June 5, 2012                       HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                    Vol. XLVII No. 43


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we will have members' statements from the Member for the District of Bay of Islands, the Member for the District of Bonavista South, the Member for the District of St. John's North, the Member for the District of Baie Verte – Springdale, the Member for the District of Humber West, and the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

The hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the many volunteers and participants of the Canadian Cancer Society's Relay for Life event which took place in Corner Brook on Saturday, June 2.

I had the honour of attending this event and participating in the survivors' dinner and the opening ceremonies. The Relay for Life highlights a time for survivors to celebrate that they have beaten cancer while at the same time a reminder that many have lost loved ones to this disease.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most moving moments of the evening was a tribute to Janelle Blanchard of McIvers whom the honorary luminary was dedicated to recognizing loved ones we have lost. Sadly, Janelle, a Grade 11 student at Templeton Academy in Meadows, passed away in January at the age of sixteen. Her best friend, Sierra Lovell, shared some of her memories of Janelle and showed us what an inspirational person Janelle was and how much she was loved by her friends and family.

Sierra then did a beautiful tribute song which was Janelle's favourite. Twelve classmates of Janelle lit luminary candles in remembrance and were joined by other classmates, family, friends and staff from Templeton and led the luminary lap for all participants at the Relay. This was a very emotional moment not only for Janelle's family and friends but for everybody who has lost a loved one to cancer.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in recognizing the many participants and volunteers of the Relay for Life event and thank them for their continued commitment and determination to help find a cure for this dreaded disease.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, hon. colleagues, I rise in this House today to recognize and congratulate the # 84 Golden Hind Catalina Sea Cadet Corp on doing an outstanding performance at their fifty-ninth annual review. This event took place this past Saturday, June 2, of 2012.

The corp. members captivated the audience with stellar displays that included: the colour party, a drum routine, a guard display, and a band display. Hard work, dedication and discipline were evident in each cadet's performance.

Lieutenant-Commander David Botting, the inspecting officer, said that this review was the best that he has ever attended. Of course, the officers who volunteer their time to oversee these fine young sea cadets are to be commended for their services.

While I can congratulate the cadets who won awards, it was Chief Petty Officer First Class Ben Larson's distinction that excelled, taking home the Cadet of the Year Award, a scholarship, and most importantly, the Lord Strathcona Award; an award only bestowed on a select few individuals within the sea cadet movement who must pass stringent requirements.

Mr. Speaker, hon. colleagues, please join me in congratulating Mr. Larson and each of his fellow cadets on these achievements and a great performance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate an organization – while its head office is located in my district, it serves the entire Province – the Association of Early Childhood Educators of Newfoundland and Labrador, usually known as AECENL, has represented the issues of child care practitioners and quality child care since 1989.

At that time, many people considered early childhood educators to be little more than babysitters, and they did not see this as a complimentary term, Mr. Speaker. AECENL's tireless work has been instrumental in changing how people view the women and men who educate our children in their earliest years.

AECENL also puts enormous efforts into highlighting the rights of children. They are long-time promoters of National Child Day, organizing several events every November 20. AECENL spearheaded the proclamation of Early Childhood Educators' Week by the Province many years ago, and continues to ensure that the child care sector and those who work in it are recognized for their important work.

Parents everywhere in this Province know the good work they do, and I ask all hon. members in joining me in thanking AECENL.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

May 4, May 11, and May 24 were milestone days for the 2012 graduating classes hailing from Indian River High, Springdale; MSB Regional Academy, Middle Arm; and Copper Ridge Academy, Baie Verte.

It was indeed a pleasure and an honour for me to celebrate with them this special, memorable time in their lives, and to commend them upon their achievement. Parents, teachers, family, and friends beamed with pride as the graduates were honoured. I was very impressed with the quality speeches and leadership exhibited by the sharp-looking youth. Exuding with confidence, each graduated validated my first impressions – that is: They are ready to seize the opportunities that are in front of them and be a success story.

All three schools and supporting communities are to be commended for providing such a caring, nurturing environment so that each graduate could attain maximal achievement.

Hon. members, please join me in saluting all three classes upon their high school graduation. We look forward in hearing about their future accomplishments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Humber West.

MR. GRANTER: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in this hon. House to congratulate a special group of individuals from Western Newfoundland and Labrador who participated in the 2012 Atlantic School Sports Weekend.

This annual event featuring seventy-one blind and visually impaired athletes from all over Atlantic Canada was held in St. John's for the first time. As one of the participants stated, "Participation is always key, whether you win or lose".

I congratulate Terry Gardner for being chosen Best All Around Partially Blind Athlete, and Bruce Barrett for Best Overall Totally Blind Athlete. Other teams members included Anthony Gaulton of Goose Bay, Katie Colbourne, Ben Goulding, Barb Pike, Darrell Pike, Dot Vincent, and Marjorie Pike from Corner Brook.

Terry Gardner, first place, Partially Blind Men's Darts, first place in the sixty metre and 100 metre race, second place in shot put, and tied for second with Anthony Gaulton in horseshoe toss. Barb Park, first place in horseshoes and women's darts. Ben Goulding, second place in the sixty metre and 100 metre race, and third spot in the 400 metre. Anthony Gaulton claimed third place in men's darts for partially blind athletes.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating all participants for their participation and achievement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a great pleasure to rise in this hon. House this afternoon to congratulate long-time resident of Mount Pearl and volunteer, Mary Randell, on the recent celebration of her eighty-ninth birthday.

Mary has been living in my district for several decades and has been volunteering in our community for over fifty years. She was the leader of the first Girl Guide unit to open in Mount Pearl in 1959 and has held many positions, including Brown Owl, District Guider, Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, and Camping Advisor. Just last year, Mary received her fifty-year pin from Girl Guides of Canada for her contribution to this organization.

Mary participated in the Crystal Cliffs Training Conference in Nova Scotia in 1970. She was a Site Guider at many camps from 1959-1989, participating in Company Camps in three Atlantic Provinces. I am sure her camp stories are endless.

In addition to her fifty-year pin, Mary has also received the Blue Thanks Pin, Gold Merit and Medal of Merit Awards, Letter of Commendation, and an Honorary Life Award.

I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Mary Randell on the celebration of her eighty-ninth birthday and thank her for her commitment to our community and to the Girls Guides of Canada.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before we move to Ministerial Statements, I want to welcome five special guests to the Speakers gallery today. We are joined by the High Commissioner of the Republic of Kenya, the First Secretary of the Kenya High Commission, the High Commissioner of the United Republic of Tanzania, the Second Secretary of the Tanzania High Commission, together with the First Counsellor of the Rwanda High Commission.

Welcome to our Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Minister Responsible for Fire and Emergency Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate all participants in the spring Fire and Emergency Services Training School held this past week on the Burin Peninsula. Those who participated noted it was an enjoyable and informative event and many complimented the team of staff and regional trainers who provided more than 400 hours of course instruction.

These regional training initiatives, which include more than forty course options and offer great networking opportunities, are open to members of community councils, fire departments, maintenance personnel, and emergency responders, as well as non-governmental organizations and public works departments. Throughout the last week, more than 280 firefighters, municipal officials, and emergency management partners from more than sixty organizations participated in intensive training and instruction.

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time our government has partnered with the Town of Marystown and the local fire department to carry out training for first responders, municipal officials, and other emergency management stakeholders. It is essential, both for the protection of our communities and for the safety of responders, to have the necessary training and proper skills to draw upon during emergency situations. This training offered free of charge by the provincial government, through Fire and Emergency Services Newfoundland and Labrador, goes a long way in improving emergency response capacity throughout the Province.

Our government is committed to assisting our communities to provide the best level of emergency services available. We continue to offer a fifty-fifty cost-share arrangement for participating communities to assist in covering the expense of travel and accommodations during these educational sessions. Mr. Speaker, as towns and regions begin to exercise and validate emergency management plans, they are realizing how appropriate training is a fundamental component of any emergency response.

As minister, I am delighted to hear of and see the co-operation and teamwork that has developed in the emergency management sector. I encourage more communities to take advantage of these excellent opportunities to build capacity for emergency response. Congratulations to all for another successful event and I encourage everyone to keep safety in mind at all times.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement. Once again, Minister, I say, and I have said at many events, people who participate in these types of activities: when we have an emergency, most of us run from, they run to. So I say congratulations to all of the people who participated in this training. Congratulations to the Town of Marystown and their volunteers for hosting it and making it such a worthwhile event.

Mr. Speaker, years ago I took part in some of the training. If anybody in this House or anybody in the Province thinks that the training is easy for people who are fighting a fire in a smokehouse, they should try it sometime. These volunteers give up a lot of their time and a lot of their energy that they can be spending with their own families and their own town. They do it to prepare themselves for emergencies in their own communities and making their communities and towns safe.

Congratulations to the minister for ensuring that there is funding there to help out with this training in every town. Just a friendly reminder to the minister: most towns are supposed to have their emergency response in by May 31, so we can encourage the ones that are not done and try to help with the ones that are done to ensure that we all have our emergency response. Congratulations to all the volunteers, for all the people in Marystown who helped pull this off, and for Fire and Emergency for their expertise in helping these volunteers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. A big congratulations has to go out to the all the participants in such a worthwhile venture. We know that, of course, emergency services are an essential service to the residents of the Province, but a couple of things here; I think that the government, when we are talking about paying the fifty-fifty plan with regard to travel cost for some people, some people have to go a really long distance. It could be somebody in Labrador who could want to participate in a program like this.

We would certainly like to see government pick up all the costs for having these volunteer people come out and avail of these programs themselves. We would certainly like to see government press for more people to get into volunteering in this particular sector, but at the same time, while they are covering the training fee we would certainly like to see them get out there and help to cover some of the travel costs. It can be expensive getting around the Province, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House to inform all hon. members that this week is Transportation Week in jurisdictions throughout North America.

This occasion helps us to reflect on the significance of the 9,000-plus kilometres of road over 800 bridges, eighteen owned and contracted ferries in the provincial fleet, and other vital links we maintain in our provincial transportation network. It also helps us, Mr. Speaker, to appreciate the people who make their living by traveling, building, and maintaining these links. Transportation is a priority for the provincial government, as seen in our multi-year infrastructure investments now valued at almost $5 billion. Some of our most impressive projects involve enhancements to road and bridge infrastructure, and Budget 2012 made $165.1 million available to these enhancements.

This year, $13 million will be used to carve a corridor for the Team Gushue Highway extension, which will enhance traffic flow through the Avalon Peninsula. Another $10 million is being used to improve the flow of people and goods on the West Coast by twinning the highway in Corner Brook. With an investment of $65.8 million this year, the final contracts were awarded that will see the completion of Phase I of the Trans-Labrador Highway in 2014. Our Budget 2012 investment will also continue our work on the Torbay Bypass as well as the Conception Bay South Bypass; support our continuous upkeep of the Trans-Canada Highway; and soon begin the replacement of one of the few lift bridges in North America – the Placentia Life Bridge. Mr. Speaker, this investment is creating employment opportunities in our skilled trades, encouraging economic development, moving people and goods, and connecting communities, all to the benefit of current and future Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, these projects would not be possible without the professionalism of our heavy civil workers throughout the Province. These fine women and men who work in our transportation infrastructure make it possible to maintain reliable and sustainable transportation links that support the social and economic needs of this Province. I also want to recognize the dedication of everyone involved in trucking and shipping goods throughout our vast Province as their efforts contribute greatly to our well-being each and everyday.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy. Also, I would like to thank all the people who keep our roads safe in Newfoundland and Labrador. I say to the minister they do a great job in maintaining our roads. As we all know, it is such a transportation issue for all of us, shipping in goods, our own transportation around. Mr. Speaker, it would be remiss for me if I did not bring up the twenty-four hour snow clearing or the call in for most of the roads around my – I still urge the minister to consider that if possible.

Mr. Speaker, even though – and I recognize the contribution the government has made to the roads in Newfoundland and Labrador. There are two concerns that is always brought up around Newfoundland and Labrador, we brought this up to the minister, and that is rutting. I am not sure what can be done but it is a major concern for all of us in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a major concern to save money over the long run if we can find a solution to that. This is everybody's problem, municipalities, the government.

The other thing I would like to mention, Mr. Speaker, is no matter how much money we spend in Newfoundland and Labrador, us as individuals have to take safety upon ourselves to ensure that our roads – we drive safe, we keep a safe distance behind each driver, we drive with caution, because no matter how safe our roads, human error can cause a lot of problems.

I say to the minister, congratulations to all of his staff and to all of the people who keep our roads safe, and to all the individuals, keep an open mind, drive safe, be careful on our roads, because there are a lot of people driving.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. It is certainly time to reflect on transportation. Congratulations to all the hard-working men and women who are out there helping to keep our road networks in tip-top shape, especially people out there inspecting the bridges, the people who are out there inspecting the vehicles, the safety officers, particularly. I want to thank the people who are out there moving goods across this Province on a day-to-day basis. I do know a little bit about the transportation sector, having come from that.

While government is quick to outline the positives that are out there, I think it also has to be kept in mind during Transportation Week that there are a lot of negatives out there, too, at the same time. We are still dealing with problems, for example, with the Placentia lift bridge. We are still dealing with problems as well, for example, through the ferry sector as well. We still need to make sure this is also going to be a time, for example – and this would be an idea for the minister to work out, but I feel this is probably a very important time of the year for everybody in the transportation sector to have a review of their own emergency protocols, too, when it comes to their effect and what can happen with other people, and to keep people safe as well. So, probably you might want to keep that one in mind for next year.

It is a long list, but I am sure the minister is dealing with the problem with roads and everything. I would like to thank him for his time and for his statement, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

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.

The news coming out of the Premier's meeting with Mr. Kruger yesterday was very concerning. The consistent message from both parties was that time is of the essence for Kruger to finalize a sustainability plan for the mill in Corner Brook.

I ask the minister: What are the timelines for this to be finalized and for a decision on the mill's future to be made?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was also present at the meeting, as was the Minister of Finance, and the Member for Humber West. It was a very good meeting in all the circumstances, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Kruger indicated his willingness to develop a long-term sustainability plan, and we indicated to him – as we have indicated, by the way, to the Member for the Bay of Islands, and the Member for Humber Valley, who are also very concerned about their constituents and this mill – that if the unions came to an agreement, Mr. Speaker, with the owner on a long-term sustainability plan, and if the pension issue could be worked out, then we, as a government, would certainly be there to help.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Everyone in the Official Opposition understands that this is indeed a very serious situation that needs to be resolved between the company and the unions.

