fishery. In that report, the FRCC supports the buyout of fishing effort, if it is done in such a way as to ensure effort is not replaced through increases in other aspects of effort, such as increasing the number of traps, hauls, longer seasons, faster vessels, and bigger traps. The FRCC also noted the need to increase the scientific information base to assist with lobster fishery management and engage harvesters in the data collection and decision-making process. The lobster plan provides an opportunity to implement many of the FRCC recommendations in the Province's lobster fishery. The plan also supports enhanced conservation and economic sustainability measures in other fisheries as well.

It is important to note, Mr. Speaker, that the Province has increasingly engaged in supporting the Atlantic lobster fishery in recent years; greater than would be expected, given the importance of the Newfoundland lobster fishery relative to other Atlantic Provinces. For example, our provincial Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture has contributed to the formation and operation of the Lobster Council of Canada, lobster marketing and promotion activities, and scientific investigations. As a result, the Newfoundland fishing industry has been the beneficiary of high levels of funding.

With respect to the potential impact of removing fishing capacity, traps, and enterprises, it has been noted by the FFAW that there will be more reasonable resource available for other harvesters in the short term, and in the long term. As noted in the 2007 FRCC report, it will be important to prevent fishing capacity from returning to the industry, so that income objectives can be achieved. Similarly, it is expected that over the longer term, achieving the conservation objectives will increase lobster resource abundance. This too, Mr. Speaker, will contribute to the economic performance of harvesters. To illustrate how value will be returned to the harvesters who remain, the FFAW estimates that $2.26 million will be redistributed to the remaining harvesters in fishing area 13, assuming the exploitation rates remain the same as current. It does not account for the added income from other species as a result of having a bigger share and less competition.

There are many potential benefits associated with the participation of the Province in this plan. The main ones, Mr. Speaker, include: support for the Province's initiatives aimed at enhancing the availability of scientific information and fisheries management decision-making related to Newfoundland and Labrador fisheries. As an example, the plan would complement the work of the provincially funded Centre for Fisheries Ecosystems Research.

Fishing capacity reduction helps increase the viability of the Province's fishing industry in general and the lobster fishery in particular. In doing so, this also helps to bring stability to rural communities.

Increased engagement of fish harvesters in data collection activities and the fisheries management decision making process; associated with this is the expectation that the implementation of management decisions will be improved with harvesters actively engaged in decisions. In the end, conservation of the resource is expected to improve.

The Province will also, as a partner, have a greater voice in fisheries management decision making. Given that the federal Atlantic Lobster Sustainability Measures Program requires funding contributions from other sources, the Province's contribution leveraged a significant investment in the Province's fishing industry for rationalization and conservation activities. Budget 2012, in particular, contained $4.2 million from our Province towards this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present this information –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the member, if his statement if much longer, to wrap it up and table the remaining document.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to conclude my answer in reference to the question posed by the member opposite.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in response to the Member for Burgeo – La Poile, who has tabled a question in the House of Assembly regarding groups currently funded under the Labour Market Development Agreement, or LMDA.

Mr. Speaker, I have a considerably lengthy answer, so I will confine my answers to a few minutes; I will be able to, over a series of days, provide the information as requested.

Currently, there are four different ways that the department utilizes LMDA funding with community groups. One would be the Job Creation Partnership programs, the second would be Employment Assistance Services; the third would be Self-Employment Assistance services, and the fourth one would be Labour Market Partnerships programs.

The first program, as I mentioned, the Job Creation Partnership program, provides funding to organizations to assist them in implementing community projects and events while providing work experience opportunities to Employment Insurance eligible individuals in carrying out their projects. For the first intake period of 2012-2013, the Department of Advanced Education and Skills approved a total of 114 projects to the following groups. It should be noted that many of these contracts have not been finalized yet, and as such, amounts may change downwards once negotiations with proponents conclude. The amounts approved include the overhead costs for the organization and the participant cost.

The groups approved are – so this would be the Job Creation Partnership sponsor approvals for 2012-2013, with the organizational cost and participant cost, and the total recommended budget; as I indicated, as I go through these numbers, there will be negotiations and these numbers would be negotiated downwards, as opposed to upwards: A Legge Up Inc., $149,292; the Baccalieu Trail Heritage Corporation, $57,460; the Barbour Living Heritage Village, $233,265; Bay de Verde Heritage Committee, $60,676; the Bay St. George Mi'Kmaq Cultural Revival Committee, $152,807; Big Brothers Big Sisters of Eastern NL Inc., $28,101; the Burin Heritage Tourism Association, $90,946; Cape Race-Portugal Cove South Heritage Incorporated, $90,285; the Chamberlains Park Action Committee, $67,977; Champney's East Recreation, $39,660; Change Islands Youth Association, $18,318; Clarenville Area Recreation Association, $86,836.

Continuing on, Mr. Speaker, with the sponsors and the approvals: the Codroy Valley and Area Development Association, $59,642; Colony of Avalon, $18,057; there is another one for Colony of Avalon, $2,408; the Community Youth Network, Isles of Notre Dame Corporation, $27,451; Discovery Trail Tourism Association, $52,965; the Emerald Zone Corporation, $15,818; the Exploits Valley Economic Development Corporation, $19,469; Fermeuse Days/Come Home Year, $46,717; Fogo Island Folk Alliance, $6,084; Fort Point Lions Club, $65,021; Fortune Head ECO Friends, $66,309; Gaultois Tourism Association, $60,190; another one for the Gaultois Tourism Association, $42,632; the Glovertown Yacht Club, $93,226; Grand Bank Heritage Society, $43,606; the Grand Bank Recreation Commission, $41,256; Grande Meadows Golf Course Association Inc., $23,837; Grates Cove Recreation, $62,413; Greater Lamaline Multipurpose Trail Association, $86,996; the Harbour Breton Community Youth Network, $22,745; Harbour Grace Tourism and Heritage –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the member, if her list is much longer that she could probably summarize it and table the remainder of her report.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my answer in a minute and then I will continue as days go on, because it has been information requested for the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I understand that it is information requested but the intent is to provide a type of précis of the information and enable report. I ask the member, rather than clue up in a minute, if she would wrap it up very quickly and then table the document.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I will return to this another day. I will conclude at this point.

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

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, on May 16 the Member for St. Barbe tabled a question in the House of Assembly requesting information related to government's initiatives to encourage further secondary processing of fish products in this Province. Mr. Speaker, I am more than pleased to provide information here today in response to this request.

The Province's seafood processing sector in 2012 continues to face adaptation to the reality of resource challenges and strong global market competition. Many of these enterprises remain challenged by the high cost associated with launching and maintaining secondary processing endeavours, especially when faced with intense global competition. Underutilized species, discards and secondary processing options are areas that some processors are investigating further. To assist companies in this regard, my department provides support for innovative projects involving secondary and value-added processing.

The Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, through the Fisheries Technology and New Opportunities Program, often referred to as FITNOP, has supported development of the secondary and value-added industry both through active and industry-led development projects aimed at product development, adapting emerging technologies, and participation in risk underwriting and promotional efforts. Through our FITNOP program, we continue to focus our efforts on a number of innovative project areas.

In our efforts to provide support for the evaluation and adaptation of new technologies for our industry, Mr. Speaker, over the past four years we have invested $7.5 million. This investment, Mr. Speaker, has leveraged from industry and other funding sources, an addition of $23.8 million to support our efforts. This work has included efforts such as research into shrimp shell by-product utilization, extraction of biomedical grade products from shrimp and crab shells. We sponsored research into omega-3 and marine oils. We conducted analysis of whelk shell use for agriculture in co-operation with the Marine Institute. As well, we have sponsored bio-diesel training, demonstration and analysis work. Other ongoing developmental activities have focused on secondary seafood entrees, croquettes, sea cucumber products, whelk, as well as value-added shellfish processing and market strategies.

The innovation and development division has expertise in product research and development, productivity and industrial engineering. Core staff is available within each program area to manage projects with industry clients and to offer a wide range of technical support services to the industry on all aspects of seafood processing sector development. The issues and needs facing the processing industry today are significantly different than they were ten to fifteen years ago. Resource issues and market changes have necessitated a new approach to management, pursuing high-risk initiatives, as well new approaches to product and market development. Many processes and species that the industry is attempting to develop are non-traditional and require new production technology.

The global seafood market, Mr. Speaker, has become increasingly complex with an endless array of secondary and consumer-ready products. At the same time, on a positive note, global markets are becoming increasingly accessible to seafood processors. Although certain fish species such as salmon, crab, and shrimp dominate markets, there are niche opportunities for non-traditional species as well as opportunities to develop new products and markets from traditional species.

Mr. Speaker, some specific successful examples of the valuable work carried out by the department through FTNOP program include: research with Quinlan Brothers to develop and market crab cakes and crab au gratin. Assistance was also provided to Grand Bank Seafoods to develop a capelin roe ‘Masago' line in their plant in Grand Bank. A number of projects have been carried out with Allen's Fisheries Ltd, as well as Greens Seafoods, related to value-added mussel production. Our program also sponsored a project with Golden Shell Fisheries to explore market opportunities for value-added pelagic and groundfish in the Caribbean. As well, we supported HSF Ocean Products with product and market development of a number of secondary whelk and groundfish-based products.

The Newfoundland and Labrador seafood industry is being challenged to obtain maximum value from the seafood it produces. Processors have, to some extent, increased value by improving market value of existing products, developing new products, and identifying and developing new markets. Therefore, we continue to assist with the market development challenges by assisting in the identification of new product and market opportunities, assisting with the product quality improvements, and promoting demand for seafood in local, national, and international markets.

Unfortunately, we recently heard the announcement of the impending closure of the Province's only dedicated secondary seafood processing operation in Burin. Impediments to secondary processing, Mr. Speaker, have been risk, competition, and ongoing capital investment, required for both larger and smaller companies, in order to sustain secondary and value-added processing. Many of these enterprises continue to face the high costs and risks associated with establishing and maintaining secondary processing and some simply cannot maintain profitability over the long term. The provincial government will continue to support secondary processing by assisting companies wherever possible to undertake secondary and value-added processing.

Our government regularly participates in numerous trade shows and events such as the International Boston Seafood Show, European Seafood Exposition in Brussels, China Fisheries and Seafood Expo, and the World Food show in Moscow. The government's work at international seafood shows not only focuses on promoting Newfoundland and Labrador's seafood products and networking with potential buyers, but also gathering market intelligence and identifying market opportunities for new species.

The Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture regularly collects and disseminates market information which assists companies in identifying new product and market development opportunities. It subscribes to various trade publications and on-line market intelligence sources, and hires international seafood marketing consultants to gather the most current information on seafood market conditions, supply and demand, market prices, competitors and competing products, trends and outlooks, and new opportunities available to our Province. We have both in-house market development expertise, as well as access to outside consultants and experts that can assist companies with new product development.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity today to outline some of the provincial government's important ongoing work in this area.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Given the time, I would ask the member to wrap up his answer and then table the document, please.

The Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in relation to the answer provided by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, I believe she was reading from a document, so I would ask to have that document tabled here today.

MR. SPEAKER: The member might recall when I rose and brought the attention to the member, I had indicated that she could summarize her answer and table the document, so I am assuming the minister will table it with the Table Officers.

MR. A. PARSONS: (Inaudible), Mr. Speaker, the document will be tabled.

MR. SPEAKER: It will be, yes.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Monday, June 4, 2012.

Further, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock on Monday, June 4, 2012.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We call from the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Petitions?

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry; I was premature in calling Orders of the Day. I missed Petitions on the Order Paper.

We will revert to Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a petition to reinvest in rural broadband initiatives.

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

WHEREAS in the District of The Straits – White Bay North, despite the $4 million rural broadband initiative announcement on December 22, 2011, only one community, Ship Cove, is slated for broadband coverage; and

WHEREAS the communities of Pines Cove, Eddies Cove East, Bide Arm, North Boat Harbour, L'Anse aux Meadows, Great Brehat, St. Carol's, Goose Cove, Grandois, and St. Anthony Bight still remain without services; and

WHEREAS many small businesses within the district rely on the Internet to conduct business; and

WHEREAS broadband Internet permits a business to be more competitive than the slower dial-up service; and

WHEREAS broadband Internet enhances primary, secondary, post-secondary, and further educational opportunities.

We the undersigned petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to reinvest in the rural broadband initiative in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to travel in many parts of my district to several graduations. I talked to students, and many of them are participating in the CDLI, doing distance education and certainly availing of a number of programs that are not available – such as music – in a small school with may be one, two or three students. It is wonderful, but when you talk about some of these students living in these communities without access to the broadband coverage, it really limits the ability for them to complete their studies and to do further work at home. They have to travel to an area where the broadband access is.

There certainly needs to be a call, Mr. Speaker, for an advanced telecommunication strategy that really gives all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians the opportunity to have rural broadband access. If you look at even just the House of Assembly here, and the questions that are posed on a daily basis, the legislation that we debate, not everybody in these 200-plus communities in Newfoundland and Labrador have the ability to tap in and streamline the House and see what our members are doing and how we are representing the people of each respective district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, I certainly present the petition, and I ask the House here to urge the government to continue to reinvest in rural broadband, because it is highly important for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition. To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament Assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the people of La Poile must use the provincial ferry system in order to travel to and from La Poile; and

WHEREAS the people of La Poile and visitors are required to wait of the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou from time to time for the ferry services; and

WHEREAS there is no restroom-waiting room area at the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou where users of the ferry service may utilize washroom facilities; and

WHEREAS citizens of all ages including men, women, children, seniors, and disabled persons require washroom facilities as a basic human need in the course of their travels, or wait outside of the elements in harsh weather conditions, and particularly while awaiting the transit systems; and

WHEREAS it is an abuse of human dignity as well as health and safety regulations to allow such degrading and dehumanizing circumstances to continue.

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to immediately construct and operate a waiting room-restroom facility at the town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou such that all users of the provincial ferry service may be able to utilize such a waiting area and washroom facilities.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition that has been raised before on many occasions. In one such occasion, it was actually successful. It got what was needed for the Town of Burgeo and for the people who arrive on the ferry from Ramea, Grey River, or Francois. They had no facility there. People had to wait outside in the elements. Now they have a beautiful restroom and waiting room area where people can sit outside. Depending on the ferry, there is any number of situations and circumstances you have to face, not the least of which is the weather, delays, and you name it.

The people who travel on the ferry from Rose Blanche to La Poile and vice versa also deserve to have the same type of treatment. As it stands there is nothing down there and it is simply not good enough. I know the minister is aware of this. We have talked about this issue. I intend to continue to raise this issue until we have the same type of treatment afforded to the people who use that ferry service.

I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again in the House to present a petition on behalf of the people of the Burin Peninsula, and indeed, all of Newfoundland and Labrador, with regards cameras on the Burin Peninsula Highway.

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

WHEREAS the Burin Peninsula Highway is long and desolate, varying in elevation, with highway conditions that are often difficult; and

WHEREAS this stretch of highway does not have adequate cellphone coverage to allow for quick response times for people in distress who need help; and

WHEREAS this highway has innumerable hazards that have led to the death of travellers in this area; and

WHEREAS no highway cameras are currently operating to let travellers know about road conditions and warn of possible hazards;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to install cameras on the Burin Peninsula Highway that will allow travellers to check on the road conditions.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is probably about the tenth petition that has arrived to my office with regards this petition. A lot of people are signing this one. This one is double from the people of the St. Lawrence and Lawn area and Lord's Cove who signed this one and sent this one in. On their behalf, I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing them to have the time and the voice to voice their concern with regards to wanting these cameras in.

Again, we talked about this one many times before with regard to the strong need for cameras and the possibility that government will meet the need here and to know, in consultation with the minister responsible, if we can find that technology to operate on the Burin Peninsula, then he will certainly take a serious look at it.

Mr. Speaker, just an update for everybody out there; we have been finding some possibilities of some technologies out there. The word has gone out now to several interests out there who deal in such things that we possibly could end up having the technology available. Right now we are investigating the price of the items concerned and, as well as that, the type of technology that would be used. Right now, one of the technologies that are available to government is the use of, of course, Internet and being able to use a camera technology as such that it would use Internet protocol on a wireless basis.

There is technology it seems that is available out there. Mr. Speaker, we continue to work hard on these people's behalf and hopefully government will be lending an ear very shortly to address this matter.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House of Assembly today to present a petition from thirteen individuals from Newfoundland and Labrador; twelve, plus one from Fort McMurray it appears:

WHEREAS home care allows the elderly and people with disabilities to remain within the comfort and security of their homes, home care also allows people to be discharged from hospital earlier; and

WHEREAS many families find it difficult to recruit and retain home care workers for their loved ones; and

WHEREAS the PC Blue Book 2011, as well as the 2012 Speech from the Throne committed that government would develop a new model of home care and give people the option of receiving that care from family members; and

WHEREAS government has given no time commitment for when government plans to implement paying family caregivers;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to implement a new home care model to cover family caregivers.

And in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by me and also from twelve other individuals. These people come from all over the Province. A person might wonder: How can it be that so many people from so many different parts of the Province can take an interest in this? These petitions frequently are left at business establishments, and when people come by and read a petition they have an interest in, they sign their name and put their hometown. In this petition, we have three people from Corner Brook, three people from St. Mary's, three people from Hawkes Bay, somebody from Codroy Valley, somebody from Port Saunders, and even a person signed it from Fort McMurray, Alberta. I recognize the name because he appears to be home for awhile.

Mr. Speaker, this issue touches on almost every family, and if it does not touch on every family then as time goes on all of us can expect to have a family member who will require home care. Many of us will be in a situation where we will need to hire somebody and it may not be easy to find a qualified home care worker. This is a simple request, a petition from people asking that government move forward with their promise, implement the new home care strategy and permit qualified home care family members to provide that service.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a petition on an issue that members of the House of Assembly may have some familiarity with.