I ask the minister: What is the government doing to facilitate a timely and positive solution to the situation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

As the Leader of the Opposition has stated, this is certainly time sensitive, and a very sensitive issue. Mr. Speaker, there are certain issues that transcend politics or political parties in this Province, and one of them is the situation that is currently going on with Kruger in Corner Brook. It is a situation, Mr. Speaker, where all parties are concerned.

What I can say to the Leader of the Opposition and to the Member for the Bay of Islands, as well as to our own people, Mr. Speaker, is that although the news may be seen as grim in terms of the possibility of closing, really the people of Corner Brook and the members of this union hopefully can get together with Mr. Kruger. He has indicated a willingness, Mr. Speaker, to develop a long-term sustainability plan. As we have indicated in numerous meetings with the company, we will be there to support the union and the people of Corner Brook.

Mr. Speaker, this mill is not only important to the residents, the families, and the workers in Corner Brook; it is important to the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On December 14, 2011, the Minister of Environment and Conservation, as the lead minister for the Labour Relations Agency, called for a review of Special Product Order provisions. This review was done by Mr. Jim Oakley. Mr. Oakley's report can be found on the government's Web site. Nalcor, in its submission to Mr. Oakley, suggested options to mitigate certain labour challenges that it might encounter on the Muskrat Falls Project. Mr. Oakley did not accept the suggestions of Nalcor.

I ask the minister: Is your government accepting the Oakley review recommendations or adopting the Nalcor submission, recommending an open-shop concept?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the hon. member I am sure knows, we just went through a major review of our labour legislation, the labour act in this Province, Mr. Speaker. Within the next several days, it will be brought to this House and we will have a debate from all parties involved about the major changes we are going to make in the act. I think it is time we brought the act into the twentieth century, Mr. Speaker, and made it comparable to other pieces of legislation across the country.

The SPO is one of the three issues we have tackled. We will bring it to this House, Mr. Speaker, if not Thursday, then early next week.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday the Premier stated in the media that labour costs and capital costs of the project were increasing, which would increase the overall cost of the Muskrat Falls Project. Nalcor, in its submission to the Oakley review, suggested we need a new model for Special Project Orders in this Province.

I ask the minister: Has there been any discussion within the department related to Muskrat Falls or government concerning a trade union known as the Christian Labour Association of Canada?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Let me correct, Mr. Speaker, first of all; it is the twenty-first century I am hoping to bring the legislation into, not the twentieth century. I am trying to get a little bit closer to modern times than that.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the SPO, we have done a total review of the SPO, the recommendations that came out of the SPO. We are evaluating it. The hon. member, all I can say to him is to stay tuned. We have a new piece of legislation, major changes to the piece of legislation. I think it will protect the workers in Newfoundland and Labrador and also protect the employers in Newfoundland and Labrador. As the Department of Labour that is certainly our number one priority.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, really, the answer that we are looking for, and I will ask the question again, is: Has there been any discussions with the Christian Labour Association of Canada regarding the Muskrat Falls project?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister Responsible for Labour, very often we are seeing – and we have to be the regulator and strike that right balance between both. I have heard tell of the Christian Labour – whatever it is called – but I have never, ever spoken to anyone involved in that union and I certainly have not gone seeking to speak to anybody in that union. That is certainly not my mandate. My mandate is to be fair to not only the employers in the Province but also the workers in the Province, Mr. Speaker, and that is something I and our department strive to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The tenders for freight service to Black Tickle, Nunatsiavut, and Natuashish have been closed for some time now. The department has announced that the Northern Ranger will begin shipping season out of Happy Valley-Goose Bay on Friday, June 8.

I ask the minister: What other vessels will be used to provide freight service to Black Tickle and the North Coast this summer and when will this service begin?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the question from the hon. member opposite, basically, five proposals came in for that service of freight to the North Coast. We are into the last stages now of doing the analysis that is required in order to make a decision; once that decision is made, obviously we will be sharing that not only with the member but also with the people on the North Coast and the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These proposals are meant to address the long-term passenger and freight service as well as the short-term.

I ask the minister: When will the government make a decision on the long-term service to Black Tickle, Nunatsiavut, and Natuashish, and will the residents of this area be consulted before a decision is made?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, we put together an RFP following consultations with the Nunatsiavut Government, the people on the North Coast, and basically put it in the form of an RFP. Five proposals came in and these are proposals that called for service of the fifteen years. That is, I would consider, long term.

Again, to go back to my previous response, those proposals now are in the last stages of analysis and very shortly we will be able to come back to the people of the North Coast and advise them of which direction government will be going in, and providing that very valuable service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister Responsible for Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs stated in a letter to Minister Peter MacKay back in February that it would be vital to do a review of the tragedy in Makkovik so lessons can be learned. Yet, he stood in the House of Assembly and stated that a public inquiry would serve no purpose and that it would not change or reveal anything.

I ask the minister why he would do an about-face on this important issue.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is certainly no about-face. The letter that I wrote Minister MacKay was written two days after the incident happened. The key word in that letter – obviously the member across the House must be using the same researcher that CBC is using, because the key word was review. In order to do a review – through our review, we found out that we did not need a public inquiry. There certainly was no flip-flop or no about-face, except who is deciding which government they would like to be in, either provincial or federal. My opinion did not change at all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister also stated in his letter that increasing search and rescue capacity in Newfoundland and Labrador is critically important to the people who rely on these services.

I ask the minister if he can outline for me now what improvements in search and rescue have happened in this Province since February that have caused you to change your mind on an inquiry into this important issue.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, Mr. Speaker, my opinion has not changed, or the opinion of this government over here. We are still hoping to see improvements in search and rescue, and we will continue to argue that we do need improvements. There are always improvements needed. Through reviews, you can see those improvements will be made, and we will continue to advocate on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but it is through reviews that you can make those decisions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the minister has not heard, but the reality of the situation is that the federal government has made several cuts since then. They have closed the search and rescue centre in St. John's, the Maritime Sub-Centre. They have closed three Maritime call centres in this Province, and they have made cuts to Coast Guard operations.

I ask the minister – because he wanted to know what the lessons were – did you get the lessons that you were looking for? If so, what were they? If you did not, why are you not supporting the inquiry?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McGRATH: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure which question she wanted answered because there were a lot of questions. Again, she is using the word inquiry. Through a review, we got answers. Whether or not we are pleased with the answers we have, is another story. We asked for a review, we asked questions, and we got answers. Now we will work on the answers, hopefully, to improve service. That does not warrant an inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the air quality report on the College of the North Atlantic's daycare has been released. Of particular concern is the presence of aspergillosis, a fungus that can cause breathing illnesses, especially in asthmatics, as well as elevated CO2 levels, an indicator of inadequate ventilation.

I would ask the minister: How often is air quality tested at the daycares at the college and Memorial University? Why aren't parents receiving reports on air quality and infection rates on a regular basis?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, any buildings that we have within any of our post-secondary institutions including our daycare centres, classroom spaces or spaces at the university or the College of the North Atlantic, we certainly want to maintain our buildings to a standard that is safe for everyone who uses these buildings. Mr. Speaker, when we have an issue that we will have to deal with, we will deal with it. We will also make sure that before we have children or others use any type of buildings that we have problems with, that we will make sure they are up to standards that would be safe for the public.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the daycare's air quality report fails to address the vulnerability of small children given their developing immune systems, the potential for increased spread of infections due to inadequate ventilation, nor does it address the need for air quality surveillance and health surveillance.

I would ask the minister: Moving forward, what will your department do differently to ensure air quality, ventilation, and infection rate surveillance is conducted regularly?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I said, any time we have any buildings within the post-secondary institutions, whether they accommodate children or others, but particularly when we have our daycare centres, we want to ensure that they are safe environments for the children.

When we have issues that come to our attention that need to be addressed, we will make sure they are addressed, and we will ensure as well that when we say that people or children can use these accommodations, they are safe, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in 2010 government fast-tracked the environmental process to allow Nalcor to build the Parson's Pond Road for its costly oil exploration project. Now the Environment Minister wants the road removed, even though there are valid reasons that it remain.

I ask the Environment Minister: Will he delay his decision until the long-term benefits of the road to this region can be evaluated?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. Barbe stood in this House earlier on in this session, and came to me in person as well, and was very concerned about the wildlife populations in his area, in particular, moose, and in particular, caribou. We have spoken at length about the serious need for us to really monitor and keep a close eye on these two species here in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, the reason we are taking that road back and filling it back in is for one simple reason: it is for conservation reasons. By leaving that road there, if you will, we are opening up the back country and we are allowing more access to those two animals that we are both very concerned about. So, Mr. Speaker, on the side of conservation, we are taking up the road.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, a bridge on that road provides the northern access to the Appalachian Trail, a very popular –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: – and attractive tourist destination, and is now critical to the emergency evacuation plan that is prepared for that trail.

I ask the Minister of Tourism and Culture: Will he get involved to save this access road for the long-term tourism benefits of this region, which is working hard to diversify its economy?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when we do environmental assessments on these issues, there is all kinds of time for people to have comments and to bring them to our department, and that is something we take very seriously. We had a number of people who have written us through that period, and a number of groups have come since, Mr. Speaker, to present their case as to this road and why it should or should not stay.

It is quite clear, the hon. member came to me recently complaining about the decline in moose population, Mr. Speaker. We acted upon it; we reduced the number of licences in the area, Mr. Speaker. This is another form of conservation that we are providing to the residents of the area. There is an outfitting industry on the Northern Peninsula that I am very concerned about that brings tens of millions of dollars to that area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, recently a seafood processor was forced to hire twenty foreign workers as they were not able to find workers in this Province. Government's JOBSinNL Web site, however, does not even list a category for seafood processing.

With nearly 20,000 people employed in the fishing sector, how can the minister justify omitting this important sector? Will she immediately upgrade her Web site to include seafood processing as a job category in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand the employer we are talking about right now did advertise their jobs on JOBSinNL. Mr. Speaker, what is really important here is that we want to make sure that people in this Province have access to the employment that is available in this Province and they have a way to attach to the labour market. If we know of any individuals who are interested in these jobs who are not able to access these jobs, who want to work with our career centre so we can help make that attachment to the labour market and to any types of jobs, Mr. Speaker, we are more than willing to work with them.

I say to the hon. member: If he does know of any individuals who feel they have been slighted or unable to compete for jobs, we will work with them and we would like for him to share that information with us, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe with a very quick question, please.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, we know there are hundreds of unemployed seafood workers in our Province and there are over 100 seafood processing plants.

Will this government now commit to identifying job openings in our remaining plants for our currently unemployed workers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, for a quick answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we have no problem with that. The Department of Advanced Education and Skills has a number of Career Work Centres across Newfoundland and Labrador. Any employer who is feeling labour shortage challenges who would like to work with us and who would like for us to be able to advertise their jobs, to work with individuals, and to help them prepare for it, we are more than willing to do that, Mr. Speaker. Through programs either under the LMDA or CEYS, we do have funding to assist individuals who are EI-eligible or who are on Income Support to help them prepare for the labour market.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Workers at the Kruger mill in Corner Brook find themselves with a pension crisis through no fault of their own. While they are working with Kruger to find a way forward, government does nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister Responsible for Labour Relations if he will end his silence on this developing crisis and go to Corner Brook to join the other two parties that are trying to find a solution.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I agree with the comments that are being made by my fellow colleagues: your question is shameful. We have a situation that is a very serious situation. We have members of the Official Opposition working with our members here trying to find a solution, Mr. Speaker. This is not a time for grandstanding. This is not a time for the NDP trying to show they are the unions' friend. This is a very serious situation, Mr. Speaker, where thousands of people find themselves at risk.

What we want to do, Mr. Speaker, is find a solution. What I say to the member opposite, what I said earlier, this should transcend political boundaries. This is about the people of our Province, and I do find her comments shameful.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources, and I am hoping –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: If this government will get involved with Kruger and the unions in resolving the pension issues, or will this government only step in to help workers after the mill closes?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the individuals who work in that mill, their families or friends, are represented by the Minister of Finance, and the Member for Humber West, who are working with us on a daily basis. I have met with Mr. Kruger himself on three different occasions now, including with the Premier yesterday. Myself and the Minister of Finance met with Kruger. We have met with the unions, all aspects of the unions, on numerous occasions. I have been in Corner Brook on three different occasions to meet with the unions. We have met with the retired workers, Mr. Speaker. We are doing everything we can, and I say to the NDP, you could certainly learn from the Official Opposition in this case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the government has said that they are only willing to get involved with Kruger and the workers together after the two parties have agreed to a long-term sustainability plan, as well as a resolution to their pension issues. Until that time, Mr. Speaker, the Premier sits on the sidelines.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: How do they justify this government not sitting at the table together with the parties, together to work on the long-term sustainability plan?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, there seems to be no end to which these people will go to try to bring some attention to themselves as the friend of the unions. We are working for the people of this Province. The Premier has been present, Mr. Speaker, with Mr. Kruger yesterday. We had a very good conversation, but this is a business situation, Mr. Speaker. The unions do not want us imposing ourselves in the union negotiations nor does the owner, Mr. Speaker. If they come to an agreement, which they have to do – this is their issue, in terms of how they are going to work this out. If the company is asking for concessions, Mr. Speaker, how can government get involved in that? If they are asking for extension of pension plans, that is up to the people who are affected. What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is we are there to help if an agreement is reached, and we are not posturing politically, like the member of the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, government apparently has no interest in helping develop the long-term sustainability plan for the Corner Brook mill, but surely they must be expecting to see certain provisions in that plan.

I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Will he tell this House exactly what they expect to see in a viable long-term sustainability plan?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This question is similar, Mr. Speaker, to the Member for St. John's North as he went out there on his chili tour. His fifteen minutes that he spent with the unions and they threw him out, because that is what happened out there, Mr. Speaker.

A long-term viability plan means exactly that. A plan, Mr. Speaker, which will ensure that the mill stays opens, that the pensions are protected of both the retired workers and the active workers, and that the people in the Corner Brook, the West Coast of this Province and Northern Peninsula have a bright future based on this mill staying open. That is what we are trying to do and that is what long-term sustainability means.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, Eastern Health plans to cut the equivalent of 550 hospital positions without affecting patient care. Thirty-nine of these positions are in housekeeping. Mr. Speaker, we heard in the news recently that many hospitals across the country have cut their cleaning budgets and they are now dirtier and facing outbreaks of infection as a result and also increasing costs.

I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: Will she ensure that cuts in hospital cleaning staff in this Province will not compromise cleaning regiments or patient safety?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that is an assurance that we gave right at the outset of this. We have assured the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that there will be no loss of permanent jobs, programs and services will be maintained, and that frontline service will be maintained. Mr. Speaker, what we are looking for is to improve what exists right now.

She talks about the number of jobs to be lost. Mr. Speaker, I just want to present a scenario to her in terms of numbers of jobs and how that can be achieved without laying off a single person in this Province. If we were to look at just sick leave, Mr. Speaker, not overtime but just sick leave, and we look at what we have now is 108 hours of sick leave per employee per year. If we bring that to the national medium, Mr. Speaker, that is seventy-one…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we learned in a briefing yesterday how government has adopted international standards in aquaculture because the markets for most products is international, yet government is not following suit in forestry. For example, to sell wood pellets in Europe requires FSC certification which has not been achieved.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Will he commit to land base certification to achieve FSC certification for productive Crown lands?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

You can have all the certification in the world if you do not have an industry and, unfortunately, that is where we are in this Province right now. The situation with Kruger, Mr. Speaker, is one that as long as it stays open it ensures that there is a future for the forestry in this Province.

We are working hard as a Province in terms of trying to attract new business to Central Newfoundland and Labrador. We have subsidized, Mr. Speaker, the woodcutters and harvesters on the Northern Peninsula to the tune of almost $1 million. We have put almost $10 million into the Roddickton wood pellet plant, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know what more we are supposed to do in terms of an industry that is having a tough time worldwide. It is not certification we are worried about, Mr. Speaker; it is sustainability.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In order to sell into many global markets you need that certification, so we need to be forward thinking.

Corner Brook Pulp and Paper has achieved ISO and CSA certification for its forest resources that they own and harvest because they can access the international markets. The Province has done nothing for its publicly owned Crown land.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Will he direct his department to commission at least a pilot project to certify productive Crown lands so we can remove the barriers to the local forest industry to access those international markets?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, how this Third Party works. About three weeks ago, I got an e-mail from the Member for The Straits – White Bay North asking if I would meet with him and the owner of the Roddickton plant to discuss what was going on in Roddickton. I wrote him back, Mr. Speaker. I said if Mr. Lewis wishes to meet with me, he can contact me directly. I never heard back from Mr. Lewis.

So what the member opposite did, he tried to interject himself into the middle of the situation. He was obviously told to go away out of it, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest to him that if he is going to come forward with suggestions that he make sure that they are real and they are practical. What we are worried about is keeping this industry alive, keeping Kruger open and benefiting the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, in the case of Mr. Eddie Taylor, Judge Dymond ordered that while incarcerated at Her Majesty's Penitentiary Mr. Taylor be allowed to continue to see his own psychiatrist and continue to take his own medications, as prescribed by his doctor.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why is this government appealing that order and wanting to stop inmates with mental health issues from seeing their own medical professionals?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the hon. member is new to the House –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. F. COLLINS: – but to raise a question on privacy issues that was just mentioned –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. F. COLLINS: – she knows full well that I, as Attorney General, cannot respond to a question of a specific situation and situations occurring in any court in this Province. Mr. Speaker, I just cannot respond to her question.

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

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, this is a very public issue. In March 2011, the Office of the Citizens' Representative released their report on the psychiatric services of Her Majesty's Penitentiary. The government then committed to an independent peer review. On May 1, in Estimates Committee, the minister promised he would table the report of that review in a timely fashion. Mr. Speaker, we know the review is done.

I ask the Minister of Justice: Will he release this report before this session of the House closes?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to clear up a misconception here from the beginning that I never said at the Estimates we would table the report of the review. I certainly never said that because we do not know what that review will contain in terms of private peer information. A lot of stuff in peer information is not public. We will examine that review when we get it to determine what we can reveal and what we cannot.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. The groundwork is done; we had recent communications with the reviewer. He is in the process of collating his material, getting the report written. We expect it in a very timely fashion. As a matter of fact, we expect it very soon, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I give notice I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 31)

Mr. Speaker, I further give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Public Service Commission Act. (Bill 32)

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act And The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act. (Bill 30)

Thank you.

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 Innovation, Business and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, May 16, the Member for St. Barbe tabled a question in the House of Assembly requesting any assessment of the impact on Newfoundland and Labrador of the European Free Trade Agreement, which the Government of Canada is currently negotiating.

Mr. Speaker, supporting business expansion and facilitating the growth of traditional and emerging sectors are priorities of the provincial government's business and economic development efforts. Identifying and advancing new export opportunities will contribute to the continued growth of local businesses and the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. A key aspect in advancing those priorities is creating opportunities for local businesses and new entrepreneurs by facilitating greater access to growth industries, and supplier diversity opportunities in national and international markets.

With export activity leading to one in every four jobs in the Province, and surpassing $12 billion last year, it is no surprise this government has taken such a focused effort on building Newfoundland and Labrador's trade capacity. It is why we have a memorandum of understanding in place with New England, Iceland, and Ireland. It is why we are targeting opportunities in Brazil, China, and India, and other international markets. It is also why the provincial government is actively engaged in the Canadian-European Union trade negotiations.

The European Union market with 500 million people and an annual economic activity of over $17 trillion holds significant opportunities for workers and businesses in this Province. The European Union is the world's largest importing market for goods, more than two-point-seven times larger than the United States. Additionally, an agreement has the potential to benefit such industries as fish and seafood, technology, wood and wood products, advanced manufacturing, transportation, agriculture, and renewable energy. A joint study conducted by the European Union and the federal government before the launch of negotiations concluded that an ambitious agreement would boost Canada's income by $12 billion annually and bilateral trade by 20 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, while a final deal could offer significant benefits, I have to emphasize that these continue to be ongoing negotiations. We cannot assume a final outcome at this time. What I can firmly say at this time is that officials are advocating to the federal government in areas that should create maximum benefit for Newfoundland and Labrador. The European Union, for example, is the world's largest fish and seafood market, with global imports averaging $25 billion annually, 2009 to 2011.

As a government, we view these trade negotiations as presenting an opportunity to address the elimination of tariffs and non-tariff barriers in the fishery, which has been a goal of this Province for many years. The negotiation could potentially result in significant benefits for rural communities that must contend with high tariffs when exporting products to the European Union. The fact that the federal government has publicly stated these high-tariff barriers would be eliminated under an ambitious Canada-EU trade agreement is encouraging to the provincial government, and the fishing industry as a whole.

Eliminated tariff barriers would increase sales of Newfoundlander and Labrador's world-class fish and seafood productions in the lucrative European Union market of 500 million consumers. This would directly benefit Newfoundlanders and Labradorians through more jobs, higher wages, and greater long-term prosperity. In addition to the opportunities for the fishery, a Canada-European Union agreement could create opportunities for local service and knowledgeable industries by easing access to European markets.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, the services sector represents a significant component of the provincial economy, employing more than 160,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Placing predictable investment rules in place and guaranteeing access to European Union markets under a final trade agreement could create a level playing field for Newfoundland and Labrador's investors and businesses. It could also reduce the risk associated with investing abroad, leading to greater two-way investments.

Within this overall process, Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will only support an agreement between Canada and the European Union if it is in the best interests of the people of the Province. It is a decision we will make at the end of the negotiating process.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the question asked by the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair on March 28 regarding a formal review of the projected cash flow of the Muskrat Falls projects to confirm whether or not it provides significant long-term financial returns to the Province, Mr. Speaker, I will refer to Dr. Wade Locke's January 17, 2012 presentation for the Memorial Presents Lecture at the Harris Centre.

Dr. Locke's presentation confirmed that the average net cash flow for the project is approximately $550 million per year, not including the extra revenue from selling the residual energy. Dr. Locke concludes that the level of cash flow could support $5 billion in debt at an 8 per cent interest rate and still have over $100 million in additional funds to allow for the retirement of the provincial debt, to fund other public services or to reduce taxes.

Dr. Locke indicates that a loan guarantee that reduce the interest rate by two percentage points would add $80 million to the project's annual net cash flow and sales of the residual energy could add an extra $60 million to the project's annual net cash flow. Our forecast shows that in the years leading up to 2017, electricity rates will increase because of the increasing cost of oil and the increasing use of Holyrood to meet our growing electricity demand. In fact, fuel costs make up over 40 per cent of the total cost in that period.

In 2017, Mr. Speaker, with Muskrat Falls based on Decision Gate 2 numbers, we have 230,000 Island ratepayers who use an average of 1,517 kilowatt hours per month, the average ratepayer on the Island will see their bill go from approximately $217 to $232 per month. The main cost that drives these rates will change, Mr. Speaker. As generation at Holyrood ends, fuel costs will go to zero. We will no longer be buying oil to generate electricity. We will be financing our own asset for the benefit of the Province rather than sending money to oil companies, Mr. Speaker, as much as $6 billion over a fifty-year period. Muskrat Falls will stabilize and eventually reduce electricity rates. The hydroelectric power generated by Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker, will provide long-term stable electricity rates for the people of our Province.

Hydro projects have a fifty- to 100-year life, Mr. Speaker, with low operating and maintenance costs plus generating revenue that benefits electricity consumers and the provincial Treasury across many generations. In addition to significant cash flow projections, the project provides substantial benefits to the provincial economy and the people of the Province.

In terms of employment, the benefits strategy between Nalcor and the provincial government establishes a hiring protocol for the hydroelectric generation facilities in Labrador and the Labrador-Island Transmission Link that ensures the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will be the primary beneficiaries of the project. First consideration, Mr. Speaker, for employment will be provided to the Labrador Innu, as outlined in the New Dawn Agreement, and then all Labradorians.

Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker, will result in the Province's consumers receiving 98 per cent of their electricity from renewable, clean sources of energy. More than 75 per cent of the work for the Muskrat Falls generating station will take place in Labrador, including construction of the dam, the powerhouse, and transmission lines. The development of Muskrat Falls will contribute more than $1.4 billion in total income for labour and businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador with approximately $450 million going to Labradorians and Labrador-based businesses.

It is also, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the important environmental benefits which result from the development of Muskrat Falls. At peak, Holyrood burns 18,000 barrels of oil a day. Closing Holyrood will be the equivalent of taking 300,000 cars off the road and will reduce greenhouse gasses by more than 1 million tonnes annually.

The project will put an end to a dependence on oil and volatile prices. The project will also support mine developments in Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and support future renewable developments both on the Island and in Labrador. Muskrat Falls will position our Province for a future and help transition our Province from a non-renewable resource economy to a renewable resource economy.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on anti-replacement worker legislation. I have close to 500 signatures here today.

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 strikes and lock outs are rare, and on average 97 per cent of collective agreements are negotiated without work disruption; and

WHEREAS anti-temporary replacement workers laws have existed in Quebec since 1978 and British Columbia since 1993, and successive governments in those provinces have never repealed those laws; and

WHEREAS anti-temporary replacement workers legislation has reduced the length and divisiveness of labour disputes; and

WHEREAS the use of temporary replacement workers during a strike or lockout is damaging to the social fabric of a community, the local economy, and the well-being of its residents, as evident by the recent use of temporary replacement workers by both Ocean Choice International and Vale in Voisey's Bay.

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to enact legislation banning the use of temporary replacement workers during a strike or lock out.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, there are some-500 signatures here. I know the Government House Leader has taken some interest in this, so maybe he can perform an audit to see exactly how many are here. We have petitioners from St. John's and CBS, Paradise, Stephenville, Burin, Bay d'Espoir, Bishop's Falls, Harbour Breton, Marystown, Fox Cove, Burin Bay Arm, Spanish Room, Lewin's Cove, Spaniard's Bay, Carbonear, others from St. John's, Port Union, Hant's Harbour, New Chelsea, New Melbourne, Brownsdale, Heart's Content, Musgrave Harbour, Mobile, Burnt Point, Long Harbour, Placentia, Catalina, Birchy Bay, Lawn, Bay Bulls, St. David's, Makinsons, Small Point, Stephenville, Fairbanks, Queen's Cove, Ship Harbour, Cupids, Bishop's Falls, Grand Falls-Windsor, others from St. John's, Marystown, Aspen Cove, Admiral's Beach, Upper Island Cove, Paradise, Pynn's Brook, Green's Harbour, Badger, Winterland, Point May, Spaniard's Bay, Labrador City, Wabush, Goose Bay, Foxtrap, more from St. John's, and Burin Bay. I enter these –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member that his time is up.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I petition today to the hon. House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth;

WHEREAS hundreds of residents on the Southwest Coast of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, including residents of the communities of Margaree, Fox Roost, Isle aux Morts, Burnt Islands, Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou, Diamond Cove, and La Poile, use Route 470 on a regular basis for work, medical, educational, and social reasons; and

WHEREAS there is no cellphone coverage on Route 470; and

WHEREAS residents and users of Route 470 require cellphone coverage to ensure their safety and communication abilities; and

WHEREAS the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development recently announced significant funding to improve broadband services in rural Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the residents and users of Route 470 feel that the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development should also invest in cellular phone coverage for rural Newfoundland and Labrador;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to support the users of Route 470 in their request to obtain cellphone coverage along Route 470.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, Route 470 is one of the two major routes in my district, the other being Route 480, which are travelled on a daily basis by the residents of the various communities in which they serve. Both are fairly extensive. To go from one end of Route 470 to the other, based on the terrain and the layout of the road, can take you forty-five minutes. There is no cellphone coverage on this roadway, which obviously is a detriment to the residents for a number reasons, being employment, health, and safety.

I has also been a fairly large deterrent for the tourism industry. As people are driving back and forth, it is hard to get in contact obviously if you want to figure out where it is you are going or to access your mobile phone if you want to take advantage of the different mobile apps you can have access to, whether it is on your Blackberry or your iPhone.

The fact that we are not able to use modern technology on these roadways is a detriment to these areas, these rural places in our Province that need this twenty-first century technology. We have come a long ways, but there is still a significant ways to go in this Province when it comes to this technology. It is one thing to place a phone in everybody's hands, but it is another thing to make sure they have the ability to use this phone.

I have talked on a number of occasions about the health and safety aspect of this. Today my concentration is more on the tourism side of it. We are getting into tourism season now. We are in the month of June and the fact is we have a lot of people going back and forth on these roadways. For them not to be able to have access to the outside world, whether it is to try to check in on reservations, check in on tourist destinations, to be able to call their reservations, or to call where it is they are staying, is a detriment.

I am very happy to place this in today, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to presenting it again.

Thank you.

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I present a petition:

To the hon. the 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 Regional Economic Development – RED – Boards diversify, grow, and strengthen economies throughout the Province by providing training opportunities, marketing advice, proposal writing, leveraging funds, collaborations, and other means; and

WHEREAS the federal government's decision to cut funding to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is resulting in the elimination of funding to the RED Boards and their termination in May 2013; and

WHEREAS 75 per cent of the operational funding for the RED Boards, roughly $3.6 million, is provided by ACOA with the additional 25 per cent from the provincial government; and

WHEREAS the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development has $200 million in their suite of programming, some of which has poor uptake; and

WHEREAS just 1.5 per cent of the Business Attraction Fund of the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development was used last year, just $366,800 of a $25 million budget;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to commit to bridge funding in its 2012 Budget, which may come from the Business Attraction Fund, to help preserve the RED Boards in Newfoundland and Labrador who provide support to municipalities, communities, organizations, and businesses.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

The petition is signed by residents of Sandy Cove, St. Anthony, Anchor Point, Conche, Flower's Cove, and Corner Brook. Mr. Speaker, the Regional Economic Development Boards are all across this Province. There are nineteen boards, and they do very good work when it comes to looking at economic development and diversification throughout the Province.