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

WHEREAS early childhood educators are trained professionals essential to the operation of chid care centres and indispensable to many parents and children across Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS on the occasion of Early Childhood Educators Week in May 2012, government conveyed its support and recognition for the role of early childhood educators and expressed its appreciation for their value; and

WHERAS early childhood educators working in child care centre receive salaries that are the lowest in Canada amongst ECEs; and

WHEREAS government's 2012 increase in subsidies paid to ECEs applies only to Level I ECEs working in child care centre homerooms and Level II early childhood educators who operate child care centres; and

WHERAS all early childhood educators are highly educated, skilled, and deserving of a fair and equitable wage subsidy; and

WHEREAS government is discriminating against some of the most skilled ECEs in Newfoundland and Labrador;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the government to revise the enhancement to the Early Learning and Child Care Supplement to include all early childhood educators working in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, some question about the petition I presented last week and how many petitioners were on there. I know that this one in particular, the ECE who sent this to me collected 120 signatures in just under an hour at a meeting last Thursday.

In a report that was released last fall, called Early Years Study 3, the report said that the benchmark for salaries for early childhood educators should be around two-thirds of salaries paid to teachers. Right now the average teacher salary in Newfoundland and Labrador is between $67,000 and $68,000 a year, and the average salary for ECEs is between $25,000 and $26,000 a year. We have a great distance to travel if we are going to get to that basic benchmark that has been prescribed by that national report. I hope that members will urge the government to reconsider their recent decision so that we can have greater equity for all early childhood educators in Newfoundland and Labrador, but also to bring us closer to parity with the rest of the country so that we can have early childhood educators in Newfoundland and Labrador who are paid what they are deserving, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Order 10, second reading of Bill 22.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed a pleasure to stand today and have an opportunity to talk for a few moments about Bill 22, which represents some amendments to the Aquaculture Act for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, just by way of a little preamble, the provincial –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the minister moving the motion, seconded by a colleague?

MR. KING: Oh, excuse me, Mr. Speaker, yes.

I move, seconded by the Member for Carbonear – Harbour Grace.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that Bill 22, An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act". (Bill 22)

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My apologies on the procedure.

As I was saying, it is a very important act that we are going to talk about today, and I will outline some of the substantial changes, but as a little preamble, Mr. Speaker, the seafood industry in the Province topped more than $1 billion in 2011, and that represents almost an 8 per cent increase – 8 per cent growth in the industry from the previous year. Now, Mr. Speaker, aquaculture is making a significant contribution to the industry as a whole.

Just to give you some sense of it, Mr. Speaker, in 2011, last year, aquaculture represented 11.8 per cent of the seafood industry in Newfoundland and Labrador – 11.8 per cent. In 1995, aquaculture represented about 1 per cent of the seafood industry. Now, we have gone over a twenty-five-year period or so of less than 1 per cent of the industry to just about 12 per cent. So we have seen significant growth in the aquaculture industry, Mr. Speaker. Last year alone, the total market value was in the area of $120 million. That is significant, Mr. Speaker, significant growth, but also making a very significant contribution to the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is the result of a lot of hard work, a lot of commitment by many partners in the industry working with the provincial government, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly say thank you to all of those who have been a part of this growing industry and who continue to work hard with us.

Mr. Speaker, aquaculture is spread throughout the Province in a number of areas. In particular, what I call the Bay d'Espoir-Connaigre region of the Province is where we see the most growth in one particular area. It is also an area, I remind people, where we had a lot of challenging times over the years, with the downsize in the fishery not too long ago and a place where we saw fish plants closing. Because of the hard work of entrepreneurs and because of our provincial government's commitment, Mr. Speaker, to this industry, we are now seeing, and we have been seeing for a number of years, a rebirth and a continuous growth in that area of the Province with a lot of employment opportunities, significant economic development actions taking place down there. It is certainly making a very significant contribution to the Province and to that particular region, as it is to other regions of the Province, Mr. Speaker. I am confident over the next period of time we are going to hear about some of that.

Mr. Speaker, as the industry grows, it is very important that we acknowledge changes that are occurring and that we ensure that our laws and our regulations are in sync with where we need to be. The Aquaculture Act, Mr. Speaker, is really the primary document that provides governance to the aquaculture industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. The purpose of the Aquaculture Act is to promote prudent and orderly development in the aquaculture industry, to help us secure property rights for industry, Mr. Speaker, to minimize any conflicts that arise as a result of the use of resources, and to engage as much as we can in co-operative decision making with the industry.

Mr. Speaker, we have been very pleased and very proud with the kind of relationship that we have been able to develop with the Aquaculture Industry Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the many stakeholders and members of that group that are engaged on a daily basis in the aquaculture industry.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments that we are going to talk about today for this act are intended to modernize the regulations contained within Bill 22, which is essentially the all-encompassing act that provides oversight for the aquaculture industry.

Mr. Speaker, specifically, what we hope to do with the amendments brought forth here today is to ensure we bring the industry in line and, in some cases, put us ahead of the jurisdictions throughout the rest of the country and, indeed, throughout the world, Mr. Speaker. It will strengthen some of the regulations that we need and it will provide for enforcement opportunities for the department and for our officials who are out there working in the field on a daily basis. It will provide a greater opportunity for enforcement to make sure people are following the rules and doing the kinds of things and engaged in the kinds of activities within aquaculture that they ought to.

These amendment today – and I will give you just a short highlight – were developed, again, in consultation over a period of time with all of the stakeholders in the industry. There are number of things that I will touch on very briefly. The act itself, the changes we are going to make, will provide the minister with a greater opportunity to put requirements on licensees so that they are required to restore aquaculture sites to the satisfaction of the government and the minister. It will provide aquaculture inspectors with greater powers, similar to that of peace officers when they are out there on a regulatory mission. It will enhance our powers and regulations around sites, facilities, vehicles, and any of these types of things used within the aquaculture industry.

It will also transfer some of the regulatory-making power to the minister, Mr. Speaker, to allow us to react on a more regular basis in terms of developing regulation versus having to come back to the Legislature for any significant change that needs to be made. It will provide the minister with an opportunity to issue directives to the industry. It will provide those engaged in the regulatory regime, Mr. Speaker, with the ability to provide tickets and administrative penalties to companies in the industry.

Mr. Speaker, all of us recognize here in this House, I am sure, that as the industry grows we have to continue to grow with it. As the industry changes, we have to change with it. As the way people do business changes and the kinds of techniques they engage in, and the kinds of activities they engage in within the aquaculture industry – as all of that changes, we have to ensure to the best of our ability that we make adjustments to the legislation we have before us and to the regulations that accompany that legislation to ensure we maintain the highest standards possible for this industry, Mr. Speaker.

I have said a number of times in this House when I have been asked in Question Period about biosecurity, safety, and fish health, that it is a priority for our government and it is a priority for the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador to have the highest standards, Mr. Speaker. In order to have the highest standards, you have to reflect that in the law of the land, in the act that governs the industry. That is what the amendments are about today, Mr. Speaker. We recognize we have a responsibility to make sure we maintain those standards.

I am very pleased to bring this act before the House today. I look forward to speakers who will follow me, hear what they have to say, move through to Committee, and address any questions or any suggestions that might be brought forward by members opposite.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill and support this bill today. This is a very important bill. If we think of aquaculture, in my view the aquaculture industry is really in its infancy in our Province. We are only just getting started. We are only just getting going.

Aquaculture provides probably more employment than a person might realize, and more steady employment. In my own community, five people work in aquaculture. They work hatching and growing small fish and then the fish are shipped out for growth on the south part of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, as we experience global warming, we can see that the Gulf of St. Lawrence gets very, very little ice now as compared to a few years ago, and this seems to be opening up a large number of potential aquaculture opportunities. Some of the opportunities come with risks and this bill, in part, deals with the risks in aquaculture.

Before going further into the risks, the aquaculture that we are dealing with today, it would be unfortunate if it came to the exclusion of the wild fishery; in fact, aquaculture should come in addition to the wild fishery. The aquaculture industry can be a supplement, not an alternative. It can be complementary to the wild fishery, it can be complementary both in the resource that we are dealing with, and it can be complementary in the markets that we have; it can be complementary in using the same water that we have, and we have thousands and thousands of square miles of clean water, Mr. Speaker. It can be complementary to the labour that we have; the people who are involved in the wild fishery certainly are quite capable of being involved in the aquaculture industry. It can also utilize the human capital that we have.

Mr. Speaker, the aquaculture industry needs strong legislation. It needs the type of legislation and enforcement of that legislation, which means we can deal with potential ecological fallout. There is no doubt that with any type of an industry, there come benefits; there also come risks, and there are risks in the aquaculture industry of home-grown fish escaping, of disease going into the wild fishery. Mr. Speaker, we are able to benefit from the experience of others in British Columbia, Europe, and throughout the rest of the world.

Approximately 50 per cent of the fish that is consumed in China is domestically grown in China. If you go to a restaurant and you order tilapia, odds are it will be domestically grown.

Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to learn from others. This legislation is legislation that is needed and it is legislation that I hope will be strongly enforced, improved upon, and modified over time. I look forward to the aquaculture industry growing, but not at the expense of the wild fishery, in addition to the wild fishery.

I will reserve any further comments for Committee, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly a pleasure for me to rise here today and speak to Bill 22, which is An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act.

The member who just spoke talked about how the aquaculture industry should not come at the exclusion of the wild fishery but complementary to it. I thought before I get into my notes I would just point out how that is indeed happening, especially in my District of Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

For example, I got an e-mail from the Mayor of Belleoram last week. One day in Belleoram, last Thursday, six tanker trucks brought smolt from the hatchery in St. Alban's, twenty-five vats of harvested salmon on a flatbed were shipped out. There was a tractor-trailer load of crab landed and shipped out, and a tractor-trailer load of whelk was landed and shipped out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS PERRY: So, we certainly are seeing both industries thrive and survive side by side. We also have workers who fish for a few days, and they work in the aquaculture industry for a few days. On their days off is when they actually get to fish. So they are able to work in both sectors; certainly very complementary industries and really making a difference in our life in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, there is so much positive development happening and so many positive investments being made by this government that I can barely keep track of it; but I do, Mr. Speaker, because I am so very proud of each and every one. We are investing in biosecure wharves, capital investments for new growth, and ongoing fish health initiatives that allow us to continue to build the salmonid industry and provide enormous benefit for the people of this great Province. As you will hear speakers throughout the next few days, it is not just in the Coast of Bays region. The benefits and impacts of this industry are being felt throughout the Province, and we are going to see much more of that to come.

Mr. Speaker, I hope at some point in time to be able to get up and elaborate more to my hon. colleagues about the history of this great industry, an industry which was driven by pioneers who went through some years of struggle but persevered. Their commitment enabled the industry to survive. In 2004, this government, when it went into place, finally began to listen to the industry and put in place the measures that were needed to enable it to grow and flourish; measures like the loan guarantee program, measures like the new capital equity program, which enabled us to attract companies like Cooke Aquaculture, Grey's Aquaculture, and Northern Harvest. We are looking forward to more investors to come, and we are looking forward to the survival of the smaller entrants who entered the industry and continue to thrive as well.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of some of these investments, I will touch on a few. The salmonid industry has grown, just to point out from where we have come, from 572 metric tons, worth $2.6 million in 1995, to 14,264 metric tons worth over $111 million in 2011, Mr. Speaker. The salmonid industry now directly employs approximately 600 people in farming and processing operations. The spinoff factor is about double that, Mr. Speaker. Our production is expected to reach between 15,000 and 20,000 metric tons this year in 2012. Our goal, Mr. Speaker, is to reach a level of 50,000 metric tons over the next ten years. With measures such as those we are introducing today in the strengthened Aquaculture Act and continued support from this government, we certainly look forward to seeing this industry thrive and flourish.

As the minister has already alluded to, the industry now has grown from an infancy stage to a maturity stage. We need to keep pace with that growth and ensure we are developing it in the most sustainable manner possible, that would be the most beneficial possible for the people of our great Province and that will enable this industry to be a leader, not just ten years from now, not just twenty years from now, but fifty years and 100 years from now, Mr. Speaker. Aquaculture will very much be a part of the fishery of the future.

In the interest of time, Mr. Speaker, I am going to take my place now. I am certainly looking forward to the opportunity to be able to get back up and speak to this bill perhaps more in Committee. I will be supporting our efforts to further continue and strengthen this sector.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to stand here today and speak to Bill 22, An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act, and to also hear the comments made by the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape Le Hune. It is quite a tremendous success when you look at the growth of the aquaculture industry in her district.

In my District of The Straits - White Bay North, we have seen a little bit of ups and downs at times when it came to aquaculture because we have had some small operators that closed up. Right now, St. Anthony Basin Resources Incorporated, SABRI, does have a mussel farm, the only one in the district. They do employ a few people. That is helping out some fish buyers and local people. We certainly enjoy having the opportunity to have good, clean, safe and healthy grown mussels in the area.

When we look at this act here, there is certainly a need and I am quite pleased to see that there are a number of things that are being strengthened in this piece of legislation, because the original Aquaculture Act was passed in 1988 and this is really the first thorough redrafting since that point; you are talking twenty-four years, which is basically almost as old as I am. When you look at that, the industry has certainly changed and accelerated, and we have seen a high level of growth. We need to look at making sure that we have the enforcement, that we have the safety issues there.

I really want to thank the minister and his staff for providing a technical briefing today and providing a lot of information when it comes to the industry and this act. When asked about the amendments, they stated that there have not been any major incidents here in the Province and that this is not something that has been pressed because of the charges that have been laid with Cooke Aquaculture in other jurisdictions. We do have some concerns when we look at it from the federal, to the provincial, to other provincial jurisdictions, and how they treat operations when companies and operators are operating in various areas, so that we can try to create some level of standardization.

Most of the amendments here seem to meet or exceed the international standards for the production growth, so there is a real focus placed on quality here. If we look at not only just about 650 or so jobs that are directly created and the $400 million in aquaculture here in the Province; from the employment figures that are annualized, as well as the capital expenditures, to give us a $400 million industry, we have certainly seen, as the minister said, quite a lot of growth. There are other entities such as Bishop's Falls, such as Lewisporte, those districts that are also benefiting by providing affiliated spinoff work, and in Daniel's Harbour and Stephenville, seeing hatcheries, which the department talked about as two of the largest enclosed hatcheries in North or South America. That is quite exciting to see that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, an official had stated that we have the best fish health legislation in the Western Hemisphere. That is certainly very positive if that is the case, because we have had in this Province where we have tried to develop industries that presented great promise, such as the mink farming industry; being an Island and being isolated, we have the ability to keep disease and keep these pathogens out, as the legislation is putting forward. When it came to mink farming in the Province, we had quite a devastation with Aleutian disease. We have to make sure that we have very strong, stringent regulations when it comes to ensuring the bio-security and protection of the people's health worldwide, and also the positions of the economic development that aquaculture is presenting.

There was talk that there is a mobile testing unit that can stop vehicles travelling to and from sites, and that is being positioned in Grand Falls-Windsor as you go down to the area where most aquaculture is taking place. Maybe we need to look at where it is mobile, but maybe we need to have others in other ports of call as well, if we look at where things are being shipped primarily from Port aux Basque area.

When we look at the inspection piece, because that is highly important, we need to see that the expanded regulations allow for offsite and better be able to ensure good bio-security safety. The new amendments that are being proposed in the legislation are allowing for the suspension of licences, not just – because in the old act, you could only revoke, and that can create a lot of red tape there. Because we are dealing with live fish on these sites, it gives the opportunity to suspend a licence, to do the due diligence; then, as matters are corrected, it can be reinstated at the discretion of the minister.

This legislation is certainly giving the minister sweeping new powers, and the aquaculture inspectors, because in a variety of circumstances they will now have the ability, at their discretion, to be able to access funds from aquaculture operators to remediate sites; that is certainly important in our Province. We have a concept that the polluter pays, so it is highly important that if there is environmental damage being done and things like that that, we are able to, and the Crown and our Province is able to recoup any losses from offenders.

We see that in the fish processing sector, where companies have left environmental mess, as well as in mining and other sectors. Seeing that there is an ability to hold a bond – and we will have to wait and see in the regulations in what figure that will be – a bond may be quite affordable for the large players in the industry. If we look at the aquaculture industry, there are not a lot of players in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have six in salmonid and twenty-two in mussel farming. For some of the smaller operators or some of the people that may be interested in getting into aquaculture at this point, this may pose as a barrier if they have to pose a bond of $50,000 or $100,000 or more dollars. So, I just would like to see if there is some work that is going to be done to look at making sure that it is affordable and that it is not a barrier for the smaller operators. Because when we talk about aquaculture, it seems like we are looking at talking about being competitive in the global marketplace, looking at very large-scale production, we have to expand, we have to get there; but, there is a lot of good work that can be done on a smaller scale as well, or whether it is a number of players and co-ops and how the industry, the aquaculture association here, can maybe provide the bonds or guarantees for smaller operators. I know that in my district with SABRI, they work with a number of small boat fishers where they do provide loan guarantees up to 50 per cent. So, maybe there is some work that can be done based on that.

It is very important to see that inspections continue. Right now, there is at least one inspection per year. We will have to see with the regulations how they come out, because it does not clearly state in the act yet if that is going to be enhanced further.

One piece I would like to talk about as well is seizing of live product, that it presents a challenge, because it crosses many areas when it comes to environment and conservation, and when it comes to the health and well-being of animals. So, the new amendments do have some updates there to deal with that issue, where the owner retains the onus of being able to care for their product, and the minister has the power to issue the directives.

I am seeing some nice pieces where the limitations are expanded to 180 days, which is more of a typical industry standard – and that is a good thing. When we talk about penalties that are put in this legislation, there are some ticketing provisions that allow inspectors to be able to better regulate the industry. So, government is moving to get the Aquaculture Act in line with the Provincial Offences Act, so that is certainly cleaning up and dealing with making the legislation a little more powerful.

An administrative penalty on late licence applications will hopefully take care of the annual applications and make sure that they come in on a timely manner. Because if we are looking at the industry and we want to know the stats, we want to know the employment and we want to know the value, we really do need to make sure that these twenty-eight-plus players who have multiple sites –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: – in the Province to over a $100 million industry, that is 11 per cent – close to 12 per cent, as the minister stated – to our seafood industry, then we really need to make sure that we are getting accurate, timely information, and being able to put in a penalty there to make sure that this stuff comes in on a timely manner is very, very important.

I worked in a financial sector where we had to get timely financial statements from business and year-end returns. Sometimes they were not coming in on a regular basis. We did have to impose an incentive where if they are put in on a timely manner, then we will get them and we will get that information. Sometimes a penalty is a good approach. Other times, providing an incentive is a good approach to getting the documentation. In some cases, maybe there needs to be an incentive put into play versus looking at penalizing them financially. That may get the information there a little more quickly.

It is talked about that ticketing will allow for minor offences to be applicable if a conviction is there, and not require a court date every time. For some smaller offences there, ticketing may be the right approach. There is a limitation period that is being introduced in the legislation, three years from the date of the first offence being charged. We all know that if there is a short timeline in place, then you are waiting for documentation to come in and pieces of legislation, you are looking for evidence to prove your case and people go back and forth, so this may be a means to provide adequate time to get all of the information so that when you do go for an official charge it does not tie up the court procedure and that matters can be dealt with in a quicker manner. There is a need for an extension. If there is a major outbreak, we do need more than six months to be able to gather the data and the samples.

Under section 4 of the act it states: to introduce the power of the minister to set standards, practices, and procedures. This is retroactive for licence holders. I would really like to see with the minister what these are actually going to look like when we see the new standards, practices, and procedures that are being put forward. Certainly the minister has the discretion and the power there, but we would like to see what that actually means and what it is going to mean for past licence holders as well.

Under section 4.6, the pathogenic agents introduced are now better controlled in this act. It is really interesting in the light of Cooke Aquaculture and the charges for their actions under the federal law. The federal law, the Fisheries Act, is guided more towards the wild fishery or the traditional fishery, and not necessarily under growing food such as the aquaculture, which is contained.

It would be nice to see, as we are moving forward and we are strengthening our legislation, that maybe we work with other counterparts, other jurisdictions and the federal government, to truly see that level of co-operation there. Just recently, in the news today we see that out of CBC it is reporting in Nova Scotia that they are looking at expanding their $50 million aquaculture industry, which is smaller than ours right now. A number of the groups are saying we do not want to expand the ocean-based salmon farms that have the open nets, and there are 100 groups and organizations that are being opposed to this because of the potential for fish faeces, dead fish, excess food, pollutants, illegal pesticides, and to be able to tackle that issue. They are clearly asking for open consultations and public consultation. When we asked the staff they said they had consulted with the industry players, but when we talk about the overall impacts and what aquaculture can mean, it could have further reaching factors when it comes to the traditional wild fishery, when it comes to regions and employment. So, maybe more open, public consultations with the general public would be a good thing there if we saw more of that.

One thing that we talk about, it is certainly interesting to see the pathogenic agents now listed as first criteria under section 6.(3)(a). It would be nice to see as to what clarifies and what actually classifies as pathogenic agents, if there would be a list. If there are certain diseases or things that are quite damaging to the aquaculture industry, especially in salmonid, as we are seeing in other provinces, that there is something being looked at in terms of a list.

A suspended licence holder may not harvest unless permitted by directive. It is giving a lot of authority and a lot of leeway when it comes to the minister here, but we are seeing the fines and the penalties are still there. What is interesting is under section 13.3, there is creating of an interest-free special purpose account in Consolidated Revenue for holding purposes in the sale of seized aquaculture related goods. I would be interested in hearing further information. I may get a chance to question that directly to the minister.

We see that we have grown the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is very positive to see the high level of growth in the industry. I think there is a great opportunity for further growth and this legislation is certainly needed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask all members for their co-operation, please.

The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is important to see this legislation strengthen the Aquaculture Act, to modernize it, bring it up to speed to deal with the high level of increase, the number of people employed and the high level of regulation that is needed in an industry when you are talking about dealing in a global matter, when you are talking about food, when you are talking about health and safety. We need to make sure that as we develop our aquaculture industry we do not leave out the opportunity for small players and we do not create regulations that are so burdened with some, that we do not have new smaller entrants that are doing small scale, whether it would be in mussels or whether it would be in other underutilized species, whether they are growing sea urchins or other things.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask all members again for their co-operation.

I recognize the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to say we want to see greater co-operation from the provincial government and the federal government when it comes to the role of the fishery act and what that means from federal-provincial relations when we are looking at strengthening our own Aquaculture Act.

I am wondering if there have been any problems with the aquaculture inspectors getting stymied with their ability to investigate, if there has been hindering information. We want to make sure we are getting everything in an accurate manner because this industry has grown and we want to make sure that it is going to be able to continue to grow and that we do not have it collapse because there are so many people who are players there.

We understand, Mr. Speaker, from other jurisdictions that there is overlap of federal and provincial legislation. That is very unclear and confusing, so we want to know what the department is doing to assist operators in clarifying this. As I said, I am looking forward to seeing what other people have to say on this legislation that is being debated. There are certainly some positive things being done, and I certainly have no problem supporting these enhancements to this legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Baie Verte – Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to thank the minister for giving me the opportunity to speak to the amendment to Bill 22. I would also like to thank his officials for a very thorough and a very comprehensive briefing. In the essence of time, I will confine my remarks to the blue mussel sector.

In the District of Baie Verte – Springdale and Green Bay South, there are a number of mussel growing operations that are providing tremendous economic and employment benefits to the region, and, of course, to the Province as a whole. Mr. Speaker, prior to 2008, the mussel industry was in expansion mode, a large majority of operators and producers were seeking additional water space to increase their annual production.

The mussel industry is comprised of twenty-five companies in the Province, operating fifty-nine sites with 3,520 hectares of water licensed for mussel culture. The highest concentration of farms is located in the Notre Dame Bay, Mr. Speaker. This area currently produces about 80 per cent of all the mussels produced in the Province. Names that come readily to my mind in that region would be: Mr. Job Halfyard, who operates Sunrise Fish Farms; Mr. Gilbert Simms, LBA Enterprises; Juan Roberts from Badger Bay; and, of course, Trent Johanson and others. They are to be applauded for the stellar job that they are doing; they are very passionate about the industry. All their time and energy and effort put into that industry, they certainly need some recognition.

Mr. Speaker, the majority of all Newfoundland mussels sold in the marketplace is shipped in fresh form. Fresh product limits the geographically area where markets can be accessed due to the shelf life of the product. Our primary markets right now in Canada is Ontario and Quebec; in the United States, it is in New York, Boston, and New Jersey. Unfortunately, the global economic recession hit us in 2008, which had a severe impact negatively on the markets internationally, especially in the Eastern United States. This resulted in loss of markets for Newfoundland growers, reduced cash flow, and, of course, the increased inventories that remain in the water due to a lack of buyers. This forced the mussel producers and processors to defer their operational plants and to expand their operation – or even terminate their plants, Mr. Speaker. The provincial government assisted the growers through this difficult time by assisting them in purchasing additional floatation to keep their increased inventory afloat until market conditions improved or they got some cash flow.

Mr. Speaker, this industry is no different than others and experiences its share of challenges. These marketing issues, experienced in 2008, are just an amplification of some of the ongoing marketing issues that Newfoundland-based processors and marketers have experienced for many years. In 2009, the provincial government and the Province's mussel sector identified marketing as the first step to be addressed to help promote and move the industry forward. Then in 2010, the mussel market study was commissioned by the provincial government in this regard. The findings and the recommendations set forth in that report provides the basis for a new strategy that will guide the future development of the Province's mussel industry.

Over the past two or three decades, Mr. Speaker, mussel aquaculture has played a very important and vital role in providing jobs to individuals in rural Newfoundland and Labrador communities. There is no better example, as I have mentioned, than in my area. With the right approach, the mussel industry has potential for further growth and development, ultimately resulting in a sustainable industry for many years to come. It is an industry that has seen and is still experiencing considerable difficulties and challenges, but one that holds significant opportunity for dramatic growth over the next five or ten years.

The legislation being debated today is without a doubt a very important step in the right direction. I am very pleased to see new abandoned site reclamation rules, enhanced industry compliance and enforcement regulations, more comprehensive definitions, new ability for ministerial refusal of aquaculture licence, if in the public interest, and the introduction of mandatory licensee compliance to aquatic animal health policies. Mr. Speaker, each aspect of these amendments will ensure our aquaculture industry continues to be one of the safest and well managed in the country.

I just want to say I am very pleased to speak to these amendments today and offer my full support to these amendments.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to speak to a few minutes on the motion on Bill 22. You must find it kind of strange for somebody from a city district to get up and talk a few words about aquaculture, but I guess I bring it on a different perspective. The environmental perspective is one thing I wanted to speak to as regards this piece of legislation because there was a strong need for the monitoring, if you will, of the chemicals that are being used right now in the aquaculture industry.

I wanted to touch on that, and that it is a good move on the provincial government's part to make sure they are going to be monitoring the pathogenic agents that are used in the aquaculture industry. We know, of course, the particular incident. I think everybody is pretty much familiar with the incident that happened right now in Nova Scotia in Cooke's Aquaculture, and the simple fact of using a chemical for the growth of some fish in the industry that ended up in the killing off of pretty much another fishery that was in the immediate area. In this case, it had a strong effect on the lobster industry to the point where the Department of Fisheries ended up laying charges against the aquaculture firm.

These rules, as far as I am concerned, that government is coming out with are pretty good in the simple fact that not only are they going to be monitoring these chemicals, but at the same time they get a chance to monitor the business to make sure that these businesses are doing right by everybody, too. We have to take that on a consumer perspective as well, because whatever goes into the water to affect these animals ends up probably in the human food chain at the same time.

The second thing I wanted to touch on with regard to this is the phenomenal growth that government is seeing right now in the aquaculture industry. The simple question here is with regard to the federal government participating in the role of the fishery in general. As far as I am concerned, the more money that we see, with regard to a federal perspective, being put back into the research initiatives, for example, and monitoring of the wild fishery, would have a big effect on the aquaculture industry as well.

It certainly speaks to the level of federal cuts that have happened over the last couple of years with regard to what has been happening in the aquaculture industry, because we know, of course, the aquaculture industry is being given a lot of control by the Province. We are actually able to monitor, in some aspects, a fishery of sorts, albeit not within federal jurisdiction. Again, pleased to see this in bill 22.

The last thing I think that I will speak on is with regard to the importance of the wild fishery; it hearkens back to a documentary that I saw on channel 38 on BBC. I do not know if anybody else saw it; perhaps there are some people out there in the viewership that probably remember seeing this, about a month ago. They talked about the state of some of the wild fisheries off South America. The one point they brought up, which was a bit of an alarming point, too, when you are talking about the wild fishery and its connection to aquaculture as well, and the effect on aquaculture; the simple fact that this documentary talked about is how many wild fish that it actually took to feed a fish that was grown via aquaculture. The answer to that one – this study came out and put a pretty good concrete number on it – was that it took, I think it was, nine mackerel to feed one salmon.

That tells you something; if we are going to disseminate one species in favour of one that is driven by a business through the aquaculture industry, then we have to ask ourselves a good question. I will put this out to government, too, to have a look at how much wild stock, for example, is actually being used to farm an animal in the aquaculture industry; that might be a very good question for government right now to be asking, not only on a provincial perspective, but also on a federal perspective.

Again, in summing up, it is nice to see government taking a hands-on approach when it comes to the aquaculture industry here, and I can only say kudos to the government for this one. We will keep a close eye with regard to the future regulations that government is going to be coming out with.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes today to speak on this particular bill concerning aquaculture and the Aquaculture Act amendments, as we address potential health and biosecurity concerns. If we have an aquaculture industry, or we want to continue to have an aquaculture industry in the Province, we want to make sure that the strengths are there and the necessary requirements are in place to ensure that it is a healthy industry, because at any time when we do not have safety in this industry, it can have devastating effects, of course. Mr. Speaker, I understand that as we do the amendments in this particular piece of legislation, we are basically ensuring that what we do today is covered by the regulations to ensure that safety is paramount at all times.

Mr. Speaker, the aquaculture industry has transformed the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly in some areas of our Province. We had the distinct advantage of hearing this afternoon from my colleague from Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune, who represents a district that has had quite a cyclical turn of events in the last few years regarding the fishery. It was a very prosperous, lucrative fishery in the area, and then it began to decline when they lost their fish plant in Harbour Breton. Then we saw the introduction of the aquaculture industry, or the expansion of the aquaculture industry, and what that has done to transform my colleague's district with regards to industry, and what that has to offer an area, and the benefits. When we see the benefits that play out down there, we realize why these requirements are absolutely necessary to provide the strength to this industry.

Mr. Speaker, when people hear about aquaculture in Newfoundland and Labrador, they often think about the area of Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune, but they do not realize there is work going on in other parts of the Province. That is why I felt it was important to speak on this issue today, because one of the areas where the aquaculture industry is expanding is right in Stephenville, Mr. Speaker, right in the town limits of Stephenville. It is almost like a hidden secret that we have over there. We did the announcement a couple of years ago. I know the Minister of Fisheries at the time was out for the announcement, and the Member for Port au Port was there as well. That was an announcement of $11 million – it was for $8 million through the Aquaculture Capital Equity Program to assist in the construction of a hatchery and the expansion of sea cages.

Mr. Speaker, the hatchery in Stephenville is going ahead and it is almost completed over there. I had the opportunity earlier this year to do a tour of that facility with the now Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and the Member for Port au Port as well. When you go to Stephenville you can drive in and out of town, no matter which road you take, or you can be in town and you do not see this new hatchery that is being built. It is hard to imagine that we have a 95,000 square foot salmon hatchery in Stephenville that you really cannot see, but it is located on a road that is closed. The road at one time was a circular road that would come out through the industrial end of the ramp in Stephenville out towards the Abitibi paper mill, when the Abitibi paper mill was there. The road is closed as it goes into the ramp; so, in order to see the new hatchery, you have to come down the old Abitibi road and pass what would now be the DFO offices, or Shur-Gain. You go in past there and right in the middle of nowhere you see this looming facility, and it is a fish hatchery. This hatchery is owned and operated by Northern Harvest Sea Farms, which is owned by Larry, Neil and David Ingalls and Norman Stavis of New Brunswick. They have been in the fish farming industry in New Brunswick and in Chile for the last twenty-five years.

Mr. Speaker, they have plans for Stephenville. This year they will produce 1 million smolt for this fall, for the fall of 2012 in the Stephenville hatchery, and they expect 3 million smolt to be available for the spring of 2013. Mr. Speaker, at this point in time the hatchery has twenty-nine workers on site in Stephenville. There are ten under the operations and nineteen under construction. So twenty-nine jobs in Stephenville, well-paying jobs that came in very quietly that we do not see, but, Mr. Speaker, that is the result of the investment from this government, and it is an investment in aquaculture. That is why it is important from my perspective that the amendments we are looking at today strengthen that industry because it is playing a very important role. Like I said, not just in Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune but now in the District of St. George's – Stephenville East and Port au Port as well.

Mr. Speaker, the hatchery is planned to produce 4 million smolt annually. When you look at that and when I did the tour with the operators, they mentioned that there is only one hatchery in the world that is any bigger than the hatchery that is now built in Stephenville. They also indicated that the hatchery that is bigger than the one in Stephenville is not working at full capacity. They anticipate the Stephenville hatchery will operate at full capacity and will actually be the largest hatchery in operation in the world, Mr. Speaker. That is quite an accomplishment. They told me that the biggest one right now is either in Australia or New Zealand, but again, not operating at full capacity.

Mr. Speaker, right now this Province has an excellent track record in this industry and how it operates in the Province. As I said, the changes we are bringing about in this piece of legislation is not actually changing how we do business, but is solidifying how we do business. It is giving us the necessary controls that we need to ensure we keep it the safest industry as possible. If we do not have the checks and balances in place, and the regulations, legislation, Mr. Speaker, if there are any issues that come into an aquaculture industry, this has devastating effects on the people who may eat the produce, on the jobs that are dependent on having a safe industry and on the reputation of the companies, which is extremely important as well.

In saying that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased we are able to bring in these amendments at this time. It certainly addresses our concerns, but also it provides due diligence to ensure that the processes are followed and that at no point do we ever take anything for granted in this industry. Right now, there are so many jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador. There is government investment put into this, Mr. Speaker. All combined it makes an extremely profitable industry for our Province.

I would think that as we progress as a Province and as we look at what has happened on the South Coast of the Province, and now with the expansion in Bay St. George, I can only feel that this is an industry that has potential. I think it has potential to expand in other areas of the Province. I also think the areas right now where we do have an aquaculture presence, that they too will have the opportunity to expand their operations, especially if they see we have a workforce and we have the legislation and the policies in place that keeps this to be a very safe industry for the Province. Mr. Speaker, that is extremely important.

I do not have anything more to add, but I felt it was important that I address these changes today because aquaculture is playing such a major role in my district. It is something I want to make sure people understand exists in St. George's – Stephenville East, benefits the people from that district as well as the people from Port au Port, and something, as a member of this government and the investment of this government into the hatchery in Stephenville, that provides that valuable work, Mr. Speaker, something I am very proud of.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased, certainly, to close debate and move this along toward Committee.

I do want to make one particular comment, though. There has been a reference from a couple of members of the Third Party in relation to Cooke Aquaculture. I just want to be clear for those who are engaged in observing this debate or listening in the House of Assembly that we operate in a democracy here where you are innocent until proven guilty. While Cooke Aquaculture has a charge against them, I certainly would hate to think that it would be perceived that the Legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador is carrying a lynch mob to convict them. They have a great reputation in Atlantic Canada and they have a great reputation in Newfoundland and Labrador. If that company has in fact committed a crime for which there is a punishment and they are proven guilty, then they ought to pay the punishment that suits the crime, but, Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfair that this Legislature sent a portrayal through the debate today that they have been anything but good to Newfoundland and Labrador. They have a great reputation; they have done great work in Newfoundland and Labrador, in many communities. As I said, I think the issue of whether they have committed a crime is something that the courts ought to decide, not the Legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill, by way of conclusion, very important for us as we follow changes in the aquaculture industry. As I said in my preamble comments, the aquaculture industry is growing in leaps and bounds. It is making a significant impact on communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, but it is imperative upon us that we make the appropriate legislative and policy changes to support that growth, to support the changes in the industry, and support new technologies. I believe that the changes we are bringing forward here today bring greater strength to the regulatory powers that we have, they provides greater direction and vision to the industry, and I believe they highlight the importance that we place on biosecurity and fish health in this Province. We are proud of our reputation and our record on doing that, and we will continue to do that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act. (Bill 22)

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House now, by leave. (Bill 22)

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Order 7, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act, Bill 15.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, that Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act". (Bill 15)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as you may be aware, in recent years significant enhancements have been made to the Newfoundland and Labrador Student Loans Program. One of the most important changes this government brought about, of course, was reintroducing – because they had been eliminated in the mid 1990s – the up-front, needs-based grants program, and then not just introducing the up-front needs-based grants, but increasing that as well, Mr. Speaker.