I just talked a little bit about some of the work that they have done in my district, the Nordic Economic Development Corporation, where they have worked with municipalities such as the Town of Flower's Cove around developing walking trails and signage, and to really promote local tourism assets, as well as working with the French Shore Interpretation Centre where that area has looked at adding a centre for textile studies and learning. These types of things are all important to developing our economies.

The provincial government has seen it very important to invest in a regional Heritage Cluster Project, where ten tourism entities across the Province have been able to work with RED Boards. That is an initiative under the RED Ochre Regional Board for the Member for St. Barbe; I am sure he is well aware of that and the good work that they are doing. The cluster project is ten organizations on the Great Northern Peninsula that transcends both of our districts, that is looking at packaging and marketing and creating a unified vision for tourism to enhance that on the Great Northern Peninsula.

MR. SPEAKER: I remind the member his time is up, please and thank you.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, I do urge the government to look at really committing the funding.

Thank you.

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is another petition that has been signed by several thousand Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It has been circulated throughout the Province. This is a petition on school bus safety. I have been collecting signatures on this petition since just before Christmas.

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

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

WHEREAS only those child care centres outside the 1.6 kilometre zone and directly on bus routes are included in kindergarten noon-time routes causing hardship for working parents; and

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

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

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

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I have presented this petition a number of times. Today I have approximately 700 signatures that I am presenting, and maybe the Government House Leader can also verify that in his audit of these petitions. We have people from Holyrood, Long Pond, Upper Gullies, Makkovik, Baie Verte, Greenspond, Lumsden, Newtown, Badger's Quay, Valleyfield, St. John's, Mount Pearl, Carbonear, Flower's Cove, Woody Point, Cormack, others from St. John's and Paradise, Goulds, Point La Haye, Chapel's Cove, Creston South, Marystown, Smallwood Drive in Mount Pearl, Carmanville, Noggin Cove, Aspen Cove, Gander, Frederickton, Norris Point, Rocky Harbour, Glenwood, Appleton, and Gander – quite a number from Gander and Appleton. Then Aspen Cove, Mr. Speaker, Noggin Cove, Carmanville, Victoria Cove, George's Point, Gander Bay South…

MR. SPEAKER: I remind the member his time has expired.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

WHEREAS with declining enrolment, distance education by Internet is now an acceptable way to deliver educational services to students living in small communities; and

WHEREAS students have little to no say in where they or their families reside; and

WHEREAS many families do not have the ability to relocate so that their children can access educational opportunities in larger centres; and

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

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

WHEREAS no high-speed Internet service exists in the community of Bird Cove; and

WHEREAS there are no plans to offer high-speed Internet to residents of this community;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to partner with the private sector and offer high-speed Internet service to this community.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, the Town of Bird Cove is a very small town, fewer than 200 people. Before the cod moratorium it had between 600 and 700 people. Now it is down to fewer than 200 people. It is the only incorporated municipality in that immediate region. All around, unincorporated municipalities, local service districts and simply unincorporated areas are receiving high-speed Internet.

The petitions from Bird Cove have been circulated by a sixteen-year-old high school student who would really prefer to have high-speed Internet, many of his classmates do. He takes a school bus every day. He drives through an area to school where his friends and other family members have high-speed Internet and he is not able to access it. It is very difficult for him to accept that just approximately one to two kilometres away the high-speed Internet ends and it could easily be brought to his town. His town is carrying the bulk of the municipal services load in that area. Mr. Speaker, this is another petition from Bird Cove.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 in the District of The Straits – White Bay North despite the $4 million rural broadband 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 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 Initiatives in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by residents of St. Anthony, Great Brehat, St. Anthony Bight, and St. Carols. We have to look at somehow finding a means to really bridge the gap when it comes to the 200-plus communities in the Province that do not have access to rural broadband. We really do need that high-speed broadband to really take advantage of a number of government services when it comes to education.

Today, the Mayor of St. Lawrence was speaking out about the Burin Peninsula and a number of areas where they have slow Internet, where they have poor cellular coverage, and also the inability for high-definition television. With that type of inability to be more competitive, it is going to have an impact for future business development and future investment. We can find, maybe, a co-operative solution to look at a regional means of putting in broadband Internet where municipalities could become involved along with the provincial government so that we can find a way to cost-share this in a means that more and more people in Newfoundland and Labrador have access.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 child 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

WHEREAS early childhood educators working in child care centres 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

WHEREAS 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, I just started this petition and it has already been signed by several hundred people. I have petitioners here from Spaniard's Bay, Blaketown, Mount Pearl, St. John's, and Paradise today. Not quite as many as I entered before, but we continue to collect signatures, Mr. Speaker.

This is an extremely important issue. As I mentioned in my Member's Statement today, AECENL, the Association of Early Childhood Educators in Newfoundland and Labrador, has been working very hard over the years to try to get some fairness for early childhood educators in the Province. I think one of the things that we can do is help to bring the wages of all early childhood educators up closer at least to the national average, if not to what has been recommended as a benchmark for early childhood educators, which is two-thirds of the salaries of teachers.

So, it is an extremely important issue. The folks who took the time to sign this petition believe that is the case, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the members of the House of Assembly will see that, and see that this happens sooner than later.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before the Speaker goes to Orders of the Day, I want to speak to a point of order that was raised yesterday by the hon. Government House Leader. The point of order was with respect to a petition that was presented on Thursday, May 31 to this House by the Member for St. John's North. I want to just refer to Hansard and the opening comments by the Member for St. John's North when he indicated that: "I am happy to enter this petition, which has been signed by thousands of people across Newfoundland and Labrador".

The Speaker has had an opportunity to review Hansard and the Speaker has had an opportunity to look at the petition that was referenced in those comments. Clearly, the petition that is entered has much fewer names than the 1,000 that is referenced in Hansard, significantly less.

I remind members that whether it is in reference to petitions or reference to anything else in this House in debate, members in this House have an obligation to make statements that are accurate and factually correct. Members of the House generally accept the comments by other hon. members as being statements of fact and seldom challenge their accuracy unless there is, obviously, some clear documentation that suggests to the contrary. In this case here, we have a conflict between the statements made by the Member for St. John's North and what are, in fact, the facts.

I would ask the Member for St. John's North if he would stand and apologize to the House for the information that he stated in this House on May 31.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was, in fact, referencing the –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to take his seat.

Members in this House would know clearly that the Speaker's ruling is final. The Speaker's ruling is not subject to appeal. When the Speaker asks for a statement to be withdrawn or the Speaker asks for an apology from a member, the statement, the apology, or the withdrawal, is to be an unqualified withdrawal.

I would ask the member one more time if he would stand and apologize to the House for his statements made on Thursday, May 31, 2012.

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I am unable to do that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member for the third time to stand and apologize to the House for the statements made in this House on May 31, 2012. If the member refuses to withdraw the statement from the House and apologize to the House, I will have no choice but ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to remove the member from his chair.

Again, I call upon the member for the third and final time to apologize for his comments.

MR. KIRBY: I am satisfied with your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

I will remove myself from the Chamber.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 1 –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 2, third reading of Bill 14.

MR. SPEAKER: What bill number is that again, I am sorry?

MR. KENNEDY: That is Bill 14, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 14, Order 2.

It is moved and seconded that the bill now be read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 14 be now read a third 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 Registration Of Deeds Act, 2009. (Bill 14)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Registration Of Deeds Act, 2009", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 14)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 3, third reading of Bill 15.

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 15 be now read a third 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 the third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

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

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

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

I call from the Order Paper, Order 4, third reading of Bill 17, Mr. Speaker, and I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal Affairs that Bill 17, An Act To Ensure Access For Service Animals Used By Persons With Disabilities, be now read a third time.

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 17 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

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

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Ensure Access For Service Animals Used By Persons With Disabilities", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 17)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Order 5, Bill 18, Mr. Speaker, and I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act, be now read a third time.

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 18 be now read a third 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 Legal Aid Act. (Bill 18)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 18)

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

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

I call from the Order Paper, Order 6, third reading of Bill 19.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, that Bill 19, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, be now read a third time.

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 19 be read a third 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 Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 19)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 19)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 7, third reading of Bill 20 and I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Works, Services And Transportation Act, be now read a third time.

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 20 be read a third 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 Works, Services And Transportation Act. (Bill 20)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Works, Services And Transportation Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 20)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Order 8, third reading of Bill 21 and I move, seconded by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, that Bill 21, An Act To Amend The Rail Services Act, 2009 be now read a third time.

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 21 be read a third 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 Services Act, 2009. (Bill 21)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Rail Services Act, 2009", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 9, third reading of Bill 22 and I move, seconded by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, that Bill 22, An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act, be now read a third time.

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 22 be read a third 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 Aquaculture Act. (Bill 22)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 22)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, Bill 23, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs have leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, Bill 23, and that the said bill be now read the first time.

Is it the pleasure of the house that the minister does have leave to introduce Bill 23 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act", carried. (Bill 23)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act. (Bill 23)

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

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. KENNEDY: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, Bill 23 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Extinguish Obsolete Actions In The Province, Bill 24, and I further move that the said bill be now read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Extinguish Obsolete Actions In The Province, Bill 24, and that the said bill be now read the first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 24 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act To Extinguish Obsolete Actions In The Province", carried. (Bill 24)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Extinguish Obsolete Actions In The Province. (Bill 24)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read the first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. KENNEDY: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, Bill 24 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave. (Bill 24)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, for leave to introduce a bill, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Optometry In The Province, Bill 25, and I further move that the said bill be now read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Optometry In The Province, Bill 25, and that the said bill be now read the first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 25 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting The Practice Of Optometry In The Province", carried. (Bill 25)

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Optometry In The Province. (Bill 25)

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

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. KENNEDY: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, Bill 25 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 2, Bill 26, and I further move that the said bill be now read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador have leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 2, Bill 26, and that the said bill be now read the first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 26 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 2", carried. (Bill 26)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 2. (Bill 26)

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

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. KENNEDY: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, Bill 26 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Psychologists Act, 2005, Bill 28, and I further move that the said bill be now read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Psychologists Act, 2005, Bill 28, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 28 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Psychologists Act, 2005", carried. (Bill 28)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Psychologists Act, 2005. (Bill 28)

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

When shall the said bill be read the second time?

MR. KENNEDY: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, Bill 28 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 8.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock p.m. on Tuesday, June 5, 2012.

I further move, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock p.m. on Tuesday, June 5, 2012.

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

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

I have had discussions with the Opposition – both parties – and I seek leave, Mr. Speaker, to move to second reading of Bills 23, 24, 26, 27, and 28, the bills that we just went through in first reading. If leave is granted, we will go in that order.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador, that Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, now be read the second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act". (Bill 23)

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

MR. McGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to introduce a bill that amends the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act to incorporate technical changes to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement which is a schedule to the act. The bill also amends the map atlas and the appendices that form part of the agreement and the schedule and the act, and are on file at the Crown Lands Division of the Department of Environment and Conservation. The map atlas contains the authoritative maps of land areas set out in the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, and the appendix primarily contains the authoritative descriptions of these land areas.

Mr. Speaker, the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, Part 2.16, sets out the process for amending the agreement. Amendments require the consent of three parties to the agreement: the provincial government, the Labrador Inuit, and the federal government. To date, two amendments have been made to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, and to the act. In December, 2009, the Province passed Bill 46, which detailed amendments to the act to incorporate changes made to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, between the date it was signed, which was January 22, 2005, and the effective date of December 1, 2005, which were essentially housekeeping in nature and retroactive to the effectiveness of the date of agreement. In December 2009, the Province passed Bill 47, which detailed amendments to the act to incorporate the Nunavik Inuit-Labrador Inuit Overlap Agreement in the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, most of the amendments in this bill arise from a commitment in the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, section 4.5.1, to survey a number of areas. These areas are identified in Appendix E-1, as soon as practical after the date of the agreement. To incorporate these surveys into the agreement, it is necessary to amend the legal description of each parcel surveyed. As noted earlier, legal descriptions are contained within the appendices.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, entitled An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, also includes a number of other technical amendments to the Land Claims Agreement, including the map atlas and the appendices. These additional technical amendments are: number one, the amendments to add text to the agreement, to appropriately cross-reference the map atlas and appendices with respect to water lots and the Labrador Inuit lands in the Inuit communities to ensure these areas are appropriately referenced in the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement as Labrador Inuit lands.

Number two, the amendments to the maps in the agreement, the map atlas and the appendices, is to adjust the boundary of Labrador Inuit Lands in Hopedale to ensure the entire Hopedale airstrip is within Crown land. All airstrips within the Inuit communities are within Crown Lands.

Number three; amendments to maps in the map atlas and the appendices and amendments to legal descriptions in the appendices to remove a small parcel of Labrador Inuit lands, approximately adds up to about one acre, which overlaps several parcels of private land in the Inuit community of Postville.

Number four; the amendments to the French version of the Torngat Mountains National Park Reserve map and description in the appendices to include the signature, the registration number, and the date. There are no changes in the map but the signature, the registration number and the date were missing on the original map in the French version which had not been included in the map and the legal description when the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement was signed.

Mr. Speaker, these amendments are technical in nature and are essentially housekeeping items but they are necessary to ensure the Land Claims Agreement can continue to be successfully implemented for the benefit of the Labrador Inuit and all other residents of the Province. Agreements on land claims define new and positive relationships between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Government of Canada, and Aboriginal claimant groups. Approving these amendments is an indication of the Province's continued commitment to the implementation of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement. Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has exercised careful consideration and due diligence in its action to amend the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, representatives of the parties to the agreement have agreed in a Memorandum of Agreement to submit these amendments to their respective approval processes in accordance with the provisions set out in the Land Claims Agreement. As I stated earlier, amendments to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement require the consent of all three parties. In addition to the provincial approval process, Canada gives consent by an order of the Governor in Council, and Labrador Inuit give consent by a resolution of the Nunatsiavut General Assembly.

It is anticipated that the Nunatsiavut Government will bring forward the amendments to the Assembly during the summer or early this fall. Once the Nunatsiavut Government gives its consent, the Government of Canada will then bring forward the amendments for approval.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for support of the members of this hon. House for this act.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the minister said, this legislation is more or less housekeeping and to bring the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement up to par. It would tie in a number of applications. Certainly, this Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement has to be agreed upon by three different parties including the provincial government, the Nunatsiavut Government, and the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, under the Memorandum of Understanding from last April, I think the wording is incorrect and the sections deal with cross reference of all Inuit lands. It deals with cross referencing of water lots. It deals with the airstrip in Hopedale, Mr. Speaker. I think the latest atlas mapping shows that where the airstrip is it is still showing an island. The airstrip was gone in the early 1980s and certainly the physical boundaries of Hopedale Harbour have changed.

I think section 4 deals with putting the signage on the proper surveys, and this has been done and underway. It also deals with the inclusion of French language into the document with respect to the national park legend. As the minister alluded to, section 5 deals with a slight mix up in the community of Postville where there was a bit of a zoning change, and it has been corrected.

Mr. Speaker, just a few quick remarks. This is in reference to the IC, or the Implementation Committee, which has representation from the Nunatsiavut Government, from the federal government, and certainly from the provincial government. I have worked with this bunch of people before and they are very knowledgeable and very thorough. Usually if there is an agreement or an understanding of agreement it comes to the Implementation Committee, Mr. Speaker. What comes out of this committee is to be deemed as quality information, and I support this amendment. It is my understanding that after the Inuit government elections in Nunatsiavut or the presidential election, this amendment will be going to the Nunatsiavut Assembly for debate and we will wait for the follow up with the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see any amendments that need to be acted on to bring this agreement up to standard, certainly we do expect some more because of the fast track of negotiations. You have my support on this amendment, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for St. John's West.

MR. CRUMMELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs and his staff for the briefing on Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act. I would like to respond quickly to the hon. member opposite for Torngat Mountains. He is right on the mark with his comments. It is good to see these amendments moving forward. It is a housekeeping thing, but it is very, very important to the people of the Inuit community.

Just looking at some of my notes here, we certainly understand this bill would incorporate technical amendments to the documents that make up the agreement. More than that again, it demonstrates the commitment of this government and the commitment of this government for the implementation of the agreement for sure. Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to ensure the Land Claims Agreement can continue to be successfully implemented for the benefit of the Labrador Inuit and all other residents of the Province. These amendments help that process.

Mr. Speaker, just quickly, on January 22, 2005 at a signing ceremony in Nain, representatives from the provincial government, the federal government, and the Labrador Inuit Association signed the historic Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement and this is what this amendment is all about. Mr. Speaker, this historic moment was a result of almost thirty years of negotiations and defined rights (inaudible) for the Inuit of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this historic agreement has been referred to as a modern-day treaty, the first of its kind in Atlantic Canada. Not only did this agreement provide certainty over land use and title, it paved the way for future economic development for Inuit and non-Inuit in Northern Labrador. It provided the means to establish and build their own government and enter into a new relationship with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, this agreement is constitutionally protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The agreement set out details of land ownership, resource sharing, and self-government. It provided for the establishment of the Labrador Inuit Settlement Area totalling approximately 72,500 square kilometres, including 15,800 square kilometres of Inuit-owned lands. The self-government provisions of the agreement resulted in the creation of the Nunatsiavut Government comprised of five Inuit communities, including Nain, Hopedale, Postville, Makkovik, and Rigolet. Mr. Speaker, there are now over 7,000 Labrador Inuit beneficiaries to this agreement.

Since the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement came into effect in 2005, provincial departments and agencies have worked actively along with Nunatsiavut Government elected officials and representatives, and a result of some of this work we are tasked here today, to amend the agreement. Amendments to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement require the consent of all three signatories, as the hon. minister mentioned earlier. As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, an MOA was signed April 20 with regard to the amendments before the House today.

Due diligence, careful consideration, and recommendations for amendments have taken place by all three levels of government. Since representatives of all governments have submitted these recommendations for approval by their respective governments, I feel this hon. House should approve the amendments in due course here this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Leader of the Third Party.

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

I am very pleased to stand this afternoon and speak to Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act of 2009. I thank the minister for his explanation of the bill we are dealing with today in the House. I am more than pleased to say, of course, that we will be voting for the bill.

I have said this before in this hon. House and I will say it again: I think it is something for us to recognize and to be proud of that we have Aboriginal groups in this Province whose rights are being recognized. We know how many years the Inuit negotiated with both the federal and provincial governments to get to the point that they got to when the Land Claims Agreement was finally put in place. It was a very happy moment when I was one of the ones able to stand here in this House and vote for the first Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act in 2009.

I am very pleased to know that the Implementation Committee continues to do its work and continues to make sure there are no discrepancies and no questions with regard to the land and waters that are owned and governed by the Nunatsiavut Government and the Nunatsiavut people. I think that is what this bill is doing today. It is being very, very clear about what we mean with regard to various legal descriptions and what we mean with regard to the land that is governed by the Nunatsiavut Government; because land, of course, includes water. They have made it very clear now with the changes here in this bill what is meant with regard to the land mass and the water mass that is part of the Land Claims Agreement.

I do not think there is more to be said. I compliment the Committee on continuing to do its work. I am very happy to stand with the other members of the House today and vote for this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs speaks snow, he will close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. McGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank my colleague from St. John's West for his comments as well as the members from Torngat Mountains and Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi for their comments concerning this bill.

I would also like to take the opportunity now to thank the Implementation Committee for the work that they have done preparing this. I think it is very important that our government works closely with the Nunatsiavut government in bringing these amendments forward to make the act a soundproof act. As we were going through the bill for the amendments, I noticed that the book of amendments is actually thicker than the act itself, so this could be an ongoing process as they find different things. I know the Member for Torngat Mountains mentioned the island that was on the map already, and that since is no longer an island; it has been joined to the mainland there with the airstrip. Those are changes that can happen and, as they do amendments, will be made.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is committed to the implementation of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement. Mr. Speaker, amendments to the LILCA require the consent of all three parties as I mentioned earlier, the provincial government, the federal government, as well as the Nunatsiavut government. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador were taking the – we were ready to move forward with our amendments, so we will be the first of the three parties to bring this forward. I expect after the election, as stated by the Member for Torngat Mountains, the Nunatsiavut government will introduce their amendments either this summer or early fall. Right after those amendments have been accepted, I expect the federal government to move forward; then all three parties will be in consent with it.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Nunatsiavut government, and the federal government, we are all in agreement with these amendments, Mr. Speaker, so I ask all members of this hon. House to please support this bill. With this, I close the debate.

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 Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act. (Bill 23)

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: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

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

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, second reading of Bill 24.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Extinguish Obsolete Actions In The Province". (Bill 24)

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

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, that Bill 24 now be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 24, An Act To Extinguish Obsolete Actions In The Province, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Extinguish Obsolete Actions In The Province". (Bill 24)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple piece of legislation. It is really a housekeeping item; it is really a bill to clean up some of the antiquated language that we find in some of our provisions and our laws, as well as to abolish certain torts that have existed on the books for a number of years. Actually, Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat interesting to learn that torts such as these, or actions such as these, have existed in our legislation for so long without having been abolished already.

Mr. Speaker, we have a hundred pieces of legislation that the Department of Justice is responsible for, and we continuously review that legislation and correct anomalies, errors, misprints, and references to legislation that has previously been repealed, and so on. We do that on a constant basis, but we always find more, Mr. Speaker, as we go through it. Since we have a hundred pieces of legislation, some of it in itself is old legislation, been on the books for a long time, and consequently we find these antiquated language provisions in some of these acts. So, Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat apologetically today that we present this bill looking to extinguish obsolete actions in this Province because of the nature of the actions involved, and the torts involved.

Mr. Speaker, this bill would remove from the laws of this Province, for example, the right of a person to sue another person for damages for breach of promise of marriage, for example. It would also remove the rights of a person to sue another person for damages for the loss of services of a female in consequences of rape or seduction. Now, it is somewhat amazing that this kind of language is still in our legislation, Mr. Speaker, and today we bring it forward to abolish it, as it probably should have been done a long time ago.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to these two torts, the bill would also remove references to these obsolete laws that appear in other pieces of legislation. For example, Evidence Act, the Jury Act, Small Claims Act, Survival of Actions Act – these pieces of legislation make reference to the torts of breach of promise of marriage, criminal conversation, seduction, and so on.

Mr. Speaker, these antiquated legal actions that invade society, of course, have the effect of treating women as property. They were brought forward in the days when there were proprietary rights with spouses and so on, and to see that it still exists in some form today, in some provisions is somewhat amazing actually. The language is degrading to women and of course does not recognize women as equal members of society. We bring it forth today, long after the fact actually, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the action known as breach of promise of marriage in reducing a spouse to leave is an exchange of promise of the marriage. It still has a legal obligation in common law. It is a common-law tort. The reason why perhaps it was not picked up earlier is because it is a common-law tort. It does not appear in legislation but it is actionable for damages because it still exists in common law. Of course, it is obsolete, Mr. Speaker, because it does not reflect contemporary social standards today. It is no longer in the public interest to induce marriage by the threat of legal action. No useful purpose is served by retaining the action for breach of promise of marriage. Most jurisdictions, Mr. Speaker, have abolished these actions long ago. As a matter of fact, in 1998, the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench ruled that the law breach of promise of marriage was inconsistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Speaker, extinguishing the law of breach of promise to marry does not mean that individuals who have suffered financial loss because of the actions of the other half would be left out in the cold. Under the law of contract you can recover financial contributions to property, or you can recover money paid to advance another persons career and so on, but what this bill will take away, Mr. Speaker, is the threat of legal action by a person whose feelings were injured when another person gets cold feet.

Mr. Speaker, the tort of seduction was brought to this Canadian common law from the English common law. It is known as the loss of services of a female in consequences of rape or seduction. Again, an antiquated, obsolete law rooted in futile notions, Mr. Speaker, and suggests that certain individuals can hold property, interest and others. Again, an antiquated notion of a man's quasi-proprietary right to women and obviously needs to be stricken from the books.

Mr. Speaker, a criminal conversation is a tort arising from adultery, similar to a breach of promise of marriage, and allows a deserted spouse to seek damages for the act of sexual intercourse outside of marriage. Again, this tort is based on the compensation for a husband for proprietary rights. Thankfully, Mr. Speaker, we have recognized these and now can get them off the books. That tort, Mr. Speaker, has already been abolished from family law thankfully, but it is still referenced in some provisions. The Small Claims Act, for example, has reference to it. So this bill would remove that.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, our officials are constantly reviewing legislation for anomalies, errors, misprints and appeals, repeals. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, we also meet regularly with people like the Law Society and the Canadian Bar Association, the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women all the time getting input in how our legislation can be reviewed and improved. We continue to have a good working relationship with these people.

Mr. Speaker, I will say nothing else on that bill and ask the members to vote for it as quickly as possible.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am happy to stand here today and speak to this bill. It is my belief that – I am not going to talk for the sake of talking, so I am going to make my points very quickly.

The purpose of this act is simply housecleaning in nature. Some of the civil law torts that are being discussed here – I would wager a guess that the Minister of Finance is probably the longest tenured solicitor, I do not imagine he has seen these in his career. They are old, they are obsolete. This is a housecleaning operation here today simply to clean up the legislation. It gets done all the time. There is not much substance to this whatsoever. It is just a matter of making our legislation more up-to-date and more relevant. The torts may have had some bearing in a time long before now but they are not relevant to today's society.

Looking to the legislation, it is a very small, short piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, I would say. We will be supporting this. Again, as I have said, there is no need to belabour it. I think the minister has laid it out very adequately in the amount of time that he had.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

I am happy to join with the minister and with my colleague from the Official Opposition in speaking to this bill. I will follow the modelling that was just done for me by the previous speaker. I do not think we need to take a lot of time in speaking to this bill; the minister gave a good explanation.

Obviously, there may be other things in legislation as well which are antiquated. I do not know if the Department of Justice is doing a look at every piece of legislation that we have but I would encourage the minister to look at important pieces of legislation such as this one, the legislation that is referred to in the bill. The Evidence Act, for example, and the Jury Act, these are the two acts in which these torts have been found besides the common law torts that the minister made reference to.

I think it is important that the language in our bills is language that reflects today's society. We do have a Human Rights Act and a Human Rights Code. I would hope that we are looking at all of our legislation through the lens of human rights. Because I think what the minister spoke to today really is an issue of human rights. While there was a gender aspect to what he talked about, there are other human rights, too, besides the human rights that come under gender. I would hope that we would be taking action to make sure that all of our legislation is up-to-date and would not be something that would embarrass us at some point in time. I will be happy to vote for this bill.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the Minister of Justice –

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Speaker.

I thank the hon. members –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. F. COLLINS: Sorry.

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

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

I thank the hon. members for their co-operation and their support. I look forward to move this bill now to second reading.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Extinguish Obsolete Actions In The Province. (Bill 24)

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

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

MR. KENNEDY: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Extinguish Obsolete Actions In The Province", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 24)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Regulate The Personal Services Industry, Bill 27, and I further move that the said bill be now read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: Government House Leader, could you repeat that bill again, please?

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. First reading, Order 5 on the Order Paper, on Bill 27.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Regulate The Personal Services Industry, Bill 27, and I further move that the said bill be now read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Regulate The Personal Services Industry, Bill 27, and that the said bill be now read the first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 27, and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Regulate The Personal Services Industry", carried. (Bill 27)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Regulate The Personal Services Industry. (Bill 27)

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

When will the bill be read a second time?

MR. KENNEDY: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

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

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 3, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Optometry In The Province, Bill 25.

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

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education that the bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Optometry In The Province, Bill 25, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 25, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Optometry In The Province, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Practice Of Optometry In The Province". (Bill 25)

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

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the bill, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Optometry In The Province. The practice of optometry in this Province is currently regulated under the act entitled Optometry Act, 2004, but the bill I am introducing will repeal and replace that particular act. The Newfoundland and Labrador Optometric Board is the regulatory body for optometry, and it is made up of optometrists elected by the profession and two other people, Mr. Speaker, who are not optometrists, but who are appointed by the minister.

There are currently about fifty-one licensed optometrists in the Province, Mr. Speaker. An optometrist, as most would know, is an independent health care provider who specializes in the examination, diagnosis, treatment, management, and prevention of diseases and disorders of the visual system, the eye and associated structures, as well as the diagnosis of related systemic conditions. Mr. Speaker, these health care professionals are on the front line of vision care in this Province, and they play an important role in the health care system. So this bill, then will address four major areas that are not addressed in the current act, and it also contains some minor changes of a non-substantive housekeeping nature.

Mr. Speaker, one of the changes is the change in the name to a board. Because of the name change, almost every section of the act would have to be amended. So, Mr. Speaker, rather than doing that, we are introducing a new bill into the House, rather than doing the numerous amendments.