The other very interesting and important change that we have made in the Newfoundland and Labrador Student Loan Program was eliminating the interest on the provincial portion of the student loans. Mr. Speaker, both these initiatives were examples of what this government was able to do to make post-secondary education more affordable for the students of this Province.

We have also expanded outreach services to all areas of the Province, meaning that we have people who work with the student loan program, not just located in St. John's anymore; we have somebody who works for Labrador and Western Newfoundland, located in our Corner Brook office – which is very convenient considering the number of campuses of the North Atlantic that are on the West Coast or serving Labrador – and also, Mr. Speaker, the presence of Grenfell campus as part of Memorial University in Corner Brook as well.

We also have an outreach worker with the Student Financial Aid Division in our Grand Falls-Windsor career work centre and we also have one in the eastern region, Mr. Speaker, as well as, obviously, a number of workers in St. John's.

Other than eliminating the interest on the student loans, and the grants and the outreach services, we have also, as a government, been able to maintain the tuition freeze at Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic. We understand and we know that this tuition freeze will benefit students in this Province for years to come by making their post-secondary education affordable.

When you combine what we have done in student financial assistance, and when you look at the fact that we have had a freeze on tuition, we have brought in the grants, we have taken the interest off student loans, and we have workers spread out not just in St. John's any more, Mr. Speaker, it is indicative of how seriously we take post-secondary education and our commitment to certainly make that an affordable experience for our students.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on the amendments to the Student Financial Assistance Act. If you look at the amendments, the explanatory notes in the legislation, it reads: "This Bill would amend the Student Financial Assistance Act to remove all references to the certificate of eligibility." That is exactly – when you go from clause to clause, line by line on the changes, we have removed the term certificate of eligibility.

I will now explain exactly what we are trying to do as we look at that, Mr. Speaker. By removing the words certificate of eligibility from the act, this will allow us to do two initiatives to assist in service delivery. These initiatives include the development of the Master Student Financial Assistance Agreement and the Electronic Confirmation of Enrolment. This will certainly assist the students, as well as the educational institutions. These initiatives, which bring in the Master Student Financial Assistance Agreement and the Electronic Confirmation of Enrolment, will help the student by reducing red tape and will certainly provide a more user-friendly experience for the students and for the institutions.

Lineups at our post-secondary institutions each semester for students to pick up and sign loan certificates will certainly be something that will no longer be required. The Master Student Financial Assistance Agreement will allow a student, when approved for their first student loan, beginning in the fall of 2012, the 2012-2013 academic year, this will require students to sign one agreement which will be valid for the life of their borrowing of the student loan, providing that they do not have a break in borrowing for more than two years. Prior to that, Mr. Speaker, that would mean that if a student attended post-secondary institution for eight semesters to get their four-year degree, they would be required to sign as many as eight agreements in a four-year program – two every particular year, one each semester. This means they will sign one agreement at the beginning of their studies and that will be valid for the duration of their studies.

The Electronic Confirmation of Enrolment is a process for educational institutions confirmed by electronic means, full-time enrolment of students, as well as changes to the student status. That is a process right now that is done through forms and through paperwork. That will no longer be required and it will be done electronically. Certainly, that is keeping up with the way business is done today in many industries, Mr. Speaker, but certainly now in post-secondary as well. Currently, all educational institutions, with the exception of Memorial, this process is completely manual. It will change from being a manual exercise right now into an electronic. The goal of the automated system is to improve the administrative processes. Really, what it is doing is it is creating a simpler, more efficient system for the students and the post-secondary institutions.

Also, the benefit for students is this new system, being electronic, will allow for a quicker delivery of funds. Students will no longer have to line up at the post-secondary institution to pick up their loan certificates and to forward the completed documents through the mail system to the National Student Loan Service Centre. Really, it is automating a system that we have in place. Again, because it is going to be automated, it means that students will be able to access their funds more efficiently.

These initiatives are just another way this government is helping create accessible and affordable post-secondary education for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. In fact, Mr. Speaker, since 2003-2004, our total investment in post-secondary education has grown from $228 million to $528.4 million. Mr. Speaker, that is an increase of 130.8 per cent. Not only are we just bringing in processes to assist students and eliminate the red tape, we are also putting our money where our mouth is and we are investing in our post-secondary institutions as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, this is not so much a bill that has anything to do with the actual finances, who qualifies for a student loan, or how much money they get. This is a legislative change to help us eliminate the red tape and make it a more user-friendly system for the students.

Mr. Speaker, I might also add, because I am sure the members opposite will ask about consultation, there was significant consultation done regarding these changes. There is absolutely no opposition whatsoever to what we are doing. It is a welcome change, and one that both students and the institutions feel will be quite helpful.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this amendment here today, which I have had an opportunity to review. I thank the minister and staff for the notes provided on this on what we are trying to do. I will state in advance that I am not going to belabour the point today. I believe the purpose of this amendment today is to simplify what can sometimes be a very difficult and frustrating process. Anything we can do to make access to education easier for anybody is obviously a step in the right direction.

Looking through the legislation, the actual changes to the legislation seem to be housekeeping in order. We are replacing certificate of eligibility with master agreement. I think the minister has laid out a lot of the points or changes that will now take place. For instance, you get one hard copy of this master agreement and that is the one you hold onto. I understand that if you are out of school for more than two years, your master agreement becomes null and void. If you were to go back after that, you would have to make another application and you would get a new hard copy of your master agreement.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the process up to this point has been longwinded and frustrating. You had to apply for a loan. Then you get your notice of assessment of how much you are getting. Then these certificates of eligibility were available for pickup at the school. You had those long lineups. I am sure a lot of people are familiar with getting in those lineups. The school would then complete the section of that, then you would have to get your banking information, you have to drop this back off, and then the governments are contacted. There is a whole number of steps, but my understanding now is with the amendment to this legislation, again, there are a number of steps that are eliminated from the second year onward. That is a good thing.

Again, as I said just previously, the actual changes in the wording of the legislation are very simple. We are just replacing different terminology.

I would note that there have been a lot of positive steps towards higher education in this Province. I think a lot of it started off back with the initial tuition freeze that was implemented back in 1999. I would note that was a Liberal government that implemented that change. That has continued on, and that is a great thing. We hear the saying that education is a right, not a privilege; anything we can do to make this right more accessible is obviously a good thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: More awareness around it today.

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, again, there is more awareness around this today.

What I would say is one of the big things that this is going to be good news for, too, is our colleges and our institutions around the Province, especially the ones that deal with skilled trades. As I have said on many occasions, I am very proud to say we have a College of the North Atlantic in Port aux Basques. It is a great facility, but there are some points that I have made to the minister in the past; we have discussed these. She is well aware of some of the hurdles, some of the obstacles in the way of getting even bigger and even better. The fact is the college in Port aux Basques is too big for the physical infrastructure that is there. We need investment into the infrastructure so that we can get more students. We need more students doing more trades. That is one of the things that I am hoping to see.

Another thing I would also say is that we have a number of students in the urban areas that are still on wait lists. Maybe it is a bit of a kill-two-birds-with-one-stone approach, if we could find ways to give these students an incentive or opportunity to go to a rural college where there might not be as long a wait-list, or if they can get in instead of spending that year on the wait-list.

I am going to continue on here. I apologize for stopping there – my train of thought, Mr. Speaker. I am going to continue on. What I would say is that we have a skilled labour shortage here. It is talked about all of the time. Not only are we offering these students financial assistance, but if we can make it possible so that they can get this schooling done quicker, then how is that a bad thing? That is a great thing. If we can offer them those incentives to come to the rural areas, maybe a bigger grant towards their tools and equipment – there is any number of different approaches that we could try.

What I would say, Mr. Speaker, is that these are other things that we need to consider. We are making strides when it comes to student financial assistance. I know a number of groups were consulted as part of this process, as they should be, and I am glad to hear that. I had the opportunity back, I believe it was in January, to take in the Canadian Federation of Students at a rally at MUN. I believe, actually, the minister and the Premier were there, talking about moving gradually towards eliminating the progressive reduction of all fees for all students going to post-secondary. Whether we will see that or not, I do not know, but what I would say is that the provinces need to work together here as well, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about pressuring the federal government for the creation of a dedicated transfer payment. That is one way that we can work together with other students, other provinces, to make sure that we get from the federal government what we are entitled to and certainly need.

There are a few other points when we talk about student financial assistance. Anything we can do to make life easier for students while they are studying is a good thing. I believe there are studies out there that show, and it seems to me to be a commonsense belief, that a student who spends more than twenty-plus hours working while going to school is obviously not going to do as well. Even though there is a study that shows that, there seems like there could be a common sense thought that obviously, if you are spending more than twenty hours a week going out and working, trying to earn an extra dollar to help pay for the costs of living elsewhere, of food, of room and board, of transportation, then that is going to be less time that you are going to be able to put towards studying. We all know it is hard enough as it is, so anything that we can do to make that financial burden on these students less is a great thing.

We are lucky in this Province that we do have tuition fees that are amongst the lowest in this country, but as I have said previously, and on many occasions, we cannot just accept what we have; we always need to strive to be bigger and better. The fact is that student debt loads that students carry after graduation are still too high, much too high. You are starting off your career and you have sometimes a very crushing debt load that you have burdening you as you start off your new job and you are trying to take care of the other costs, whether that be getting a car, and the cost of finding accommodations.

Mr. Speaker, I think that being said, I am going to begin to clue up here by saying that overall, the legislation, the suggested amendments make sense. A lot of it is housekeeping. We are trying to make life easier for these students, so anything we can do to foster that is a good thing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Kent): The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is an honour to be given an opportunity to speak to this piece of legislation. I spent half of my working career working in the field of student aid and trying to work with stakeholder groups, civil servants, and line departments to try to move that agenda forward. I am very happy to say this is another piece of important legislation that helps move that whole process forward, particularly when we look at streamlining access that students have to the student aid process and making sure the financial accountability is done in such a way that does not confuse them, is not frustrating, and does not delay the process for payment, not only to themselves but also to the institutions.

I might also add that I was part of a group back in the late 1980s who advised government, when student aid was not a big issue, that if we did not get a handle on it and did not start to look forward, there would be issues around frustration, how student aid is paid out, the debt loads students would face, and how we would have to address all of this further down the road. Unfortunately, at the time a different Administration did not heed our recommendations. It took another ten or fifteen years before we got to the process of doing what we are doing now, which is streamlining our student aid process and adding to the very valuable programs and services we do have.

I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not at least acknowledge the former Premier of the Liberal Administration who, in his last year or so of term, did start to look at the process of improving on student aid. As a former educator, he saw the value of moving that forward. What this Administration has been able to do is take that and move it light years forward and move it to a point where we are an envy of the industrialized world when it comes to student aid reform, including young people and including the stakeholders, and making sure that all opportune times are put into place so that people are not delayed when they want to go on to post-secondary education.

Let us just look at some of the things we have done to get us to where we are when it relates to timely student aid processes and making sure there is no frustration with students. We have heard stories from even some of my colleagues here, my colleague from Terra Nova, about having to line up for a full day just to get up to the wicket for someone to go through a box to see if your name was there with your student aid form to receive your cheque, and then all of a sudden find out that you had to go to another table because there was something missing on your application. How frustrating that was, how people were waiting to pay their rent, how they were waiting to pay their tuition, and how they were waiting to pay for transportation to and from. That became a process that did not make sense and frustrated a lot of students. In some cases, Mr. Speaker, students actually walked out of those institutions and never returned because of the frustration of needing that money.

What we have done in this here now is make sure that does not happen. What we have been able to do here is put a process in place that engages the students, expedites the process, guarantees those who are in receipt of student aid would receive it in a timely fashion, and that the institutions get it as part of the process. It also dictates that we know who are full-time students and how they get into those institutions. They are not having to every term fill out more applications and more red tape going through that process. Once they sign the original master financial student form, they are in it for the remainder until they finish their course.

I am just going to note a few things that we have done as an Administration to get us to this point – why we have perhaps the best student aid process anywhere. We have integrated the provincial student loans with the federal student loans so that we do not have all kinds of red tape and we do not have a boggle of papers going everywhere and people being frustrated when they make payments, what they owe and what they do not owe. We have integrated that. We have set a partnership with the federal student loan process to make sure students know exactly where they are, what they are entitled to, and what their payment expectations will be.

We have established the Student Loan Corporation, and it is acknowledged in this country as second to none when it comes to being able to administrate the student loan process, but also be very open to the needs of the students in this Province. This has been supported by the students' unions, faculties in post-secondary institutions, the owners of these institutions, but also – more importantly – the students themselves on a daily basis to see what has happened there. It also gives the responsibility to the taxpayers that their money is being accounted for properly and that while it is supporting students going to school, that they have an accountability and they have a responsibility to make sure that the monies that we loan or we grant to them are, in turn, invested in the right manner.

We have increased the provincial student loan limits from $110 to $140 per week to increase student debt reduction. In 2003 and 2004, when this Administration started to examine why student debt was getting so high and the impact that was having on our economy and why we were having so many young people leave our Province to go into areas where there were higher salaries, and we were losing those skill sets and we were losing those citizens who wanted to be here, we said we need to address certain things. So, we addressed it in another way. We increased the reduction grants, so that people would owe less when they graduated.

We reduced the personal contribution by parents so that students could borrow, but would have to borrow less as part of the whole process. We extended the debt reduction grant program to include co-op students, because we had co-op students who going out working and making some money, but then at the end of the day still had to pick up their debt load and still then would have to borrow more money to be able to continue with their education.

We established the integrated collection process from the federal government to improve services for students having difficulty repaying their student loans. We were open. We could sit down and negotiate with students and say, yes, we understand circumstances have changed in your life, your income is not where you think it would be, and there are certain things that you have had to deal with. We want you to stay in good standing with us, so we are going to work with you to make sure this falls in place.

We have decreased the interest charge on students from prime rate 2.5 per cent to prime in 2007. We want to guarantee that when you do pay any amount of money, you pay the minimum that you have to before you can afford to live up to your obligation. As you can see, the debt load that people in this Province particularly have had, and the default rate has dramatically dropped, because we have made it attractive for people. We understand they want to get established in life. We understand they want to move forward with their careers and while they are doing that, we support them. We want to make sure this does not become a financial burden but again, we have a responsibility as taxpayers and the tax collectors to make sure we get the right bang for our buck and we have done that.

We have implemented a $70 per week up-front, needs-based grant for those who are eligible. That is the guarantee that extra people here have the extra money they would need to be able to sustain their education, and not have to come in and do two and three part-time jobs just to sustain their living arrangements and taking away from what would be the important role here of concentrating on their education.

When we got into 2009, we said well let's get away from the whole interest part of it. Let's just eliminate the whole interest on student loans. That was applauded by every student and every student organization and every parent in this Province because it gave students the opportunity to know they were not going further and further in debt if they ran into certain turmoil where they could not make full payments on their student loans. They realized at the end of the day if they could start making payments on their principal, their principal would come down and down and their net debt would be less and less.

We have increased the up-front, needs-based grants again, to include particularly around medical students because we wanted to enhance medical students to stay in this Province. We wanted to make sure more could get into it. We know it is an additional cost when you go to medical school because it is a longer process. We wanted to make it more attractive, and we have done that. As you can see, the graduating medical students that we have now are more Newfoundland and Labrador oriented. Their debt load is much less. They are staying in this Province and contributing back into rural practices here; back here in the urban centres also.

We reduced the spousal contribution from 80 per cent of discretionary income to 70 per cent. That extra 10 per cent is the difference of some people being able to get their student loans and being able to make their payments on a monthly basis. That was another positive that was applauded particularly around those who were in relationships, a very positive thing.

We have implemented the provincial design policy to enhance accountability for taxpayers of students through development standards and criteria of institutions and governments to follow. That everybody now is on the same page. People would understand exactly what we are doing. That is how we lead to the point of being able to have proper legislation so that it is more viable and more accessible for all students in this Province to understand how they get their student loans, how they move it forward, how they make their repayment process and knowing what their graduating costs when they complete are going to be. Then they can plan their futures about what they invest in, if it is homes, what they invest in, if it is families down the road, if they invest in marriages and these types of things; if they want to invest in businesses. We are trying to do it all to entice them to stay in this Province, and we have done a great job of that.

We have implemented a repayment assistance program to provide benefits to students in hardship. Probably the best noted one for those to make sure that everybody, no matter if you come from an affluent family in rural Newfoundland or an affluent family in urban areas or you come from a low-income family in urban or rural areas, everybody has proper access to proper education and at a minimal cost. We have done that, and we have done a super job of being able to put that in place.

This piece of legislation is more about – people call it housekeeping, but it is not about housekeeping. It is the next stage in making sure we have a streamlined process when it comes to how we administer our student aid process. What we want to do is make sure the students are not in any way added hardship. We want to streamline what they do. We want to make sure they understand the process. We want to eliminate the extra burden on high school student counsellors in the schools because this will all be done. It is online. At any given time now, a student can access their information and know where their payment process is and know where their student aid application is in the application process. They will also know what questions institutions may have relevant to their application. They will know if all bills have been paid to the institutions themselves.

The institutions love it also because at the end of the day they know all the information is upfront. They have it. They can go on in and guarantee that the student is a full-time student and know they are entitled to their reimbursement under the student loan process. Thus, the institution has its money, the student has his money, people move forward, and they know that over the next period of time they will have the ability to move things forward.

Mr. Speaker, I am just going to end on one process. We have gone from debt default in four years from 17 per cent to 12 per cent, a major decrease when you look at what has gone on. That is because we have put processes in place that work for the students, engage the groups that are involved, and have given them an opportunity to take that money that would have normally been defaulted that we would have had to pick up as taxpayers, and put back into the economy.

I just want to end, Mr. Speaker, on one note. This is another small part of a big picture of improving the student aid process and making it, by far, the best in this country.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy to rise to discuss Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act, and talk about some of the things that Bill 15 includes and some of the things that Bill 15 should include.

As the previous speaker said across the way, post-secondary education is an important investment in our economy. It is a prerequisite for many of the jobs that are being created today. We have often heard the minister say there will be 70,000 new jobs created or become open, or will be opening up in Newfoundland and Labrador in the next few years by 2020. A lot of those jobs will require some post-secondary education.