So I will outline now the differences between the two acts, Mr. Speaker. First of all, the change of name – the first objective achieved by this bill is the name change from the Newfoundland and Labrador Optometric Board to the Newfoundland and Labrador College of Optometrists. The title change is consistent with the title used by most optometry regulatory bodies across Canada and by some other regulatory bodies as well, here in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the second major objective achieved by this bill is the inclusion of a new provision that explicitly states that the board is required to legislate, or required to regulate, rather, the practice of optometry and the optometric profession in the public industry. While this provision, Mr. Speaker, does not change the primary mandate of the board, it does emphasize and confirm that the board must act in the interests of the public. Regulatory bodies are not advocacy bodies for professions; they are required to regulate the profession in such a manner as to ensure insofar as possible public protection.

The bill also sets out specific objectives of the board, which include the promotion of high standards of practice, the promotion of continuing competency and quality, improvement through continuing education, the administration of a licensing program, and, of course, the protection of the public interest through the administration of a quality assurance program in a discipline process. That, Mr. Speaker, is found in subsection 7.

Another one of the major objectives to be achieved by this bill is the new requirement that students of optometry register with the board prior to commencing a placement as part of an academic program in optometry. Mr. Speaker, while there is no optometry school in this Province, optometry students and, in particular, optometry students from Newfoundland and Labrador often wish to complete the practical component of their academic program here in this Province. Mr. Speaker, when a student is registered, he or she will be able to perform tasks within the scope of practice of an optometrist, but only under, of course, the direct supervision of a practicing optometrist. That is an important piece of change there, Mr. Speaker, to allow these students who want to do the practicum portion of their studies here in the Province, but they do need to register.

Requiring optometry students to register prior to beginning their practical placement provides the board with a method of monitoring student placements and it creates enhanced accountability not only for the board, Mr. Speaker, but also for the practicing optometrists who act as a supervisor for these students.

The fourth objective that we would like to see achieved through this bill is the legislative requirement that the board establish a quality assurance program that will promote high standards of practice within the optometry profession. The quality assurance program will include requirements for all optometrists to participate in mandatory continuing education and professional development, Mr. Speaker. It will promote continuing competence and continuing quality improvement, all important aspects of any of our health care professions. These provisions will ensure that optometrists maintain current competencies throughout their careers and consequently will be able to provide a high level of service to their patients.

The bill establishes also, Mr. Speaker, a quality assurance committee to investigate quality assurance concerns that might be raised. The committee's powers include the ability to subpoena records, or to order an optometrist to undergo an evaluation, assessment, or examination, or to order a review of an optometrist's practice, and order periodic or random audits of aspects of an optometrist's practice.

The quality assurance measures in the bill provide the board with the legislative authority to investigate and assess an optometrist's practice before a practice's issues and concerns become matters so serious that they would have to be dealt with through the disciplinary process. Mr. Speaker, early intervention will improve practice, we believe. Where there is a need for improvement, ultimately that will enhance patient safety.

Optometrists will be required to comply with orders made by the quality assurance committee, Mr. Speaker. Failure to comply with such an order may result in disciplinary action. The quality assurance provisions in the bill are consistent with those that are in the new medical act that was introduced here last year: the Medical Act, 2011.

Mr. Speaker, that is a synopsis of what we are looking at here in this particular bill, in this act, and how it is that we hope to be able to achieve it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak to this particular bill, which basically has a housecleaning aspect to it. We are taking what was already there and we are bringing it up to speed and creating not really an amendment, but we are taking the old act and creating a new one, because it is actually probably easier to do that than to go through the old one and just eliminate all the references to the old body.

It seems to me that in this case, the optometrists of this Province are moving towards the creation of their own group similar to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, or even the Law Society. Basically, in this case, they are allowed to be self-regulating, which carries with it a large duty. As the minister said, you are not just advocating for yourself; your job is to ensure that you are looking after the people who avail of your services; by doing so, really you are looking after yourself. If you are making sure that the people you treat are looked after and are given the highest-quality service, then you are only going to be making sure that the members of your group are held in the highest esteem possible and are protected.

I have had an opportunity to review the legislation. A lot of it is not onerous. It is a large bill but a lot of it is just establishing the function of the college and the different rules whether it be the council, the quality assurance, making sure that there is compliance; similar to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, similar to the Law Society, similar to any self-regulating organization. In doing so, you have to make sure that you lay out a code and you have to lay out the rules and regulations in which you operate. You have to start off by making sure that the students who come in are all part of it. Everybody has to follow the same rules. Having done some work in the past dealing with the College of Physicians and being a part of the Law Society, you have to be a part of that group and there is a set of bylaws there in which you have to follow.

My understanding is that we have roughly fifty optometrists working in this Province right now and we all know they provide a valuable service. The fact is, when it comes to our health and well-being we need to make sure our professionals not only are providing a great service, but make sure they are insuring that the rest of their fellows are providing a great service. If somebody is not providing the greatest quality then we have to make sure that issue is taken care of. The people of this Province need to be comfortable knowing that they are being provided with a fair, high-quality service. If they do not feel that way then these groups are not going to reputable and that is obviously not the case, not what anybody wants.

I know this piece of work has been in the works for a number of years now. It is my understanding that it is supported by the optometrists of this Province, which is obviously the most important part to me. If they are subscribing to this then they need to have been consulted in this process, which they have been. As my colleague, the Member for Humber Valley, our Leader states: we need to make sure that the public is protected here. Having great dealings with my own personal optometrist in the past that is what they want to make sure happens and is done.

I am not going to belabour a lot of these smaller parts here, the fact that the name of the group has changed slightly, the fact that there are a lot of smaller parts here. We talk about what constitutes a quorum of the council, the fact that the council may make bylaws. A lot of this is standard stuff under any of these self-regulating professions. Again, you have to set standards and set rules that they have to follow. They cannot change the rules to apply to make things easier.

You move on to section 14.(1), which is the application for a licence. It lays out the standards they have to meet. They have to ensure they have the proper qualifications and proper degree. This has to be laid out before the board, and they need ensure that everybody who should be a member – make sure that they are entitled to become a member of that board.

Two very good things about this piece of legislation I would say are, number one, any profession needs to ensure that you allow and, in fact, encourage professional development. That does not matter what profession we are dealing with. Especially when you have been in your particular field for a number of years, you need to make sure you keep up with current practices, best practices, and current standards. We need to encourage that. In some cases we need to encourage it, make sure it happens. We cannot be going by older standards and practices.

The second part - and this is a part that should be considered very important by the public - is that there is a very strong discipline section to this piece of legislation. We need to make sure that if somebody, and in this case we are dealing with optometrists, is not following by the law in which they are to be held, then the rest of the optometrists and the board that governs them needs to make sure they are subject to discipline. We cannot allow these things to happen.

Mr. Speaker, there is a complaints authorization committee, similar to the ones used by other boards. There is a process that is followed under just about every component of this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: We have to lay out the fact it has to protect the public, but it also has to protect the members of the group. It allows for a complaint process but it also allows for an appeal process.

What I would say, Mr. Speaker, is that we will be supporting this legislation. We think it is a step in the right direction, obviously, and it is something that has been guided along by the people who will be subject to it, the optometrists, which is the main part.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak today, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CROSS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly great to rise again today to speak to this bill. By the time we get it passed, we will have clear vision in the optometry field.

The Optometry Act, 2004, obviously needs some rehashing a little bit. The movement here is just housekeeping and to change the name. I refer to the document that was passed out. It seems quite thick and lengthy, but when you get into it, most of it is there occupying paper, because in the change of name, the reference is so often that it covers a fair bit of the paper that is there.

I would just like to reiterate in just a short moment or two that the big part of this is the change of name to the council of optometrists. What is very important here as well is the registry for students of optometry. As our minister said, there is no school of optometry in Newfoundland; by having our students register with our local college now, we will have more access to them for student placements and for better operation and better administration of these acts.

As well, it creates quality assurance, which demands high standards of the optometrist. When everybody goes to see a doctor, no matter if it is a GP, optometrist, or any other specialist, you want to know that the person is very professional; not just the word professional, but there is an assurance there and regulations in place that have some teeth to them that give quality prescriptions, give quality service to the individuals.

Also, there is a mandatory continuing education component in this. This is something now that is in keeping with most professional organizations, that they require their members to be constantly upgrading their skills and their information and keeping up with professional development. If I can borrow a comment from the Leader of the Third Party in her last comment, if we look at this as more appropriate, probably, in this way, through this lens, then the professional development component of this will be upgraded and would have greatness coming from it.

The big part of this that I really like to see is that it does offer protection: protection for the public, protection for the optometrist. It is a two-way stream; we have to make sure that we do include protection for all areas. To finally quote the minister before I sit down, I would like to say that this is a good bill brought forward and it will improve the governance model for optometry in this Province and bring us up to the level to be second to none in any other area in Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am happy to speak to Bill 25 which deals with An Act Respecting The Practice Of Optometry In The Province. This legislation that we have in front of us today is quite similar to other pieces of legislation that we have dealt with in the last years that I have been here in this House, dealing with professional groups and the formation of their associations. In many cases, the associations have already existed, as is the case with the optometrists.

The bill that we are dealing with today, and other bills that we have dealt with, with some of the other professional groups – chiropractors, social workers, forest management professionals, for example, were some of the ones that we dealt with in other bills – we are bringing new aspects into the bill and bringing, I think, in the template, because it is a template that we are using, and the template obviously recognizes the differences of the different professional groups; at the same time, all the important things that are necessary for regulation and for good governance are similar for all of the associations. I think that that is very good.

It is part of actions that are coming forward from a 1997 white paper which made this recommendation that we should have legislation covering the various professional groups. It is good to see that government is working with the professional groups; they have been doing that, and I know from the minister that they did it with regard to this one as well, working with the professional groups in doing the revamping of the legislation so that – I think one of the most important reasons for doing it, two, I guess: one is for the professional groups themselves to have a good sense of who they are, a sense of professionalism, a sense of self-respect; and also for the public to feel confident, to have confidence in the professional group that they are working with.

They know that the group of professionals that they are working with are regulated. They are self-regulated, but they are accountable to the public and to the government through the legislation. I think that is what is really important, that they are accountable, and while they self-regulate, there is mutually agreed-upon legislation that governs how they self-regulate. I think that is extremely important. The mandate and the objectives of the organization of optometrists in Newfoundland and Labrador are clearly outlined in the act, just like the other professional groups who have such legislation, have their mandate and objectives clearly outlined as well.

There are a couple of things very important in this bill. The minister herself did make reference to the piece with regard to students getting practical experience; it is almost apprenticeship training, if one would like. I think that is extremely important because in moving forward as an organization, as a group of professionals, it is important that new people coming into it know the standards that are in place. Being out there in the workplace working helps them get used to what the standards are.

Another good piece that is in this bill – and I notice it is in another bill that we are going to be dealing with later on today – is the introduction of a quality assurance program. I think that is very important. The quality assurance program has continuing education and professional development standards that are now mandated, and I find that very important.

One of the things I think people need to know, the general public certainly needs to know, is because optometrists are a group of health professionals and health providers dealing, of course, with our eyes and the importance of having healthy vision, that they, as a health group, actually come under the piece of legislation that we have which protects the privacy of patients. The Optometry Act is one of the acts that is included in the privacy health act. One of the changes actually is that – it is at the end of the act. There are changes that have to be made to pieces of legislation. One of the things that is noted is that subparagraph (2)(1)(j)(xi) of the Personal Health Information Act is repealed.

What is repealed is that in the act it used to say the Optometry Act with the old date, and now the Personal Health Information Act will include the Optometry Act with new date, 2012. The section where that occurs in the Personal Health Information Act is the definition of who are health professions, so that everything that is in this act that has to do with patient care and privacy is covered by another act. I think it is important for people to know that: covered by the Personal Health Information Act.

When this bill refers to the fact that the health professionals, for example, when you are looking at a case being studied, where something has gone wrong or is reported to have gone wrong and a committee has to look at the situation and an assessor, who in an optometrist, is put in place, that assessor may go into patients' files, if necessary, and patients do not have to know that file was looked at by the assessor. The protection for that is actually in the other act, and that is really important. The minister may have said that, but I would like to repeat it because I think it is important for people to know. They do not have to worry; there is protection there for them, and only health professionals have that access to patients' files. The optometrists, through this new act, and through this act being named in the Personal Health Information Act, are identified and they are covered by the Personal Health Information Act.

I think the Department of Health and Community Services, and I imagine the Department of Justice too, because they look at all pieces of legislation, have done a good job in making sure that the two pieces of legislation work together.

I would, at this point in time, just like to take one moment, Mr. Speaker, to just talk about the need of having services of optometrists covered by MCP. One that would be the really concerning one is eye examinations for corrective lenses. We know that people who get income assistance can have that cost covered, but there are many people for whom eye examinations, when they know they have eye problems, can be prohibitive; the cost of the examinations can be prohibitive. I think we do have to move further as a government in looking at the fact that optometry and healthy eyes are part of health care. We need to look at why we do not cover, under MCP, eye examinations for corrective lenses.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Another concern, there are a number of important medical issues not covered by MCP and others that we are concerned about. We do not cover things that a lot of the other provinces do; for example, chiropractors, podiatrists, naturopaths, osteopaths, and physiotherapists, unless they are in one of our facilities.

We do have a ways to go in recognizing things that are not covered by MCP. One of them is the care of our eyes. I think it is something that we do need to look at, Mr. Speaker. Having said that, I am very happy that we will have An Act Respecting The Practice Of Optometry In The Province. It is an extremely important profession. I will be very happy to vote for this bill.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the Minister of Health and Community Services speaks now she will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the new provisions that we have discussed here today and debated somewhat, I think go a long way in terms of enhancing public protection and patient safety. That was the premise under which all of these regulations and conditions have been developed, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to point out as well that optometrists in the Province that we have consulted with have told us they are very supportive of the new act that we have introduced into the House today, very much looking forward to it. The amendments were I think something that we have been waiting for a while now, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to say again that the board, soon to be the new college, is fully supportive.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to seeing this legislation passed to improve the governance model for optometry in the Province and to further enhance public protection.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 Respecting The Practice Of Optometry In The Province. (Bill 25)

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Practice Of Optometry In The Province", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 25)

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 2.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 4.

The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs, that Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 2, be now read the second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 2, be now read the second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 2". (Bill 26)

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

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The new Service Newfoundland and Labrador is a department which brings together many of the key service activities of government. Our mandate in Service Newfoundland and Labrador has a number of key aspects and these include investigation, permitting, inspection and enforcement. In all of those areas the protection of businesses and that of the general public is top of mind.

In the area of public protection, we look at a number of aspects, including public health, Occupational Health and Safety, and the protection of consumers. The area of consumer protection is a growing part of what we do in my department. Particularly, we strengthened our legislation through the launch of the Consumer Protection and Business Practices Act.

This act originally came into effect on December 1, 2009 and incorporated principal components from several pieces of legislation, which included the Consumer Protection Act, the Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, the Consumer Reporting Agencies Regulations, the Cost of Consumer Credit Disclosure Act, Direct Sellers Act, Trade Practices Act, Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act, and the Unsolicited Goods and Credit Cards Act. Mr. Speaker, a variety of acts and regulations, as I just listed. Mr. Speaker, these were brought together to create a single piece of legislation for the protection of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Service NL, through the Consumer Protection and Business Practices Act, licenses direct selling activities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Direct sellers are suppliers who enter into a direct sales contract. A direct sales contract refers to an agreement between a consumer and supplier that is negotiated or concluded in person at a place other than the supplier's place of business, or a marketplace, an auction, a trade fair, an agricultural fair, or an exhibition. Basically, Mr. Speaker, this is when you are approached in person by a salesperson to buy something. Quite often this occurs at your own home. An example, Mr. Speaker, of a direct seller would be a door-to-door salesperson, someone selling catalogue items such as jewellery, or someone selling home alarm systems.

In a former Direct Sellers Act, both suppliers and salespersons were required to be licensed as direct sellers. Mr. Speaker, this was changed in 1996 and the requirements then shifted to licensing just the suppliers and not individuals. Then on an annual basis since that time the supplier was required to submit an annual filing indicating the number of salespersons employed. The licensing fee was based on the number of salespersons and ranged from $100 to $500.

Mr. Speaker, when the new act was drafted in 2008 and 2009, a requirement for salespersons and officers or directors involved in the management of the business to obtain a licence was included in error. This was an error in the legislation and it still exists today, Mr. Speaker. The act, as it is today, was intended to require only suppliers to be licensed as direct sellers, not individual employees of the business. Since the act came into force in 2009, Service NL has maintained a practice of licensing those suppliers rather than sales persons, as was originally intended in the legislation. As a result, we have not created a situation in the market where salespeople have been licensed. Mr. Speaker, this amendment will correct this error and will now reflect that the current practice, which is only suppliers, are to be licensed as direct sellers and not individual employees.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand and make a few comments on this very minor amendment to the Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act. I thank the member and his staff for the briefing, although it was pretty much housecleaning and I think the whole purpose was to correct an error that was pointed out when this act came into force, as the hon. member said, on December 1, 2009. At this time there was a consolidation to bring together a number of pieces – I think, nine pieces of the Consumer Protection Act; I have looked at the act, and it is a daunting task, Mr. Speaker.

I guess the only correction that was made, as the minister alluded to, was the oversight on direct sellers being accountable when things went wrong and that they would be on the hook. I think this amendment just speaks to correcting this, letting the direct sellers off the hook and not accountable, but it does, in the interest of consumer protection, hold the company accountable. I think this is very important when you do look at the number of direct sellers in our Province; that number is somewhere between 600 and 700, although, Mr. Speaker, up in my district we do not get many door-to-door salesmen, but we do get a few.

I think this amendment puts the onus on the company itself to deal with any issues that may develop from direct sellers, and it is not necessarily a change in policy, Mr. Speaker, so I think we support this amendment to this. Certainly it is government's mandate, through Service Newfoundland and Labrador, to protect the interests of consumers, and I am glad that this correction is being pointed out. It certainly did cause some controversy when direct sellers were held accountable. I think it is relevant to Bill 6, which deals with distance service contracts, which is another way that we enhance protection of consumers.

So, just a slight housekeeping, as the minister alluded to; certainly, we have no problem with this amendment to the consumer protection bills act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: I think the minister wanted to get ahead of me, but I had to cut him off. As big as I am, I am still agile.

I want to thank the minister for the couple of words that he had to say on this; just a couple of words from myself on this one, because this does appear to be a little bit of a housekeeping measure that they are looking after here. I have a couple of little concerns with regards to this and I am hoping that probably when we go to Committee of the Whole I might get a few more questions on this one answered at the same time.

That deals with one particular group that may be slightly affected when it comes to the fact of having no licensing now for direct sellers, if I have that right; suppliers will still be licensed, direct sellers will not be. It is just as well to bring it up now, particularly when you are talking about the alarm industry, and no, we are not talking about bonding in this particular case.

In that particular industry, we have a lot of people out there – it is a very, very competitive industry and my concern lies in the fact that there are still some people who are out there very vulnerable to the person who knocks at the door. Some seniors and that have been to the point that they are put almost under pressure; that is the word that I get from a couple of alarm businesses out there. They are coerced sometimes into buying something that they really do not need because they already have a service put in place. You are seeing one alarm company coming in and charging more for a service that another company already has put in there.

I am looking at getting a little bit of clarification when it comes to the direct seller idea on this piece of legislation. Having said that, there is nothing else that I can see that would be readily apparent that really jumps out at me other than that particular notice. I know, for example, when it comes to the licensing of alarm companies and their personnel, I think there is a $35 licensing fee there as well as the need for a certificate of conduct.

I just wanted to bring it to the attention of the minister because I think that this is probably one industry where we are going to have to take a very serious look-see as regards to the kind of selling that is being done here. Because, of course, we have any number of companies that are out there doing the door-to-door selling, and some companies are really out there slugging it out there in the trenches, trying to make a dollar for themselves, yes, but at the same time some of the competition that is on the go out there almost borders beyond the meaning of competition to the point where it is almost harassment. So, I will leave that with the minister. Like I said, I think that I will probably address it again in Committee of the Whole when it comes around.

Right now, as regards to the other housecleaning options that this bill entails with, we will reserve a decision on it until we get to Committee of the Whole. I will leave it at that for now, Mr. Speaker, and I guess pass it over to the minister, unless there is somebody else who wants to speak to it.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER (Kent): Order, please!

If the hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador speaks now, he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, as well, would like to thank the members of the House for participating in this debate this afternoon. I appreciate their input, and I appreciate the question from the Member for St. John's East.

Mr. Speaker, the removal of the requirement for a direct seller, individual direct sellers to be licensed, was removed from legislation in 1996. A significant period of time has passed then since that point in time and there is no circumstance that has been brought to my attention that would require us to review that, to bring that requirement back in place that would improve the protection of consumers and improve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

According to my department, they tell us that this process that is in place now, and has been for many years, works quite well. It requires businesses to be registered and to register with a number of direct sellers, based on the number of direct sellers that they have in their business. My officials tell me this is working well and has for many years; however, I say to the hon. member opposite that the case has not been made where the protection of consumers would be improved by licensing those individual direct sellers.

Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to thank those members. This was an error in legislation when the new act was brought in, in 2009. The Consumer Protection and Business Practices Act was introduced in 2009. It was an accumulation of a number of other pieces of legislation. What we are asking today is correct an error that existed in that piece of legislation, but again, it has not changed how consumers in this Province are protected and it will not change that in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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 – oh, sorry.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 2. (Bill 26)

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. Let us try this again.

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 Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 2", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 26)

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I call Bill 28, An Act To Amend The Psychologists Act, 2005.

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

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture that the bill, An Act To Amend The Psychologists Act, 2005, Bill 28, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that Bill 28, An Act To Amend The Psychologists Act, 2005, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Psychologists Act, 2005". (Bill 28)

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

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise at this occasion to introduce a bill to amend the Psychologists Act. This act governs the practice of psychology in the Province. The act establishes the Newfoundland and Labrador Psychology Board as the regulatory body for the psychology profession in the Province, and the board consists of five psychologists elected by their peers, Mr. Speaker, and two directors appointed by the minister to represent the public interest.

Mr. Speaker, in this Province we are very fortunate to have 212 registered psychologists. Psychologists, of course, are licensed clinicians that primarily assess, diagnose, and treat mental health and addictions problems. They function either independently or as part of a health care team that work with clients to maximize mental health and well-being.

Mr. Speaker, psychologists operate with a significant degree of initiative and leadership within the context of the involved health care delivery framework, and aim to achieve professional standards of practice, integrity, and respect. They frequently act as a resource for other health care professionals, advising on and participating in the development, implementation and evaluation of policies and procedures, including risk management, quality improvement, and workload issues.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, will improve the Psychologists Act, 2005 by adding several new sections – and those sections will include: an explicit statement of the objects of the board; an expanded section on the duties of the registrar; sections outlining registration requirements and types of registration; and quality assurance provisions. The bill also contains some minor changes of a very non-substantive housekeeping nature, Mr. Speaker.

What I will do now is, I will outline the most important changes to the bill for my hon. colleagues here in the House. First of all, the primary mandate of the governing bodies of all of the health professions in this Province is public protection. Public protection is achieved when only qualified and competent practitioners are permitted to deliver health care services and members of the profession adhere to high standards of professional conduct.

This bill proposes, therefore, that a new section will be added immediately after subsection 3.(1) of the act that will explicitly state that the objects of the psychology board include: the promotion of high standards of practice, the promotion of continuing competency, and quality improvement through continuing education, the administration of a registration program, and ensuring protection of the public interest by the administration of a quality assurance program, and a discipline process. This section emphasizes the duty of the board to act, Mr. Speaker, in the interests of the public.

The bill will repeal, Mr. Speaker, section 9 of the act and replace it with an updated list of the responsibilities of the registrar. The updated list highlights public accountability and transparency requirements, and it includes the same duties that are presently in the act but it also contains a requirement. That requirement is that the registrar will maintain a public Web site that includes the board's annual report, the register, the regulations, the bylaws, and other information required by the regulations. Mr. Speaker, these updated provisions recognize the importance of the board maintaining an up-to-date Web site as a primary source of information, not the only, but the primary source of information for the public about the board and registered psychologists in the Province.

Section 5 of the bill, Mr. Speaker, will repeal section 10 of the act and replace it with a new section 10, which is also about registration. It is important that the people who may be considering entering the field of psychology and others who may wish to know about the qualifications of psychologists have access to a clear statement of the criteria that must be met in order to be registered as a psychologist in the Province.

Section 10 of the act sets out the registration requirements for psychologists. The bill repeals the current section and replaces it with a section that sets out the requirements for that registration as a registered psychologist in a clear and very concise manner, Mr. Speaker.

Under the proposed section 10, a person may apply for registration where he or she holds a doctoral or master's degree in psychology from a school satisfactory to the board; must meet the required competencies specified in Guidelines for Evaluation of Applicants for Registration as a Psychologist; has professional liability coverage; has paid the registration fee and submits the required application form; and finally, satisfies other requirements as prescribed in the regulations.

The bill adds a new section, Mr. Speaker, 10.1 immediately after section 10. This section outlines the criteria that must be met before the board can grant full registration to a psychologist. The new section 10.1 provides that the board may grant full registration to an applicant who meets the requirements set out under the new section 10, and in addition completes the examination prescribed by the board, and has either one or two years of post-degree supervised professional experience in psychology.

Provisional registration, Mr. Speaker; section 7 of the bill repeals section 11 of the act and replaces it with a new section about this provisional registration. The bill includes a new section that sets out when the board can grant a provisional registration to a psychologist. Basically, psychologists will be provisionally licensed once they have completed the academic requirements and they meet the prescribed competencies, but are still gaining supervised professional experience or have not yet completed the certification exam.

Temporary registration is another important piece of this bill, Mr. Speaker. Section 8 of the bill adds a new section, 11.11 to the act. The proposed new section will allow the board to grant temporary registration to a person registered in another jurisdiction who pays the fee set by the board. Temporary registrations will be valid for only thirty days and may be renewed once in a twelve-month period.

The creation of a quality assurance program; section 14 of the bill contains the quality assurance provisions that will be added to the act as sections 30.1 to 30.7. Mr. Speaker, quality assurance is a very important component of the regulation of all of our health professions. The bill requires the psychology board to establish a quality assurance program to promote high standards of practice within the psychology profession.

The quality assurance program will include provisions for mandatory continuing education and professional development, and will promote continuing competence and continuing quality improvement throughout a psychologist's career. The quality assurance measures in the bill will assist the board in meeting its public protection mandate by providing the board with the legislative authority to investigate and assess a psychologist's practice before a practice issue or concern becomes so serious that it would be considered conduct deserving of sanction.

The bill establishes as well a quality assurance committee, which will investigate quality assurance concerns. Psychologists will be required to comply with orders made by the quality assurance committee. Failure to comply with such an order can result in disciplinary action.

The bill will amend the act to require a psychologist who has knowledge, from direct or objective evidence, of conduct deserving of sanction of another psychologist, to report the known facts to the registrar. The ability to investigate and address practice issues before the issues become conduct deserving of sanction will enable the board to potentially prevent harm, Mr. Speaker. The quality assurance program established by the bill is consistent with the program that has been put in place for physicians under the Medical Act, 2011.

Mr. Speaker, government is committed to continuing to enhance public protection through the inclusion of the quality assurance provisions in this bill, and one of the most important pieces of this bill. The bill will also expand the board's authority to make bylaws respecting the maintenance of the register and the form and contents of it; also establishing standards governing the practice of psychology, including standards of professional competence and of capacity and fitness to practice; and finally respecting the remuneration, and allowances payable to directors of the board for attending meetings and for carrying out the functions of the board under the act.

In terms of the regulations, Mr. Speaker, section 14 of the bill adds new subsections, 35(1) and (a.1) and (a.2) to the act. The bill provides additional regulation-making authority for the board with the approval of the minister to make regulations as follows: respecting the terms and conditions on which registration and provisional registration may be granted or renewed and prescribing the prerequisites, terms and conditions respecting supervision of a person granted provisional registration.

Mr. Speaker, the ability to make regulations regarding the nature of supervision to be provided to provisionally licensed psychologists is extremely important. The board will be closely monitoring the nature of the supervision to ensure that the public is well served and that at the end of the supervision period the psychologist will be qualified for full registration.

In terms of the commencement of this bill, the bill provides with the Psychologists (Amendment) Act, 2005 is to come into force on October 31, 2012. The time between now and October 31 will provide the board with ample opportunity to complete the necessary preparations for the amendments and to provide notice and information to its members regarding amendments.

Mr. Speaker, again, that is a bit of a review of what the amendments to the act will involve. I look forward to hearing comments from my colleagues across the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my privilege today to stand and speak to Bill 28, An Act To Amend The Psychologists Act, 2005. This amendment is certainly self explanatory, and we have heard it throughout the day, the fact that we have gone through much housekeeping when it comes to legislation that we are dealing with here. The 200 psychologists that we have in the Province today, as a regulatory body and as psychologists in general, provide a very valuable service when it comes to, especially, the mental health of the residents of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, we will be supporting these amendments today. One of the things about the amendments that I was very happy to see was the area around quality assurance, and speaking to psychologists in the Province, the fact that professional development would mean that we could expect to see a consistent service from all the psychologists that practice in the Province today.