We know that institutions contribute a lot to their local economies as well. I was looking at one study yesterday from 2004 which showed the College of the North Atlantic found out there was a return of over $11 for every public dollar that goes to the College of the North Atlantic alone. We know there is a significant return on investment for our communities and for individuals as well. Student financial aid itself is a significant enabler of access to post-secondary education, as the member across the way has mentioned. It is one of the surefire ways that we can help young people and not-so-young people get ahead in our economy, and it has been shown time and time again that higher levels of educational attainment result in higher earnings for individuals.

I was looking at one study; it was done in the United States, but the dynamics are pretty well the same here. It showed that a high school graduate could expect lifetime earnings of $1.3 million, while somebody with a Bachelor of Arts would have a return of a million dollars more, $2.3 million over their lifetime; then, somebody who completed a graduate degree or a professional degree could see a return of $3.6 million. So, there is quite a significant return that comes to individuals; it has been said that post-secondary education is the only way that individuals can transcend the socioeconomic conditions of their families.

In recent years, starting in the late 1990s, there is no question, we have seen more progressive changes to post-secondary education policy in Newfoundland and Labrador; these changes, I would argue, have made our system more affordable than many of the systems in Canada. We in the New Democratic Party applaud the government for those particular investments; they are wise investments, and as I have said, it yields a high return for communities, for individuals, and for our economy. Some of these changes have included the tuition-fee freezes that continue at Memorial University of Newfoundland and at the College of the North Atlantic. We have seen a partial return to up-front grants and we have also seen the elimination of student loan interest. It is not lost on anyone in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, that investments in post-secondary education have a return on investment for communities and individuals, but they are also politically popular, there is no question about that.

Many of these changes that we have seen have been made in consultation with students, as the minister said. Prior to the last election, the Canadian Federation of Students made a request to government for a number of particular additional progressive changes. They asked government to provide additional support to students for tools and equipment, especially apprentices who have to pay a lot for tools and supplies. If we want to increase the number of apprentices, I would argue that we have to improve affordability for apprentices, and that is something that we really should see in a bill like this.

They also asked government to eliminate the pre- and during-study contributions from the needs assessment formula for student financial assistance in this Province. Government did partially, but only partially, respond to that by increasing the study period exemption from $50 a week to $100 a week. That was announced in the Budget.

The Canadian Federation of Students has also asked the government to restore the system of grants that was eliminated under the Liberal Administration in the 1990s. It did appear that the new energy Blue Book that was released by the Progressive Conservative Party during the election was going to do that, but this was omitted in the Budget that we voted on last Tuesday night. I would encourage the government to go back and look at that pledge, because it is a good one; take another look at that, because that is another progressive change that we could see in a bill such as Bill 15.

It would help us a lot, because the average student loan debt in Newfoundland and Labrador – yes, it has come down since the high in the 1990s; I believe it went up as high as an average of $33,000 on average per student, but it is still around $25,000 per student. That is what the graduating average student loan debt is right now, so that is something else that we could do to help students out and not burden them with additional debt.

Beyond this, there are other changes that we could consider to help individuals gain access to post-secondary education and training, and other changes that we could include in a bill like Bill 15. One thing I wanted to mention is that right now, many people who want to complete apprenticeships are discouraged from doing so by certain government practices that fund apprentices. A number of individuals that I have been speaking to have said that they have been refused funding and opportunities for further training by government because the government believes that they have so-called marketable skills.

There is this one example of a gentleman who completed a Bachelor of Arts and Sociology about twenty years ago and he has worked in construction on the mainland all of his life. He wanted to go and do scaffolding at the Carpenters Millwrights College. He was not able to do that; he could not get funding because his sociology degree gave him so-called marketable skills. As he said, he has always worked in construction all of his life and he wanted to do scaffolding. There is a big demand for scaffolding right now, so that was something that he wanted to do, and he could not get funding. Maybe we could build something in an act like this that would –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KIRBY: Oh, yes, he cannot afford it, right? That is what I am saying; he cannot afford to attend the program because he cannot get funding. Maybe Bill 15 could include something to help apprentices in particular, Mr. Speaker.

Another thing that I think we need to do is we really need to find ways, through student financial assistance, to foster lifelong learning. We know lifelong learning and economic growth go hand in hand. Lifelong learning has to be much more than a catchphrase during elections. It has the potential to fuel and maintain economic growth.

We know we have an aging workforce in Newfoundland and Labrador. We got rid of the mandatory retirement age of sixty-five so that people can stay in the workforce. There are a lot of people who do not have the skills that are suited to today's economy and the changed economy in Newfoundland and Labrador. There needs to be more done to help adult learners to access part-time or evening programs, short-term, industry-specific training programs that are in response to the labour market demands we are facing, lifelong learning to promote and assist rural communities, and to assist business enterprises and entrepreneurs through research, consultancy, mentoring, and development work. Ireland has done this. If you look at what Ireland has done, they have targeted specific assistance that applied fields like engineering, information technology, business studies, and then also cultural industries like film, art, and music. Post-graduate program expansion can also be part of this, Mr. Speaker.

We know that a large portion of our population has literacy skills that are below or beneath the level we need for our current and coming labour market realities. The time is overdue to ensure there are opportunities for adult learners to improve their skills and training, and to help them more fully participate in the economy and in their communities.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KIRBY: Yes, as the minister is saying, we are hopefully going to see a finalized strategic adult literacy plan this year, so that will certainly another progressive step and another progressive development that we New Democrats would strongly support, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: It is timely, too, Mr. Speaker, because we saw a clawback of funds from labour market adjustment funding from the federal government this year. That and changes to Employment Insurance are going to cause undue hardship for older workers if we do not do something.

Another initiative that could be in Bill 15 is a new system of post-graduate scholarships for study at institutions within the Province and outside of the Province. Increasingly, college and university students are going back to complete post-graduate credentials after they do one program. Some of those are available at Memorial University and some are at College of the North Atlantic, but sometimes people have to travel outside of the Province. So, it would be an important, progressive step to see that these students are able to avail of additional funding, financial aid, through scholarships based on college and university performance. A number of provinces in Canada have these sorts of programs right now and they help students defray the cost that they incur after they have completed an initial diploma or degree program.

Another issue certainly relates to, as the Member for Burgeo – La Poile mentioned, we have to look at our outport, rural students, students in remote and isolated communities because they have a more difficult time accessing post-secondary education in comparison to –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: – other students. One of the principal reasons why is because they have to incur additional expenses, living expenses, travel expenses, and so on that are associated with living away from home. This amounts to about $5,000 to $6,000 a year on top of tuition –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: That is about $20,000 to $24,000, $25,000 a year in addition for a four-year degree. So, that is quite expensive. That results in a far greater dependence on student financial aid and the accumulation of debt for students from our outport, rural, remote communities. Something really needs to be done to assist those students.

I just say, Mr. Speaker, I support the changes that have been introduced here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: I think it is a wise move to remove the certificate of eligibility requirement, to have more electronic mechanisms for tracking student aid and for processing it. I know the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island had said that he remembers the long lineups and I remember those –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker is having difficulty hearing the hon. Member for St. John's North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thanks, Mr. Speaker.

I will just clue up here quickly. I remember those lineups as I was saying, that was mentioned by the Member for the District of Conception Bay East – Bell Island as well. Of course, a lot of that occurred prior to the advent of widespread use of the Internet. These changes certainly are in tune with the times and these sorts of changes have already been made in a number of other provinces, I believe. Getting rid of these multiple agreements and so on makes a lot of sense. I appreciate the fact that the effort was made to do consultation with the various stakeholder groups on this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: As I mentioned, I think important things have been done. Progressive changes have been made since the late 1990s. I think there is quite a lot more to do and I certainly look forward to changes down the road that are more substantive and less superficial than a lot of these changes are.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte – Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to thank the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills and her departmental staff for a briefing on the amendments to Bill 15. It is a pleasure to speak to that this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. In attendance as well were members from Kilbride, Bonavista North, and Conception Bay East – Bell Island. Her staff did a tremendous job in briefing us this morning, Mr. Speaker.

In essence, what this bill actually does is to eliminate, as the minister alluded to earlier, all references to the phrase certificate of eligibility and allows the department to move forward on two key initiatives. As you know, Mr. Speaker, as a department we always want to move forward rather than backwards in trying to introduce new ways of doing things. Number one was the Master Student Financial Assistance Agreement and number two, the Electronic Confirmation of Enrolment. Currently, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of financial assistance, a student would get a certificate of eligibility. Each semester they would fill that form out, do all the pertinent information, and mail it to Ottawa for processing. This would probably be a long, drawn out process, Mr. Speaker, very cumbersome and labour intensive exercise, probably a very paper driven process. A very painful experience as well because students would have to wait a long period of time.

Mr. Speaker, they had to do this each semester. For example, if they did a five-year program they would have to fill this form out ten times, which lends itself to more errors, most likely. In contrast, Mr. Speaker, what this amendment would do, it would require a student to complete a form called the Master Student Financial Assistance Agreement, known as MSFAA, just once. They fill out the pertinent information on that particular form, they sign it and that would suffice. It would be valid for the life of the student's educational study period, provided, Mr. Speaker, that the borrower does not have a break in borrowing of more than two years.

The second initiative, Mr. Speaker, would be the Electronic Confirmation of Enrolment. What is that? That is just a process where educational institutions confirm that full-time enrolment of students electronically, as well as changes to their student status. Currently, this is done manually, except for Memorial University of Newfoundland. I might point out as well, Mr. Speaker, that the department has had several consultations with all stakeholders, and everybody was on board. The students and all stakeholders thought this was a tremendous exercise, very positive indeed, and streamlined the process. I might point out as well, Mr. Speaker, that BC did this last September. Ontario did it – I believe, to my knowledge – this March, and of course, we have Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, and now Newfoundland and Labrador. We will have these changes implemented by this August 1. That is the plan, Mr. Speaker. We have over 8,000 clients.

Basically, this will be the new way of doing business, in short, Mr. Speaker. It will be transformational. What are the advantages? Well, let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker. It will provide for faster delivery of funds, it will streamline the process, and it will increase service to students and to educational institutions alike. In short, Mr. Speaker, it would provide a more efficient system of delivery overall.

Mr. Speaker, in essence, what these amendments do to this act, it will simplify matters for the students, educational institutions, parents, and all stakeholders, in fact, and build on the enhancement that we have already made to the post-secondary educational system. Such as, as we alluded to earlier, Mr. Speaker, our tuition freeze, which cost us since 2005, I believe, $183 million to implement. We are very proud to have the best student aid package in the country, Mr. Speaker, and we are building on that. Another example would be the up-front, needs-based grants. We have eliminated the interest on the provincial portion of the student loans. What we are doing, we are just building – that is a foundation and we are building on that particular package, student aid package, Mr. Speaker.

As a government, and as a society, as parents, and as all colleagues, of course, we know that education is very, very important. As an individual, because it is good for personal growth, and as a society, education is also important. It is vital because education is vital to economic performance, economic growth. We want our youth to seize the opportunities that abound out there, that confront them in society today.

This particular amendment to this bill basically is another step that we have made to just promote the importance of education and to make it more accessible, Mr. Speaker, and more affordable. These are two key planks in our system: more accessible and more affordable – by reducing red tape, of course, thus providing a better overall experience for students and educational institutions. By making these amendments, you get rid of the cumbersome and convoluted way of doing business, Mr. Speaker.

While these are what we call routine or housekeeping amendments, they are required to implement additional program enhancements. As a government, Mr. Speaker, we are continually seeking new and innovative ways of improving program and service delivery to our youth. We do not want to remain in a static, stale, stagnant mode of operation and cramp growth or economic performance, Mr. Speaker. As a government and as a society we will continue to listen to the people, listen to the stakeholders, listen to educational institutions, listen to students, and roll out programs or make changes that have a positive impact upon our youth in society and upon student life.

We want our youth ready to seize the many job opportunities that confront them today. We have all heard that within the next ten years there will be 70,000 job openings; that is an estimation. We want accessibility to student loans not to be a barrier for our youth. We want Newfoundland and Labrador youth to have access to high-quality post-secondary education, Mr. Speaker, and to employment, at affordable cost, to enhance the employment prospects of graduates –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. POLLARD: – and ensure that we are able to get the greatest benefit from economic opportunities. As a society, we want our youth educated so that all of the opportunities out there that confront them today, they can access right away. Mr. Speaker, these amendments will do just that to our financial system.

Mr. Speaker, just an example before I get into Budget 2012; I have two daughters. They have gone through the system. They took advantage of student loans and student grants. It was very, very positive. Any teacher, any parent, or anybody out there speaks very highly of our student aid package, the best in the country. I commend the minister and the former Minister of Education for doing an outstanding job in leading the way in that particular area.

Budget 2012 provides approximately $66 million to reduce student debt through $44 million to the Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic to continue the freeze on tuition for the 2012-2013 academic year. Since 2005, Mr. Speaker, $183 million has been invested to support the freeze on tuition rates, $19 million for the continuation of up-front needs-based grants and the interest-free student loans, and $3 million for continued debt-reduction grants.

Mr. Speaker, an investment of approximately $862,000 will assist students by increasing the study period exemption from $50 per week to $100 per week under the Student Financial Assistance Program. This will allow students to earn up to $100 per week for employment earnings during their period of study without impacting their student loan and grant entitlement. Of course, I already mentioned, Mr. Speaker, that the interest on the provincial portion of student loans was eliminated in Budget 2009.

With the reintroduction of up-front needs-based grants, Mr. Speaker, students who borrow the maximum of $140 per week can now receive up to $80 in a non-repayable grant. As an example, students from other jurisdictions see the advantage of studying right here in Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, at Memorial University. There has been a steady increase in post-secondary students from other Atlantic provinces, an increase of 65 per cent since fall 2005. Enrolment at Memorial from students outside of Atlantic Canada has increased by 36 per cent, Mr. Speaker.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to these amendments this afternoon, to stand up in this House of Assembly and say I am in full support of these amendments to the act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills speaks now, she will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to close debate on this particular amendment at this time, and I want to build on some of the commentary that we have heard here today regarding student financial assistance. As I indicated in my opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, this government has been instrumental in eliminating interest on student loans, reintroducing the up-front needs-based grants, and having outreach workers in Eastern, Central, and Western Newfoundland to be able to provide assistance for individuals, for students, when they have questions.

I also wanted to provide some commentary on what I have heard here today. One was the fact that the tuition freeze was in effect since 1999. In a sense there is some validity to that, but you have to put it in context of what was happening at that time. The tuition fees in the year of 1996-1997 increased at Memorial University by 15.5 per cent that year, Mr. Speaker. That was followed by 1997-1998 where there was an increase of 18 per cent in one year in the tuition fees at Memorial University, and then followed again in 1998-1999 by an increase of 4.8 per cent. Mr. Speaker, the student loans increased by 40 per cent during that time frame in Newfoundland and Labrador at Memorial University. A 40 per cent increase was substantial. That was followed by two years where there were no increases, but no increases on the heels of a 40 per cent increase.

Mr. Speaker, what happened after that was, I guess there was some realization that this was completely unacceptable, and not only was post-secondary education becoming unaffordable in this Province, at the same time, this was the same time period when the up-front, needs-based grants had been eliminated as well. Then we see in 2001-2002, a decrease of 10 per cent in tuition fees, followed by another 10 cent per cent, followed by 4.5 per cent. There is basically a 25 per cent decrease then. So it was not a tuition freeze, but the 25 per cent had to amend and had to fix what had happened because the rates had gone up by 40 per cent, which was completely unacceptable, Mr. Speaker.

At the same time, with regard to the College of the North Atlantic in the same years where I referenced increases, in 1996-1997, the rates for the College of the North Atlantic tuition went up 20 per cent, followed in 1997-1998 by 10 per cent, and again in 1998-1999 by 10 per cent as well. That means that the fees at the College of the North Atlantic increased by 40 per cent. Mr. Speaker, there have been no increases in the tuition fees at that time. When we talk about the former Administration and the fact they rolled back the tuition at Memorial because they put it up 40 per cent, let's not forget the same was done for the College of the North Atlantic, but there was no reductions like there had been in the university. Again, even with the university, with the decreases, there was a still a 15 per cent tuition hike to the university, Mr. Speaker.

In addition to that – as mentioned by my colleague from Bay Verte – Springdale – the student loan limits were increased from $110 a week that a student was able to borrow up to $140 a week. This also was increased by the Debt Reduction Grants. What is important to note is that the $110 went to $140. You would say: Well, now a student can borrow more so a student will owe more. What we also brought in was the up-front, needs-based grants. Now a student can get a portion of that $140 forgiven in a grant. It is not actually a loan. Therefore, that was a significant step to help students with their finances.

Mr. Speaker, we also brought in a number of other initiatives. One was to reduce the parental contributions so that parents with a combined family income of less than $65,000 will no longer have to contribute to their child's education. The upper limits also changed. Families with a combined income of up to $140,000 will now qualify. That was brought in 2007. Mr. Speaker, that needs to be looked at periodically basically because as the economy changes, incomes change and circumstances change. Because of that, at one point in time I would think $65,000 as a combined family income was probably quite significant and felt there would be no need for a student to apply for student financial assistance. No longer is that the case, Mr. Speaker.

I also indicated that we eliminated the interest on student loans – the first Province in Canada to do so. Not only have we kept our tuition low, we have brought back up-front, needs-based grants and we have eliminated the interest; therefore, it becomes a much more affordable system.

I also noted that the Member for St. John's North applauded government for their changes; however, he did say that what we are doing here today is superficial. Mr. Speaker, if it was superficial, we would not be doing it. It is meaningful. It is for the students. It is bringing it into an automated system, which is necessary. It would not be debated here in the House and it would not be attached to the legislation if it was not significant. If it was that insignificant, maybe they could vote against it, but it is significant. Any change has an accumulative effect –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BURKE: – and when you add them all up, it becomes significant.

Mr. Speaker, we have supported our students not just through financial assistance, student loans, and our debt reduction payments, but we have also provided significant funding for our post-secondary institutions. In particular, Mr. Speaker, this year we were able to continue the tuition freeze. What we have spent to date since 2005 to support the tuition freeze at the university has been $183 million. Mr. Speaker, it is not like we are saying to the university: You have to freeze tuitions and find the best way you can to do it. We have supported heavily in the university to ensure they can do that. Dr. Kachanoski commented on the Budget this year that he feels is the best Budget that any university across Canada has received. I think that is a significant endorsement, Mr. Speaker.

We also, as I said, continue our interest-free student loans, but we also had another significant change this year that was applauded by the students as well; again, it is a significant investment, but unless you are part of that sub-culture of being a student, you probably would not realize what the change was. We have invested $862,000; we increased the study period exemption from $50 a week to $100 per week under the Student Loan Program. What that means, Mr. Speaker, is students can now earn up to $100 a week from their employment during their period of study without impacting their student loan or grant entitlement. At one point it was $50, but now that is $100, so that has doubled, so some students are able to work to be able to offset their student loans as well.

Mr. Speaker, any of the changes that we have brought in, in student financial assistance have certainly been done in concert with the students. We have regular round-table meetings; we have done it a number of times. I know I have as the minister, although it was not the round table; I had the opportunity to meet with the outgoing Canadian Federation of Students representative here in the Province and the new incoming representative just a couple of weeks ago, and we will certainly ensure that we continue with that dialogue. Mr. Speaker, one thing I find when I meet with the student leaders in this Province is that they are very analytical, they are focused, they understand the issues, and they present some great solutions of how we can work together.

Mr. Speaker, we also realize that it is not just always about student financial assistance; we also have to invest in infrastructure as well to make sure that our university remains competitive and provides a high-quality level of education for our students. We have heard over and over again from the Third Party about affordable housing and feeling we are not doing anything to invest in affordable housing, but when you break it down and you look at what we have done for students, Mr. Speaker, it has been a significant contribution.

This year, our Budget allocated $40.8 million for new residences both in St. John's and at the Grenfell Campus of Memorial University. That brings our investment for new residence beds up to $88.3 million. This will create 500 new beds at the St. John's campus and at least 200 beds at the Grenfell Campus. This is affordable on-campus housing, Mr. Speaker, and it accommodates many, many students.

Not only are we building the new residences, but we are also allocating $11.2 million to renovate the existing residences; that is for a total investment for the existing residences of $45.5 million. I was able, Mr. Speaker, when I was in the role of Minister of Education before, to do a tour of Barnes. At that time, they had just finished their renovations; I think they were the first house to be renovated at Paton College. It is amazing, the renovations and what is being done. You did not realize, I suppose, how old-fashioned the residences were until you saw the renovations being done.

When many of us stayed at Paton College, it was a concrete room with two desks, two beds, two closets, and that was it. Now, Mr. Speaker, they are more modern, new modern washrooms, and the rooms are also wired for technology, something that we did not worry about when I was there; I guess computers were not even part of the landscape, as far as people owning a computer at that time. So, the renovations are significant, and it has certainly given a facelift to the residences. They are much more brought in-line with today's standards, Mr. Speaker.

We also invested $4.7 million for the science laboratory improvements to maintain the quality of the labs here at Memorial University; since 2009, that has been an investment of $16.5 million. There has also been $10 million for general improvements and maintenance to Memorial University. This is also, Mr. Speaker, in addition to $19.4 million that has been invested since 2009.

Not only are we investing in Memorial University, but we had a $2.5 million investment to accelerate the shop modernization at the College of the North Atlantic campuses. That is addition to the $9.5 million that was invested since 2005. Mr. Speaker, we have invested in the College of the North Atlantic in many ways. Since 2003, investments in the College of the North Atlantic have increased by almost 71 per cent. The college was receiving $53.4 million in 2003; today, Mr. Speaker, they have a budget from government of $91.4 million.

Mr. Speaker, we also have a new college in Lab West, which is a $22 million investment, and there have been upgrades and enhancements done to the Prince Philip Drive and the Seal Cove Campuses as well. As well, last year I had the opportunity to open a new trades wing at the Grand Falls-Windsor Campus, and this was funded in partnership with ACOA and IBRD, as well as the College of the North Atlantic.

Mr. Speaker, the College of the North Atlantic is a flexible institution, in that based on the changes in our economy and the needs and the labour gaps that we experience, the college is able to change, to add, to take away, and to modify programs, enrolment, and where courses are offered in order to meet the labour market demands. That is an important feature of the College of the North Atlantic.

All these opportunities that I spoke to, Mr. Speaker, certainly outline our commitment to students and why it is important that we are progressive in what we do and how we maintain our campuses and the supports for students. The legislation today is an addition to show that not only do we look at the big picture in the budget items, but we also have to look at the processes as well. The change that we are bringing about in this legislation, Mr. Speaker, addresses one of those processes.

Again, I would like to, in conclusion, go over the changes that are happening in this legislation to ensure that people understand exactly what we are doing. If you look at the explanatory note of the legislation it reads that we are removing the words certificate of eligibility from the act. That is what the amendments are all about, Mr. Speaker. Because we take away those words it will allow us to do two service delivery initiatives. These initiatives include the Master Student Financial Assistance Agreement and the Electronic Confirmation of Enrolment.

Mr. Speaker, we are continually looking and seeking ways that we can improve the systems and eliminate the red tape. These initiatives will assist the students. It will reduce red tape and it will provide a more streamlined approach for them as they apply for student loans.

Mr. Speaker, people who have been involved and applied for student loans know that there are lineups at our post-secondary institutions each semester, so that students can pick up and sign their loan certificates. Mr. Speaker, once we bring in these changes that will no longer happen. That is certainly progressive.

The Master Student Financial Assistance Agreement will allow a student, when approved for their first student loan, beginning in the fall of 2012-2013, beginning that academic year they will only have to sign one agreement which will be valid for the life of their borrowing provided the student does not have a break in borrowing of more than two years. This agreement will also eliminate the requirement for printing and processing loan certificates every semester. Currently, students could be required to sign as many as eight agreements for a four-year degree. This gives us one master agreement, Mr. Speaker.

The Electronic Confirmation of Enrolment is the second process that is also being implemented. This is when an educational post-secondary institution confirms, by electronic means, full-time enrolment of students, as well as changes to the student's status.

Currently, in all of our post-secondary institutions, with the exception of Memorial, this process is being completed manually and the goal of the new automated system to improve administrative processes, ultimately creating a simpler and more efficient system for students and educational institutions. This system will allow for a quicker delivery of funds, meaning the process that the application goes through will happen electronically as opposed to going through mail. Students will no longer have to line up at their school to pick up a loan certificate and then forward the completed documents by mail to the National Student Loan Services Centre.

Mr. Speaker, these initiatives are just another way this government is helping create accessible and affordable post-secondary education for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this is something that will change the way students apply and receive their student loans. It eliminates the red tape. It is more streamlined. They will have access to the funds earlier.

Mr. Speaker, this is not superficial, as the Member for St. John's North had indicated. This is something that is progressive. It is well needed. It is about time we are bringing it into the Province, and these amendments will do that. When we do something like that, Mr. Speaker, for the students, I really resent hearing that it is superficial. It is not. It is something that will benefit them, that will eliminate the lineups, and that will provide funds faster. Mr. Speaker, I think that is significant; therefore I am really pleased to be able to put forward these amendments today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act. (Bill 15)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a second time.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 15)

MR. SPEAKER: The Deputy Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I call from the paper Order 8, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act, Bill 18.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act, be now read a second time.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of procedure here, but I would like to move, if it has not already been moved, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act". (Bill 18)

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 am pleased this afternoon to introduce Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act. This bill, Mr. Speaker, will basically do two things. It may grant legal aid in respect to proceedings before an administrative tribunal or administrative board. It will also, Mr. Speaker, clarify part of the Legal Aid Act where it will not be granted. The Legal Aid Act lays out areas where legal aid may not be granted. We will clarify in this bill, Mr. Speaker, that in cases of malpractice, in cases of accident claims and civil property claims, that legal aid will not be granted in these areas.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the bill eliminates or remove references to common-law actions that are no longer in vogue and no longer reflect modern realities, and we will speak to these as we go along.

Mr. Speaker, the legal aid program is a provincial-federal, cost-shared program. The Province puts in approximately $12 million into legal aid in this Province, and the federal government contributes $2.2 million for a total budget of $14.2 million for legal aid programs in this Province. The proportional funding, Mr. Speaker, seems to be a bit out of whack, and we have been certainly approaching the federal government now – it has been a hot topic on FPT meetings for a number of years to increase the federal aid contribution – but regardless, Mr. Speaker, the amount has remained the same. So, we contribute $12 million; the feds can put in $2.2 million a year.

Mr. Speaker, criminal legal aid ensures that those people who are economically disadvantaged – people who live in this Province – and who have been charged with serious criminal charges, face serious criminal charges and the possibility of incarceration, that these people have equitable access to the justice system through legal representation by the Newfoundland and Labrador Legal Aid Commission. That is basically the thrust of the legal aid program in this Province.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, the Legal Aid Commission provides other services as well. For example, it provides a duty counsel in first appearance courts across this Province, where a lawyer from legal aid is on duty to help those people who come in unrepresented and who have been charged in the courts and who need direction in dealing with the charges, who need some information about the process in Provincial Court or youth court. A lawyer is on duty from legal aid – called the duty counsel – and he is there to help those people through the process on first appearances.

Mr. Speaker, there is also a toll-free number with legal aid that a person who has been arrested can call twenty-four hours a day for legal advice – and that is available twenty-four hours a day. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Legal Aid Commission also gives legal representation for family law matters and certain civil law matters. All these, Mr. Speaker, of course, are based on criteria of financial eligibility.

Mr. Speaker, the Legal Aid Commission operates eleven offices in this Province, but in addition to the eleven offices, we also have a number of special purpose offices, which I will just refer to briefly. For example, there is the Aboriginal Project which operates out of the Happy Valley-Goose Bay office. That facilitates working, Mr. Speaker, with Aboriginal communities, to better improve the quality of legal services for Aboriginals who encounter the law. For example, Mr. Speaker, as part of this project, the Legal Aid Commission has hired part-time community liaison workers for the Towns of Nain, Hopedale, Natuashish, and Sheshatshiu.

There is also the mental health office, Mr. Speaker, which works in collaboration with the health care corporation. That office works to improve and more efficiently deliver legal services to people with mental health issues. For example, people with mental health issues can obtain legal representation in mental health court, which is a specialty court that meets every two weeks to deal with people who are charged with crimes that possibly arrived at that place because of mental health problems or addiction problems. The mental health office, Mr. Speaker, works with these people and works with the collaboration of the health care corporation and other stakeholders to make sure that these people with mental health issues can have legal representation in the mental health court, and in other courts for that matter.

Mr. Speaker, we also have the French Speaking Project, which has a staff solicitor fluent in French to provide legal advice by telephone or in person, or, if necessary, to conduct a trial in French. We also have a family and child legal aid services. These offices are located in St. John's and Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Corner Brook. Each of these has a director and a solicitor on staff, has a social worker and a paralegal. Their role, Mr. Speaker, of this office is to assist parents of children who are taken into care by the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, and to respond to the concerns of Child, Youth and Family Services and to work toward the reunification of family members, where it is possible.

The Legal Aid Commission also has a client service officer and the role of this officer, Mr. Speaker, is to co-ordinate and to facilitate communication between persons who are incarcerated anywhere in this Province, or federally for that matter, or held in any institution. The role of the officer is to co-ordinate and to facilitate information between these people who may still need the service of legal aid, even though they are incarcerated in a federal institution somewhere on the mainland.

We also have the Family Violence Court Project. That is a specialty court; we are now in the third year of operation. In this case, the Legal Aid Commission works with the Provincial Court in assessing people for this court, the risk assessment, and also gives representation to people who may want to pursue the charges through the Family Violence Intervention Process. Mr. Speaker, these are other sort of speciality offices, if you will, that the Legal Aid Commission provides, in addition to criminal and civil legal aid.

Mr. Speaker, the Legal Aid Act allows the provision of these legal services in all courts: Provincial Court, Family Court, Supreme Court, Federal Court –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker has recognized the Minister of Justice and Attorney General; I would ask members if they would take their private conversations outside the Chambers, please.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, legal aid can be given in any court – Provincial Court, Federal Court, Family Court – with regard to a criminal code offence, or it can also be provided in civil matters under the Extradition Act; legal aid will provide representation there.

Mr. Speaker, the reason for this bill is that currently the Legal Aid Act does not specifically allow for the provision of assistance for people in respect of administrative boards or administrative tribunals. When the Legal Aid Act was adopted in 1975, matters such as these – administrative matters, matters of workers' compensation, for example, or Income Support benefits, or disability benefits – were all adjudicated in the courts at that time. Administrative tribunals were not a part of the system as they are today. They were, at that time, adjudicated by judges, but today they are very much done and most of the cases are done in front of administrative tribunals.

It has been our experience, Mr. Speaker, and the experience of the Legal Aid Commission that administrative law matters that affect an individual's income, or affect his entitlement to benefits or his ability to earn a living, for example, private bar lawyers are not prepared to take these things on, on a continuous basis because basically at the end of the day the amount of money involved is not sufficient and not big enough. Private bar lawyers would take on, for example, accident claims, motor vehicle accident claims, where liability is guaranteed because the amounts are fairly large and will involve a fair return for the legal law firms that take these things on, because they incur all the expenses and, at the end of the day, expect a fair return for their work. That is not the case, Mr. Speaker, with matters that ordinarily become before administrative tribunals, such as workers' compensation matters, EI matters, and that sort of thing. As a result, many individuals then do not have access to legal services with respect to these matters because the private bar will not take them.

Mr. Speaker, today, administrative tribunals exercise a large and increasing jurisdiction to deal with the rights of individuals. There is no reason why legal aid cannot be given to those people affected by those tribunals who, of course, are subject to the financial criteria. There is no reason why these people should be excluded from a legal plan, because the need would be just as great today as it was in the past when it was adjudicated before the courts.

Mr. Speaker, we find today as well that government relies on administrative tribunals, our administrative agencies, and that has enhanced and expanded significantly the range of legal proceedings for benefits of a person's livelihood or a person seeking to support their families and whatnot. The recourse of these people now to administrative agencies is relied on much more significantly by government. As a result, the range of legal proceedings has been expanded significantly.

Mr. Speaker, over the last number of years the Province has made significant gains in its Poverty Reduction Strategy. Making legal aid available to these people in these situations, Mr. Speaker, is consistent with that Poverty Reduction Strategy.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Legal Aid Commission has already been providing legal aid coverage for certain administrative boards and certain administrative matters, especially for those people who qualify under the financial eligibility. They do not provide it for all matters, Mr. Speaker, but the Legal Aid Commission at present does limit coverage and provides some coverage to matters that are relating to an individual's income or his entitlement to benefits, and his ability to earn a livelihood or his status. Mr. Speaker, even though the act is silent on that at the moment, the Legal Aid Commission is still providing some legal aid coverage for these matters. Due to the lack of clarity of the policy, Mr. Speaker, of the Legal Aid Act, we are now trying to expressly provide that in the act so there is no mistaking the fact of what legal aid covers and what it does not.

Mr. Speaker, at the present time, the legal aid provincial director receives numerous applications from people seeking coverage for administrative matters that do not affect an individual's income, do not affect his entitlement to benefits, and do not affect his ability to earn a livelihood. As a result of that, Mr. Speaker, the provincial director has to spend a lot of unnecessary time and resources in processing these applications during the intake process. They do not qualify for coverage and they do not qualify for subsequent appeals.

This bill then, Mr. Speaker, will amend and state clearly that section 47 of the legal aid act addresses this situation and clarifies that people who qualify for legal aid may receive coverage for administrative matters relating to an individual's income, his entitlement to benefits, or his ability to earn a livelihood or status. That is the main focus, Mr. Speaker, of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this bill also proposed to amend section 51 of the Legal Aid Act. Section 51 sets out what are not covered, civil matters not covered under legal aid. For example, you cannot get legal aid for a defamation action, for actions involving realtor actions or real estate, or matters relating to an election. These are things that are set out in the act. You cannot get legal aid through these.

Mr. Speaker, there are also others that we are going to add to that, because you cannot get legal aid through these either, but it is not specifically set out in the legislation. It has been brought to the attention of my government department that there are additional legal proceedings that are not covered that we need to expressly say so in the act. These would include, for example, malpractice suits; a malpractice suit is not covered by the act even though we may get applications continuously for an action for malpractice suit. Accident claims are not covered under legal aid. Civil property matters are not covered under legal aid. Now, Mr. Speaker, we are going to expressly put in the act under section 51 that these matters are not included. They fall outside the mandate of the Legal Aid Commission.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, this bill will address the language that is found in section 51 of the act which referred to common-law actions that no longer reflect modern reality. We find them every now and then as we go through legislation; we find these things which really existed on the books but not in reality. For example, the action for the breach of promise of marriage, and the loss of service of a female in consequence of rape or seduction; these were torts from back in the days when women were regarded as property – alienation of affection or criminal conversation. We found that these still existed, believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, in the Legal Aid Act and in another piece of legislation which we introduced notice today that we will be bringing in to get rid of. These have either been completely abolished in most cases or have been in disuse, but every now and then the name occurs or appears in a piece of legislation and accordingly, Mr. Speaker, we want to just get rid of these and get them out of the act.

Mr. Speaker, basically, in summary, let me say that without legal aid, the most disadvantaged people in our society would be effectively barred from getting effective legal services and protecting their rights and interests in the legal system. The approval of these amendments are necessary in order to guarantee that people will get this extra legal aid in respect to proceedings before administrative tribunals and administrative boards, and it also will clarify what actions are not available under legal aid.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the amendments. I look forward to the comments, if any, from the other side and from any other speakers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill 18 and also appreciate the minister and the department taking time to set up a briefing on this matter. Really, what is being suggested here today is by definition housekeeping, when you really think about it. It is two-fold; one part is dealing with a separate issue, but for the issues referred to by the minister after about the common-law torts that just are not a part of today's society, it really is a matter of going through the various pieces of legislation and eliminating them, as they are simply just not referred to anymore and not in use.

Reviewing the draft bill, most of the changes that have been suggested are actually just a case of adding the term, an administrative law matter, to the specific sections, whether it be section 30 or 36(1). It is just adding that one section in where it was not there previously and now it is there to cover off what it is that the department is trying to address, which I will refer to shortly.

When we look at section 51, basically we are just deleting certain sections there. Finally, one of the bigger changes is the new section 47 of the act, which says that before an administrative board or tribunal, legal aid can be obtained when it comes to matters affecting a person's income, entitlement, benefits, ability to earn a livelihood, or immigration status. I believe that is the meat of the changes here.

Most people, when they think of legal aid, think about either the criminal side or the family side. Legal aid serves a basic purpose which is to provide people with a right to counsel. It is very important on the criminal side of it, but also when you are dealing with family law matters, especially in cases involving a great disparity between one of the parties versus the other; if the party does not have the financial means to avail of private counsel, giving them that opportunity to have legal counsel to advise them of their rights reflecting matrimonial property, reflecting issues such as spousal support, or when you are talking about something so basic as custody and access to children. It is so important that people have a right to counsel there.

The area that is sort of grey is whether as taxpayers we are going to pay for people to have counsel provided for these administrative matters, whether it be an Employment Insurance board or some other tribunal. In this case, what we are saying is that yes, we are going to allow that. When you are thinking about people's basic rights to counsel, to advise them of their rights under employment, I can see the merit in that. Perhaps the bigger thing is that it seems to be eliminating this wasted time and money that has probably been there when going through the appeal process where you get your legal aid application in. Generally, when it comes to a family or criminal matter, it is a case of figuring out whether they are above that line of whether they are not entitled or entitled. In this case there were two folders, the financial side, then there is the side are we going to approve somebody to take care of their EI claim or not? Again, that is a good thing.

I do have a concern, and I do not think it is something that really is under our jurisdiction, but we all know about the Employment Insurance changes that are coming down the tubes from the federal government. I am thinking that in this case we are probably going to see a significant influx of new people to the legal aid system trying to get counsel as they contest their claims. Since these changes were announced and have been talked about I have already had people coming to me who are dealing with the reaches of this new system. They are coming to me with issues. I guess now what I can tell them is, look, you have a right to counsel. I will suggest to them that they call legal aid. I think we are going to see more. I will be interested next year when we go through Estimates to see what the increase cost in providing counsel for this was, not saying that people should not have this, but we have to prepare for this burden that is coming. We are providing more lawyers.

When you think about it, legal aid lawyers in this Province are already burdened with very heavy caseloads. They have a significant amount of work to do. When you talk about a Province that, we have had a high rate of unemployment, we have had the poverty issue. If that is the case, that means there are more people who are going to avail of the system. If we are adding more to that maybe there will have to be more staff hired, I do not know. I am sure this is one of the things that the department is going to look at: Are our staff overburdened? It is one thing to just keep piling files on a lawyer or a judge, at the end of the day they are not going to get the service that they need. Basically, all this does is it just prolongs a person's file, whether that is a criminal matter or a family law matter. Their lawyer can only handle so much. Again, I am wondering if there will be anything coming out of that. I guess it is one of those things where we do have to wait and see once the new changes come down from Ottawa.

Going through the act itself, I have listed the sections. A lot of it is sort of housekeeping. Just a few points I would bring up there. I guess we are trying to eliminate some of the confusion. I have always found that the legal aid process at times – I know that the application process can be very difficult on people who are looking for legal aid and figuring out whether they are entitled or not. In fact, I certainly do not know the financial test that is applied. I think it is a pretty convoluted, complex – what is the word I am looking for – calculation that people have to send in these applications and list out their martial status, how much money they have, their assets and holdings. Sometimes you see cases where somebody you might have thought was entitled does not get approved for legal aid. Then you see other people that you sort of assume were above that line who do get legal aid. That is a difficult process as it is. I have seen people in the past who have had trouble with that and could not understand it and had to go through the appeal process.

Again, anything we can do to eliminate confusion when we are talking about legal aid – I mean these people, in many cases, are going through the worst times in their life. The worst period, whether they have been accused or charged with an offence, whether they are going through a marital breakdown and they are going through all of the issues associated with that, it is tough times. So, anything we can do to smooth out the process whereby a person will have a better and quicker idea of knowing they are entitled to legal counsel, then that is a step in the right direction. In this case we are more talking about the administrative side of it.

I would imagine Employment Insurance is the bigger one of that, I guess there are other tribunals. I cannot imagine the percentage that applies to this for a number of cases going to legal aid is high compared to criminal or family. The other thing about the EI situation is that the other changes, what used to be sort of an informal process with part-time commissioners, the process is becoming more legalistic, more professional, which is increasing the need for people to have counsel. Maybe this is just a way of addressing that issue as well.

One of the things we will have to figure out is whether the – Mr. Speaker, looking at the clock, I am just taking notice it is 5:29, so I guess what I am going to do at this point is clue up my remarks and adjourn debate for the day.

Seconded by the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MR. SPEAKER: We are operating under Standing Order 11, and Standing Order 11 indicates that we not adjourn at 5:30 nor would we adjourn at 10:00 p.m. Practice has been in the past, with consent and with concurrence of the whole House, that we take a short recess until 7:00 o'clock normally. So, if that is the wish of the House – but the Speaker is now guided by Standing Order 11, and the motion is on the floor. I am not sure what the consensus of the House would be. So by leave of the House I guess we can do whatever the House decides.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, that will be fine. I would presume that if that is the case then my time will remain on the clock and we will pick up again at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Is that the understanding, consent?

Okay, by leave of the House then, we will have a short recess until 7:00 p.m. and we will resume. Then the Member for Burgeo – La Poile will have the floor and continue with the debate on this bill.


June 4, 2012                     HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                   Vol. XLVII No. 42A


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

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile, to continue with his debate.

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

It is my pleasure to continue speaking to the Legal Aid Act. I think I have already had the opportunity to address most of the different housekeeping points, and perhaps issues that I might have. The issues I have are ones that are really hard to address because they are sort of, what are we expecting down the road? Again, I guess we can reassess that next year.

What I would say is that the changes suggested when we are talking about, we will say old civil torts, is a long time coming. It is just a matter of when you see these things you can go through the legislation to remove them. This change will allow people the right to have legal counsel to assist them in the process under the administrative areas of the law. What I would say is I am sure if I have any other questions I will get an opportunity to ask the minister during Committee. Those will conclude my remarks as it relates to the legal aid amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to stand today and speak to Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act. As my hon. colleague opposite of me from Burgeo – La Poile has said already, it is basically a piece of housekeeping. It is updating, it is providing clarity. There is not really a major debate to happen here, I do not think, in the House here this evening over this amendment. So, I will just be very brief in my comments.

Mr. Speaker, one of our greatest obligations as a government and a people is to those people most vulnerable in our society. In 2006, we launched our Poverty Reduction Strategy that has made us a national leader in poverty reduction. Mr. Speaker, our Poverty Reduction Strategy has three key elements: prevention of poverty; alleviation of poverty; and liberation from poverty.

Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act, is an excellent example –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CRUMMELL: – of this government putting another building block in place in executing our Poverty Reduction Strategy, Mr. Speaker. This amendment is all about access to justice for those most in need. It is all about assuring the people who need legal aid the most, have access to it. It is all about helping people at the lower end of the economic spectrum who often do not have the ability to cover legal fees. Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is all about providing clarity, as I said earlier.

Legal aid in Newfoundland and Labrador is a cost-shared program. I think the Minister of Justice referred to it earlier. It is about a $14.2 million program. The Province contributes $12 million towards it; the federal government contributes $2.2 million. I think we are still trying to chase them down to pony up to the table on that one, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure we will get our way one of these days, hopefully.

The Legal Aid Commission has been providing services for individuals who need to go before an administrative board or tribunal, and that is a key amendment to this as well. The commission will provide representation based on the benchmark of whether administrative matters affect an individual's outcome, entitlement to benefits, and ability to earn a livelihood. Again, this is part of what we are trying to bring to the act, in terms of clarity. This bill confirms the commission's responsibilities, which it always did through convention over the years but it was not totally clear.

Who gets legal aid and who does not and why is outlined in this amendment. Nothing has changed because legal aid has been doing this basically for the last few years, for the last number of years, but this amendment is going to make it very crystal clear who is going to be getting, who gets legal aid and who is entitled to it. This legislation formalizes policy by placing it directly in the Legal Aid Act. For instance, if an administrative matter, like workers' compensation falls within these guidelines, Income Support, Canada Pension, EI, but areas like Canada Revenue Agency, city-municipal taxes, personal injury, residential tenancies, wills and estates, civil suits, et cetera, are exempt. You are not entitled to legal aid under these situations.

A key component, which is outlined in section 47, uses the benchmark for providing legal aid is whether administrative matters affected an individual's income, entitlement to benefits, and ability to earn livelihood or status. The Legal Aid Commission carefully considers all requests for their services to determine if the individual is eligible for legal aid services, with a goal in mind is to make sure that people who need it most get the justice they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, this is what this bill is all about. I do have a couple of more minutes here before I sit down, because again, this is only a bit of housekeeping. I just want to make sure we keep the ball rolling on this. It has certainly given me support of this amendment. I just want to say our Poverty Reduction Strategic promotes self-reliance, opportunity, and access to key supports for people who are most vulnerable because of poverty.

The Legal Aid Commission and its policy toward helping people with administrative matters supports this mandate, just as our Social Housing Plan, Income Support Plan, Dental Plan, our drug plan, et cetera; a whole host of services and programs that our government offers to people who are the most vulnerable, and this falls right within that realm. Access to justice to those most vulnerable in our society is a right that should be protected, Mr. Speaker, and that is exactly what this amendment does. By making this legislation more clear, legal aid will be able to explain to individuals exactly why they do not qualify for services or why they do qualify for services, Mr. Speaker.

At the very end here, Mr. Speaker, what I would like to say is this act is consistent with other jurisdictions right across this country. It clearly outlines what civil and criminal and administrative proceedings that may be covered by those eligible, and clearly outlines what is not covered so resources can be put into the right places, for the right reasons, for the right people. Mr. Speaker, again, I will be voting for this amendment and encourage all hon. members to do so as well.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a couple of notes on this particular piece of legislation, and I take more pride in talking to this particular motion this evening. There is a clear need to allow justice to be done, and it has to be made in an affordable and an available – I guess we could say at this particular time – manner for people. We do know there are problems with access to the law in a timely fashion but we also need to make sure that justice is going to be done for people too, so that it is going to be available in that regard, as well.

We know the bill, for example, gives clarity to who does or does not qualify. We know this is only a little piece of housekeeping here that is going to streamline things a little bit when it comes to those who qualify for legal aid. So, we are supportive of this legislation. We hope it comes in in a meaningful way, and when it comes in we hope to see the regulations that are going to be coming along with it. Again, Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in speaking to this piece of legislation this evening.

Thank you very much.

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

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am pleased to close debate on this bill. I do not think there is any need for much further comment. I thank the hon. members opposite for their comments and for their obvious support, as well as my colleague for St. John's South, for his comments as well.

So, Mr. Speaker, without further ado, I move that this bill move to second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act. (Bill 18)

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

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

MR. KENNEDY: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 18)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Order 9, second reading of Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Rail Service Act, 2009.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Seconded by the Minister of Justice.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Rail Service Act, 2009, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Rail Service Act, 2009". (Bill 21)

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I am moving this bill, more as housekeeping than anything else. This is a railway bill, and believe it or not, we do have railways in Newfoundland and Labrador. As the Minister of Transportation and Works, I do have responsibility – of course, these are located in Labrador. These are lines that extend from the mine perhaps to the Quebec border.

Basically, the difficulty we have, Mr. Speaker, is that we do not have the expertise we need in order to monitor these railroads. As a result, the federal government has that expertise. We make sure the inspectors who are going to inspect these railways are in a position so that they can basically make sure these lines are very much in the proper shape that they should be in. The inspectors would ensure that the railway cars that are on them are very much there, that is very much in the name of safety, Mr. Speaker. It is very, very important that these railroads are operating in our Province, and because they are operating in our Province we have to make absolutely sure that everything is done because there are railway crossings, there are railcars, there are people who are working on these trains.

Again, in the absence of expertise, we have commissioned the federal government to provide us with the proper inspection services. Naturally, the costs of these services are passed on to the various companies that are running these rail lines. In running these rail lines, Mr. Speaker, it is so, so important that safety be uppermost in everyone's minds. With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, we do not have ingrained in our legislation the proper terminology to ensure that everything that needs to be covered on these rail lines are indeed covered.

The inspectors have to match up with the federal legislation. This would be a situation now where we have a piece of legislation and we need to make sure that the inspectors have everything they need in the way of legislation to ensure that they can properly monitor these rail lines, not only monitor the lines themselves but the operations of them as well, Mr. Speaker. Of course, as we look at this particular amendment to our bill, it is an important one, and one which we are bringing to this House in order for us to carry out the job that is at hand.

Mr. Speaker, there are three rail lines that we deal with. These rail lines are, indeed, brought into being over the last little while. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we do not have on the Island part of our Province railway lines anymore, and a lot of the expertise certainly has been lost. As a result of it, we are forced to find someone else who can do the proper inspections, as well as do it in a manner which we can be assured will be done properly.

We have indeed made an agreement with Transport Canada to carry out railroad inspections. It is a good agreement for the Province, I would say, Mr. Speaker, as Transport Canada has the necessary expertise and resources to carry out this work in Newfoundland and Labrador. These amendments have been made this year to the provincial Rail Service Act, bringing provincial legislation in line with the federal legislation. Of course, this will facilitate, Mr. Speaker, the work of Transport Canada specifically. When we look at the amendments, they involve streamlining regulations regarding getting permission and approval for all rail work, establishing trespassing language in provincial legislation, and granting rights and privileges to the inspectors.

At present, Mr. Speaker, the only railroads in this Province operating under the current legislation are indeed in Labrador, and are related to the iron ore mining related developments. These developments, I might add, Mr. Speaker, are of great importance to the economic development in the region and for the Province in general, and we certainly want to see more of those. Last year we entered into an agreement with Transport Canada to have Transport Canada carry out railroad inspections. Thus far – and I mentioned three railroads – permits have been issued to Consolidated Thompson Iron Mines Limited, now called Cliffs Quebec Iron Mining Limited; Bloom Lake railroad limited, in respect to Bloom Lake railroad; and Labrador Iron Mines Limited, in respect to the Labrador Iron Mines railroad. Both sets of railroad owners, or railway owners, have entered into separate agreements enlisting the services of Western Labrador Rail Services to operate these railroads for them, an example of how local business is benefiting from these.

Again, the intent of these amendments is to foster the culture of railroad or railway safety that is embedded in the act and the regulations. To not improve these amendments to the act would impede the ability of the provincial government and its inspectors to safely regulate railroads. This, in turn, could hamper the development and growth of rail operations in Labrador and, by extension, hamper economic prosperity. By making these simple amendments, we will prevent rail issues that could give rise to safety concerns and slow economic development with respect to mineral projects in Labrador.

Again, Mr. Speaker, that is basically what this is all about, and I certainly would welcome words from members on this side and the other side of the House as we move these amendments forward. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will give an opportunity for others to respond.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand to speak to Bill 21. Of course, I listened to the minister's comments, and we certainly understand why there is a need for amendments to this particular bill. I guess the rail act probably has been updated for some time, simply because we have not had railways operating on the Island portion of the Province. We have had rails operating in Labrador predominately to service the mining industry. I guess, Mr. Speaker, although most of these rails are remote, and some of them are, and they are mostly used for the transportation of ore, there are some exceptions and there are some passenger services that are still used and there are special trains that are used for this, mostly for the mining company workers.

Mr. Speaker, the construction of the Bloom Lake Railway in Labrador West was what would have prompted this because that was the first new construction for some time, and to update the Rail Service Act at that time, which is what they are doing, to reflect what is happening with the new operations in that particular area. Mr. Speaker, Labrador Iron Mines also constructed a six-kilometre railway to connect their operations to Tshiuetin Rail Transport at Schefferville. At that time of course, Mr. Speaker, about the same time as when the Bloom Lake rail was ongoing as well. At the time government did contract expertise from outside; they hired a company called Cantech. They were contracted basically to oversee the development of the Bloom Lake Railway. I think that was primarily because we did not have our own expertise in the Province where we had not been using rails for quite a long time, and where initially the rails in question here had originally belonged to Rio Tinto or IOC, whatever the case may be.

The amendment, as the minister outlined, will now give Transport Canada the opportunity to do the inspections that are required and to regulate all of the railway operations. Mr. Speaker, it is our understanding that Transport Canada did sign an agreement with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: It is our understanding, Mr. Speaker, that Transport Canada did sign an agreement with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to perform these inspections of the railway to ensure that it was safe. Mr. Speaker, the Quebec North Shore and the Labrador Railway are a public carrier. It is already controlled by Transport Canada. They are already in the area doing inspections on rail that is across the border in Quebec, so now they will just take on the other sections as well.

Mr. Speaker, the Bloom Lake Railway is a privately owned railway, but it still falls under the provincial railway act. That of course would have been what we would have needed to make these amendments for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the development of new mines in Labrador has no doubt led to the construction of more rail spurs to connect to the Quebec Labrador North Shore. Mr. Speaker, the railways of both Labrador and the Quebec North Shore are not physically connected to the remainder of the Canadian railway network; they are really isolated onto themselves. The present-day railway of the area was opened in the latter half of the twentieth century. It was open for only one reason, and that was to service the mining industry at the time. Predominantly, as I said, it is used for iron ore shipments. Mr. Speaker, the first mineral railway in the Quebec North Shore was opened in 1950 by Quebec Iron and Titanium for the transport of iron and titanium ore from the mine to Havre-Saint-Pierre. That entire operation was owned by a subsidiary of Rio Tinto.

Mr. Speaker, the most ambitious of the projects was probably when the Quebec North Shore and Labrador was opened in 1954 by the Iron Ore Company of Canada for the transport of iron ore from Schefferville at the time and Labrador to a port in Sept-Îles. That was a distance at that time of 359 miles or 573 kilometres. In 1958, after that, they built a fifty-eight kilometre branch that was added from Emeril Junction – a lot of people locally call it Ross Bay Junction – to the iron ore deposits of Wabush around Labrador City. The distance, Mr. Speaker, from Labrador City to Sept-Îles is about 414 kilometres. So that was a really ambitious undertaking back in the 1950s when the iron ore companies first set up in Labrador West and they decided to build this railway that would span 400 to 500 kilometres, to be able to rail iron ore right on down through Labrador, across the border, and into Sept-Îles. Mr. Speaker, that is still the route that is used today.

As we see more and more mining activity occurring in Labrador, we are seeing more and more demands being put on the rail system. The rail system itself, Mr. Speaker, is not able to handle the amount of iron ore shipments we are seeing being shipped out of Labrador today. As a result of it, we have seen some major expansions and, Mr. Speaker, we have seen as well a number of other connections made or links made on this particular railway. Some of them, as I said, were done by Bloom Lake. There were other companies as well that did build certain spurs to be able to connect into the main railway system.

Mr. Speaker, also when you listen to the fact that IOC's production could go to 50 million tonnes of ore, what we are seeing is the need for a tremendous railway network to not only handle that particular capacity, but also the other capacities that are being looked at by companies like New Millennium where we could see them having to rail up to 10 million or 15 million tons of ore initially starting out, and then adding to that on an annual basis. Even today, where we have some of the smaller mines that are only at 4 million tons of ore, going up to about 18 million and 20 million tons of ore, Mr. Speaker, and then you combine that with Alderon, Bloom Lake, expansions that could occur at Wabush as well, we are going to see more and more demands being put on that railway. It is going to become more and more an integral part of the transportation network in Labrador, probably in a way like we have not seen it before.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I think it is time the government started looking at, is there any feasibility in building a railway in Labrador at all. I do not know; I cannot stand in the House of Assembly and say that it is feasible to do it, but I would like to know if it is feasible to do it. Because if it was feasible in 1950 for the Iron Ore Company of Canada to build over 500 kilometres of railway to be able to take ore out of Labrador through Quebec, then I would want to look at it today, when we are going to look at doubling that amount of ore going out of Labrador for the next fifty to 100 years. I would like us to look at is there a need to look at building our own railway and establishing our own port facilities.

Mr. Speaker, just recently, the federal government and the Quebec government did make an announcement. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they announced at that time $220 million to actually start doing some of the work on expanding the port in Sept-Îles, and also looking at work to expand the railway system because they know that there is going to be more and more ore coming out of Labrador, along with extra ore coming off the Schefferville border and going out through Sept-Îles. When I listen to announcements like this and I see $220 million starting today in new infrastructure going into Quebec to cater to the iron ore industry in Labrador, I find it very disturbing and that is why I think that we need to start questioning is there more that we should be getting out of it ourselves.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, not only are they going to do work on that railway, but they are asking the mining companies that are based in Labrador to actually pay for part of that work. Although those mining companies are based in Newfoundland and Labrador and we should be the people who are getting the benefits of any royalties and profits that they are earning, the reality is that a huge percentage of what they earn, of their profits, are going to go to build additional infrastructure like rail on the Quebec side of the border and, basically, to enhance industry, jobs, and activity again in Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, when the railway was first built between Labrador West and Schefferville and into Sept-Îles you have to realize something: Sept-Îles was only a fishing community. It was like any other community outport that we see around Newfoundland and Labrador today. It had a few hundred people. It was very dependent upon one industry. Today what we see is a community of about 25,000 people with a high employment rate, with very good jobs, very industrialized, and all because of the mining industry. All because they became the transportation hub through the railway and port infrastructure to service all of the mines in Western Labrador and on the Quebec shore. That has been going on for the last sixty years. What I would want to see is, the next sixty years, for us to look at something different – the next sixty to 100 years. We are not talking today about investing money into infrastructure that we are only going to need for twenty years. We are talking about investing money into infrastructure that we are going to need for sixty, eighty, a hundred or even more years. That is the difference in what we are dealing with today.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the bill and I agree with what they are doing with the agreement with Transport Canada to inspect the rails that are there, but at the same time I would encourage the Minister of Transportation and his government and the minister for Labrador West who knows the mining industry as well or better than anyone that would be in this House, Mr. Speaker, and that is: Is there any feasibility in us looking at a different transportation network today? Is there any feasibility in doing that? Is there any feasibility in using a port in Labrador as opposed to in Quebec, and a railway?

Mr. Speaker, those are the comments that I wanted to make. I think it is important to make it and I have not really seen Quebec do us a lot of favours in the last little while. I think one of the members presented a statement here today –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have given the speaker a fair bit of latitude in terms of the context of the bill in terms of talking about constructing a railroad, but I am a bit leery about going into the field that she is going into now. So I would ask you to keep your comments relative to the bill that we are discussing.

MS JONES: All right. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are discussing a bill that is talking about the railway that goes from Labrador to Quebec, the one which takes the iron ore out of Labrador to a port in Quebec, Mr. Speaker, and doing the inspections on that particular railway. The point that I was going to make has to do with the piece about the ore going to Quebec. As you know, we have not had any luck in being able to do other deals with Quebec, especially in transmission capacity.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: I think it is time to look at something different.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will take the time to look at the substance of the bill. I would say to the member that the bill talks about prohibiting a person from entering on land where line work is situated, requiring a person to provide assistance to an inspector to enable him or her to carry out duties, to prohibit a person from obstructing an inspector, and to permit an inspector to forbid or restrict the use of unsafe crossing work. Again, I do believe that the member has strayed and I would ask her to come back to the context of the bill.

The Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You are right; there are only actually four amendments that are on the bill. The bill itself speaks to the broader railway network in Labrador. Mr. Speaker, in terms of Bill 21, I pretty well made the points that I wanted to make. My point I think has been clearly heard and understood as it relates to the railway piece and where I think we should be going. In the context of the bill that is here and what the minister is presenting, I do not have any issue with it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to say when I saw An Act To Amend The Rail Service Act, 2009, make its way onto the Order Paper in this hon. House, Mr. Speaker, curiosity got the better of me. I immediately approached the minister to find out what Bill 21 was all about and why it was coming forward at this point in time.

I was tempted this evening, Mr. Speaker, to reminisce about my childhood memories of watching the trains roll through Mahers out by Roaches Line. In the interest of being ruled out of order, I will stick to the context of the Rail Service Act, 2009.

Why are we talking about the Rail Service Act in the House of Assembly this evening? The act which was updated in 2009 and the regulations that have been made pursuant to it, they were put in place to establish a regulatory regime that relates to the construction and the maintenance and the operation of a railway that is under the Province's jurisdiction, Mr Speaker. As the minister and the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair have pointed out, the only railways in the Province operating under the current legislation are indeed in Labrador. They are related to the iron ore mining activity, the developments in Labrador. These developments, as we all know, Mr. Speaker, are of great importance to the economic development of the region and the Province, and we want to see more of them to be honest, Mr. Speaker.

I will talk about the bill specifically. Bill 21 would amend the Rail Service Act to prohibit a person from entering on land where line work is situated. It would also require a person to provide assistance to an inspector to enable him or her to carry out their duties. It would prohibit a person from obstructing an inspector in the course of their duties, and it would permit an inspector to forbid or restrict the use of unsafe crossing work.

Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, as the minister has pointed out and the previous speaker has pointed out, have made an agreement with Transport Canada that makes a lot of sense, to have Transport Canada carry out railway inspections on the railways in question. This is an arrangement that does make a lot of sense, as Transport Canada has the necessary skills, the resources, and the expertise to do this work in the best possible way to meet the needs of the users of the railways.

The amendments are really being made to better reflect the federal legislation, Mr. Speaker, and that is going to help facilitate the work of Transport Canada in their role and it is going to enable them to do a better job and to provide even more effective service in carrying out those inspections. We are also streamlining the regulations, Mr. Speaker, with respect to requesting and receiving permission and approval for rail work, establishing trespassing language in the provincial legislation, and also granting rights and privileges to inspectors.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KENT: Mr. Speaker, one of the great things about being in this House at night is you sometimes get heckled by your own colleagues. I do not need to point out to members of this House who I am being heckled by at the moment. I believe I hear an Irish brogue, Mr. Speaker. Back to my notes, I do not want to get you upset.

The proposed amendments will help foster a culture of railway safety, Mr. Speaker. It is certainly imbedded in this act, the Rail Service Act, and also in the accompanying regulations. To not approve these amendments would impede the ability of our government and the inspectors to safely regulate railways. This, in turn, could really, negatively affect development and growth of rail operations in Labrador and it could certainly hamper the economic prosperity that we are seeing in the mining industry in Labrador.

By making these simple amendments we are going to prevent rail issues that could give rise to safety concerns. They could slow economic development with respect to the mineral projects that are ongoing in Labrador that are of great importance to this Province. We certainly value the tremendous contribution of the mining industry in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think I will leave it there. It is vital that we implement these amendments so we can assist Transport Canada in the role that we have asked them to take over from the provincial government. I am in complete support of these amendments. From the enthusiasm I hear all around the House, right next to me, in fact, Mr. Speaker, I think there will be a lot of support for what we are proposing here this evening.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak briefly to Bill 21.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When I was thinking railway, unlike my friend from the District of St. John's North, I was thinking of Trinity Loop. There you go.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mount Pearl North.

MR. MURPHY: I am sorry, the Member for Mount Pearl North. I was thinking Trinity Loop.

It is not something you get to talk to everyday, I guess, is the railway. One often does not think about the context of the railway as being important in the Province until you think about Labrador -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: - because Labrador, of course, is the very last of the railways that we have. Again, I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to get up and have a brief couple of minutes to talk about this because we do not see anything untoward with regard to this particular change in the legislation. As previous speakers have already mentioned, we are talking about some slight changes to the act as it pertains to the 2009 additions in the act.

Just looking through the explanatory notes and some of the other notes that I have made on this one over the last couple of days, the intention of the legislation, of course, is pretty paramount to everybody. I think the big word we are talking about here, number one, is safety; number two, is the jurisdiction over who is going to be carrying on the inspections; number three, I think underlying all of it is probably a little explanation, or a little bit of an enforcement about the rules as they pertain to railways and such. At least that is my interpretation on it.

I guess first and foremost, when you were talking about the piece of legislation, I guess in some ways too, a couple of the things that I saw as regards to this, the particular need for the enforcement of the rules that are there now and a listing of accidents over the last little while. Just doing some research on it earlier, having some of the staff do it, talking about several incidents that we have already run into over the last couple of years when it came to railway accidents for example. Some of these may or may not have jeopardized the safety of the lines and the inspection of the lines but we have had several accidents, for example, as regards to snowmobiles. We had vehicles collide with a train on the Trans-Labrador Highway. We had a couple of train derailments as well. The last accident that we had record of, October 2011, a train collided with a large dump truck along the Trans-Labrador Highway.

We do know about the regular need for inspections of course, but at the same time we have to reiterate safety. I am wondering, and this would be a question for the minister as well. If we are going to be talking about the increased capacity on some of these railways at the same time over the next couple of years with the chance of several other mines opening up, we have to ask the question about good safety programming as well. Not only for the inspection of these railways, but, as a matter of fact, this is probably even going to have to be done as well for the members of the general public out there, to reinforce the message about the dangers when it comes to railways and that sort of thing.

We are in total agreement when it comes to the need of more inspections. The more use that you get on a railway, the more level of inspection you are probably going to have to have. There is a lot of weight carried on rails these days. It is a very economical way to be transporting ore and that sort of thing. We know that as the world economy starts to improve, there is going to be more of a demand coming out of Labrador West, and hence a higher use of the railway network that is up there.

We do know that as regards to trespassing, the trespassing requirements are also being talked about in this particular change in the act. We understand that Transport Canada is going to be picking up the load when it comes to the inspections. At the same time, while covering off on trespassing there has to be that message put out to the members of the general public, Mr. Speaker, as regards to the importance of not trespassing on some of these places. Some of these places in some ways are considered work sites as well. It does not matter where you go you always have to keep safety in mind.

With that, Mr. Speaker, as I said, the need for increased inspections is going to be there. We need to know that if Transport Canada is going to be picking up the load, exactly who for sure is going to be carrying on with the funding of that, whether it is going to be federal or probably provincial money going into a federal inspection program as well. We also need to know if industry is going to be footing some of the bill on that.

I will leave it at that, Mr. Speaker. Like I said, there is really not much untoward when it comes to this. We feel there needs to be a little bit extra emphasis put towards the general public and industry alike as regards to education when it comes to these rules coming into effect. We know that it is going to be bringing everything in line with federal legislation. We also have a question with regard to the enforcement component of this and the outside source of inspections being with the federal government. We need to know a little bit more about exactly how they are going to be carrying out that role.

I will leave it at that, Mr. Speaker. I have nothing else to say about this one. We think it is a good move for government to revisit pieces of legislation like this every now and then just to make sure there is going to be a balance as regards to what we can do for industry or what we can do for members of the general public at the same time to ensure their safety.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand here today and speak, of course, in support of these proposed amendments to the Rail Service Act, 2009, Bill 21, Mr. Speaker. To reiterate the comments of my colleague from Mount Pearl North, Mr. Speaker, this certainly is a minor set of amendments that simply bring this piece of legislation in line with the federal legislation due to the agreement with Transport Canada. It simply is all about safety. To my colleague from across the way, this is about fostering that culture of safety.

I would like to give mention to some of the railway activity in terms of the mining development in Lab West, Mr. Speaker. When you have hundreds of cars on a locomotive and a lot of tonnage, hundreds of tons there, safety has to be the number one priority for the people, Mr. Speaker, and that is what it is all about. What we are seeing here is the feds do have the ability, they have the expertise, and they have the resources. Other provinces are under the same model, Mr. Speaker, and we are simply going to fall in line with that.

I would like to give special mention to the underpass we have seen in Labrador West in most recent months, Mr. Speaker, as well. Cliffs Underpass, it is referred to, and that was all about safety. Basically, when a locomotive carrying a lot of cars had to go through, it pretty much separated Labrador City from Wabush and people would have to wait upwards of forty-five minutes to an hour, Mr. Speaker, in order to get across. They have certainly added to that culture of safety, if you will, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the increased public awareness, in terms of the radio ads, the TV ads, which I believe had the slogan of safety first.

With four new locomotives in the interest of safety being added into Wabush Mines, Mr. Speaker, we are certainly going to see a lot of increased activity. We have already seen that we are going to have a 25 per cent increase in the amount of mining activity in Labrador West. We certainly want to make sure we do the absolute best for the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker, in order to make sure the inspectors have everything they need in order to make sure that those crossings, specifically, are going to be safe.

Other than that, Mr. Speaker, I can just say that we have a couple of small amendments. It is all about getting in line with the feds, Mr. Speaker. It is all about safety first. It is something that should be unanimously supported by the people in the House here today, and I think it will be.

With that, I would just like to say that I will be supporting it. It is another great piece of work to bring our legislation up to standard, to put the people of the Province first, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, if he speaks now he adjourns debate.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, a thank you to my colleagues here in the House, four of them who rose tonight to add an understanding to the general public who are listening in tonight as to the procedures that are taking place here, amendments to the Rail Service Act. Establishing, first of all, Mr. Speaker, that this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador does have rail lines even though the people on the Island have probably forgotten. I am looking at the Speaker, and I think my only recollection of a train was a ride when I was seven years old down through Clarenville, down to the Bonavista Peninsula to my mother's hometown of Plate Cove. I have very vivid memories of that trip. Of course, the rails are no longer in this Island portion but that is not to say they are not in Labrador and being extended, Mr. Speaker, bringing about tremendous benefit to the people in Labrador. We are facilitating as a Province to make sure – and I hear what the members are saying about the aspect of safety and how important it was.

Also, I was very glad that the benefits of these agreements have come out. The underpass in Labrador West, Wabush, was something that was necessary for years and years. The company agreed, as part of us giving them the right to build the railroad, to take care of that underpass. I tell you, the people of Labrador, the people of that area are very appreciative because not only was it about the convenience but it was medical services that were at risk. If those trains and the length of those trains are – I don't even know, you are talking about in terms of miles. It takes a good half hour or so for it to pass a crossing.

As for accidents associated, Mr. Speaker, again, we have to make sure that the cars, the rails, the people who are operating them are doing them in the right order. This is part of the amendments, to make sure that we are keeping people off the tracks, keeping them away from the trains. Also, these companies certainly are aware of how important it is for the general public to remember and to realize that these trains, even though they are probably going slowly, they are moving and can pose a danger, especially as you are going by the side of them.

Mr. Speaker, as well, we are talking about three permits. We are talking about during the construction stage the agreements to make sure that the construction was carried out by workers from Newfoundland and Labrador, as well, the permits that were issued. Both sets of railroad owners, by the way, Mr. Speaker, are enlisting the service of Western Labrador Rail Services Limited to operate these railroads, and a tremendous spin off for local residents of that particular area.

It is a bill. It is what I call necessary amendments, Mr. Speaker, pretty well straightforward. I just ask that with the discussion over, that we move Bill 21 into second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Rail Service Act, 2009. (Bill 21)

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

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

MR. KENNEDY: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Rail Service Act, 2009", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 21)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, that the Committee resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider Bills 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22.

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 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'.

Motion 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 considering a number of bills in Committee this evening. We will begin with Bill 14.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Registration Of Deeds Act, 2009". (Bill 14)

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 22 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 22 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 22 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 Registration Of Deeds Act, 2009.

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 debating Bill 15.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act". (Bill 15)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 6 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 6 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance 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: We will now debate Bill 17.

A bill, "An Act To Ensure Access For Service Animals Used By Persons With Disabilities". (Bill 17)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 12 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 through 12 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 12 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 Ensure Access For Service Animals Used By Persons With Disabilities.

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 debating Bill 18.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act". (Bill 18)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 through 6 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 6 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Legal Aid 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: We are now debating Bill 19.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act". (Bill 19)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 8 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 8 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 8 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 20.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Works, Services And Transportation Act". (Bill 20)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 through 4 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 4 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 Works, Services And Transportation 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: We are making swift work of these bills tonight, folks.

Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Rail Service Act, 2009.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Rail Service Act, 2009". (Bill 21)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 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 Rail Service Act, 2009.

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 debating Bill 22.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act". (Bill 22)

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 14 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 through 14 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 14 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 Aquaculture 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: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move, Mr. Speaker, that the Committee rise and report Bills 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report the said bills and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bills 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 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 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MR. KENNEDY: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bills be read a third time?

MR. KENNEDY: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

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

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

MR. KENNEDY: I move, seconded by the Minister for Municipal Affairs, that this House do now adjourn.

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

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'.

Motion carried.

This House now stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

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