As a regulatory body it goes beyond the fact that we would see an advocacy role with this association. It is not meant to be that. This is similar to what you would see as a college in some other health professionals. I was very happy to see, I will say, or pleased to see that this amendment clearly states the objects of the board, that being the promotion of the high standards of the psychologists in the Province, the continued competency, and the quality improvement through continuing education as I just mentioned.

The duties of the register will be enhanced through this, but the fact that the board would now have public members on this board – which is something that we have seen in many health care boards now within our Province, and they provide a very valuable role in the administration and the deliberations at the board table. I have had a fair amount of experience working with the public on professional health care boards and I must say that they have always added, in every single case, the public has added to the makeup of the board and it has made the board better; it has made the various boards better simply because they have been there.

Mr. Speaker, the criteria for the registration is clearly outlined in part two of the registration in Section 10 here. What I did notice is the professional liability coverage. I see this to be very positive as we look at the criteria in terms of registration that this particular legislation requires.

From the registration we move into what would be required to grant full registration for the individual psychologist. This ensures that the public will indeed have access to very highly qualified psychologists, not to say that they were not qualified before; they were, but this legislation really clearly defines that so that in the future, we can expect to see that the psychologists who are actually practicing in the Province will certainly have the appropriate education that is required to practice within the Province. The annual certification of the registration in the Province expires, of course, on December 31 on an annual basis. This is very common with health care professionals in the Province.

One of the other things that I think this piece of legislation clearly outlines is the discipline area and the complaints authorization committee, which is a very important piece of this. Because the public, in this particular case, needs to know that if there is ever an incident that they would want to bring to an association because of certain treatment from a psychologist, this gives them the avenue to be able to do that. So, Mr. Speaker, as I said, this is very much a housekeeping piece of legislation, and it is something, as I said, that we will be very pleased to support.

When it comes to the quality assurance, this is something that we are seeing within, as I said, from health professionals throughout the Province, and this is something that for many professionals it has been years and years in the making. I know in my own profession we went down this road really in the early nineties. So it sets very high standards of quality assurance that are mentioned here under Part IV and section 30. It mentions very clearly high standards and the fact that it is mandatory, continuing education is important. So this ensures, once again, that the practising psychologists do meet the criteria that have been mentioned here before.

One of the other things when you look at this, and when I mentioned about the discipline, being a self-regulatory body, right now I know psychologists will be required to keep either professional logs or personal logs on professional development, and then this would be randomly audited by the association just to make sure that the psychologist who is being audited here is indeed keeping up with the professional development that is required. That has been mentioned on a number of pieces of legislation today. We know, through an audit, if a person's individual file was reviewed and assessed as part of an audit, we are assured, from other legislation, that the privacy is protected, because this would be used strictly by health professionals.

So, Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief speaking to this piece of legislation today. It is fairly straightforward, and it outlines some of the things that the psychologists in the Province have been telling the legislators and government over many years now. In speaking to the psychologists that I have spoke to about this, they are very happy to see that we have been able to move this piece of legislation along, and that Bill 28 will be seen as an enhancement to their practice within the Province.

So, that will conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for the opportunity.

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

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

I am happy to have the opportunity to add my voice to the discussion around Bill 28. This is the second bill we are dealing this afternoon which is an act dealing with the professional organization. This act is dealing with psychologists; the earlier one today was with optometrists.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: I am not going to repeat a lot of what has been said by the minister and my colleague who just spoke before me. We know that we are in the process, over a number of years now, of trying to bring legislation in place to modernize the acts of the professional organizations in the Province. The last act, with regard to psychologists, is the Psychologists Act, 2005, that act replaced the old Psychologists Act, which had been in place for quite a number of years.

The 2005 act provides for a board of examiners in psychology, how the board of examiners is elected and appointed, how often they have meeting, et cetera. The 2005 act also allows for a registrar who is a secretary to the board and the process for registering as a psychologist and paying fees. That act also included a complaints authorization committee and an adjudication tribunal to deal with complaints about a particular psychologist. These were extremely important, Mr. Speaker.

The amendments in the bill today will bring in new provisions, and those provisions are extremely important. They are provisions that exist in other pieces of legislation with regard to professional organizations: the objects of the board, the fact that there will be a Web site operated by the registrar, there are some changes to the registration process, changes to the complaints process, which are important, and also, as been pointed out by others just before me, the new quality assurance program and committee and how that will function. That was something that was in the piece of legislation earlier when we looked at optometrists. As has been said as well, this is extremely important because the quality assurance program should really give a good sense of security to people out there who are using psychologists.

We do have a serious lack of access to mental health services in our Province, Mr. Speaker, including psychologists. It is really important that we are taking this action because the more that we can give support to the profession, the more others are going to want to go into the profession and want to come here to Newfoundland and Labrador to practice as psychologists.

We know that the national psychologist organization and the local body, the Association of Psychology Newfoundland and Labrador, are campaigning to get more coverage of psychologists' services under public and private health plans. Some health plans in the country have better coverage than others, ours is not very comprehensive here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

There has been a national survey done about barriers to accessing psychologists' services and that survey found that Newfoundland and Labrador residents had concerns about the lack of access to psychologists due to costs. If psychologists are out there doing the work and people want to go to them and it is not covered by MCP, then it becomes very prohibitive. If people have health care plans, private health care plans, workplace health care plans, plans like we ourselves have here in the House of Assembly, then we can get coverage under that health care plan if we want to go see a psychologist but psychologists are not covered by our public health care plans. It can be very difficult to access them under the private plans because there are not enough of them. Those of us who have private plans can try but we cannot always get in because there are not enough; 93 per cent of the respondents to the survey of people in this Province wanted coverage for psychologists to be covered by the public health care plans.

A psychologist should be available to all residents. We say we are concerned about mental health, and government has done a number of initiatives with regard to mental health in the Province, but psychologists are very important in that whole process. A lot of people do not know the difference between psychologists and psychiatrists. The role of the psychologist is one that really gets into working with people on their behaviour, on their ability to function, both in their families, in society, and that contributes to social stability.

Having psychologists, especially, for example, in our school systems, we do not have enough school psychologists. Having psychologists really helps our communities, helps our society be a better place. Issues of bullying, for example, if somebody is bullying they probably have a major problem and if we had a school psychologist who could work with bullies that would be very helpful. People who are bullied themselves then have problems because of being bullied. Having more school psychologists could probably help bring an end to bullying. This is one of the areas where having psychologists would really help.

It is extremely important that we put in place under our health care system things that are preventative in nature. Having better psychological services could be something that could be very preventative when it comes to how we work together as a community and how we work together in our families. We do not have enough psychologists in our public system and we have major waitlists for the psychologists who are in our public system.

Recruitment and retention is also an issue in health care, in schools, and in private practices. This is especially true in rural areas where there is a big need for generalist psychologists, as opposed to specialists. Right now, things are moving more towards specialized psychologists, but in many cases people do not need specialized psychologists. If we are going to have psychologists in rural areas who are part of our public system, we need psychologists who are more generalist in nature. The specialists probably could be in centres of higher population where, if people had something that was very specialized, they could be able to go access it in an area.

We do need generalist psychologists when we are talking about smaller areas. We need generalists anyway, but we should not be funnelling specialists to rural areas just because of the nature of there being specialist. We need a psychologist out there who can deal with the multitude of issues that are going to come up. There might be some areas where there is a special problem that seems to be a communal problem. Then you might need a specialist for that. We do need to have greater numbers of specialized psychologists out in the community.

We know that at the university, at the School of Medicine, and we know in the Department of Health there are people who are looking at the whole issue of the shortage in our health care program. There is going to be a new degree, a four-year doctoral degree program, which will train more clinicians for the public system. That is going to be extremely important. That will also include an internship to help recruit and retain them. The recruitment and retaining issue is going to be extremely important. The fact that our new legislation has quality assurance, the fact that the new legislation allows for the training being out there in the workplace, and training in the workplace, is extremely important.

I will not belabour the point, Mr. Speaker. The legislation itself is an amendment to the 2005 act. It is not a new act. It is an amendment. Some of it is bringing in new pieces like the quality assurance. We have looked at it in detail and there does not seem to be anything in it that is problematic. It certainly fits with the template that is being used for the other professional associations, the acts that cover other professional associations. It adds what has been lacking from the 2005 act. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that I will be voting for this act.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

As we all say, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill today. As some of us have said previously, it seems rather straightforward, and some would even say it is rather mundane, but I would argue that this legislation that we are discussion here today is very important. Not only does it affect a group of individual professionals but it also affects all their patients. It is housekeeping, but it is something that is very important and I am very happy to speak to it today.

As the minister alluded to earlier, there are 212 registered psychologists in the Province. Relatively speaking, this is a large group of professionals. The job that those individuals obviously give is crucial and very important. These folks play an integral role in the Province's delivery of health care with the focus much of the time being on some of the most vulnerable individuals. Mr. Speaker, you might have to look at the individuals in less-than-ideal situations, whether that is somebody suffering from a mental illness or somebody suffering with addictions. Then you can even go outside of that and, of course, psychologists provide vital services each and every day in our school systems and to our children. No one has to stand here and argue the fact of their importance; it is quite obvious.

I do not have to tell anybody in this House, certainly, our government's commitment when it comes to mental health and addictions. I think we have stood here many times on our feet and touted the government and what they have done in those areas. This is another piece of it and psychologists play, as I said before, such an important part in that.

In order to ensure the success, we depend on our professional staff. More importantly to this discussion, of course, we depend heavily on our psychologists. We as a government want to operate in an atmosphere with the utmost confidence in our professionals and so, obviously, do the professionals themselves want to operate in the system. The provincial government is amending the Psychologists Act –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. S. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I would even argue that some of us need psychologists in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. S. COLLINS: It is unfortunate people in TV land do not get to see the behaviour of the members opposite.

I would argue that when discussing something like this, as I had said, this is so vitally important to a large number of people in our society. People are vulnerable in our society, so I take this very seriously and I would hope the members across the way would do the same. If I could continue, it would be greatly appreciated.

The provincial government is amending the Psychologists Act, 2005 to incorporate quality assurance measures into the regulation of the practice of psychology to ensure public protection. At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, public protection is obviously of utmost importance. Mr. Speaker, not only will this help ensure public safety, it will also support psychologists in maintaining a high practice of standards and reflect the evolving area of quality assurance and continuing competency measures for regulation of health care professionals throughout the Province.

Now, if I may, I am just going to reiterate some of the points the minister had said earlier. With regard to the registration, obviously, it is very important a proper registration system is in place. Under the proposed section 10, a person may apply for registration where: he or she holds a doctoral or master's degree in psychology from a school satisfactory to the board; meets the required competencies specified in "Guidelines for Evaluation of Applicants for Registration as a Psychologist"; has professional liability coverage; and satisfies other requirements as prescribed in the regulations.

The new section, Mr. Speaker, will be added as a result of this amendment and will clearly state that the objectives of the board are – and these are the important pieces of this, of course – the promotion of high standards of practice through continuing education and promotion of continuing competency and quality, the administration of a registration program, which I just spoke on. By using the quality assurance program and discipline process, we can be better assured of public protection. At the end of the day, that is what we are looking for: public protection.

In a nutshell, this board will supervise who can practice as well as govern them once they are allowed to practice. It is one thing to make sure we have the competent individuals going into the practice, but we have to obviously govern their behaviours after that and regulate them, as you would do in any profession. I cannot say enough that public protection at the end of the day is the utmost part of all this. We are here to govern. We are here to do these types of things. It is something that we have to do.

It is important to note by establishing a quality assurance program, Mr. Speaker, including mandatory continuing education and professional development for psychologists, the amended act is consistent with similar legislation that is being put in place for physicians and other health professionals right across this Province. Again, consistency is the key. This is not something specific to psychologists. Some would argue it is overdue. I am happy to be speaking to this, because it is so important. It is about consistency. It is about giving them the same rights and privileges as other professionals.

It is needed and it is certainly justified. I would think it would be given widespread support by all members in this House. From the comments of the couple previous, this is housekeeping, but it is something that is important and something we see fit to do.

I commend the minister and all of her staff on taking the steps. I look forward to the support of everyone in this House. With that, I will take my seat, not to belabour the point, and that will be it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services speaks now, she will close the debate on Bill 28.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, the Psychologists Act, 2005, the amended bill, I think is a very important bill and I am certainly happy to bring this to the House and to amend it to meet the needs of everyday Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

This was a bill that we took some time to put together in terms of the amendments, as we conducted some consultations. We did some consultations with the members of the Newfoundland and Labrador Psychology Board, Mr. Speaker. In fact, they first approached us. The board itself came to us and said to us that they needed some amendments to the board. Mr. Speaker, we were certainly happy to sit with them and have those discussions around how it is that this particular act, which was an act that was first enacted in 2005, how it was that it needed to be improved and how it was that we could more fully support the Newfoundland and Labrador Psychology Board, Mr. Speaker.

Collaboration, whenever we look at these kinds of bills and the work that people do on a day-to-day basis for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker, is so important to what we are doing. It is one thing to acknowledge that we have 212 psychologists out there, but we have to make sure that the environment in which they are working, the legislation under which they are working, the regulations that are put in place for them, are actually meeting their needs, Mr. Speaker. That was a piece of work that we were happy to undertake when they came to us and asked for that consultation. I have heard members opposite talk about that as well, the importance of collaborating with the boards that are existing within the work that they are doing and the workloads that they carry, because there are some tremendous workloads out there. We were certainly happy to sit down and have those conversations and to make the regulations regarding the work that they do more applicable to that and to help them in their own sense.

Mr. Speaker, if I could just recap, basically, some of the main pieces of this act in terms of the amendments that we have brought forward, we brought forward some additions to the act that would include the explicit statement of the objects of the board. Again, that was something that had been mentioned to us, but more importantly an expanded section on the duties of the registrar, sections that outlined registration – registration was one of the pieces that members of the board were especially concerned about in terms of the requirements and the types of registration, so we were happy to meet with them and discuss that. Certainly in terms of quality assurance provisions, Mr. Speaker, quality assurance, I think if there is anything that we have learned over the last two or three years it is that within health care and public protection, quality assurance has to be uppermost. Therefore, what we do in terms of enacting the legislation, putting in place the regulations around quality assurance, is something that we need to take our time with, we need to make sure that we have it right, and we get it right best by consulting and by having the input from the people who are working in the field, Mr. Speaker.

Some of the other things that we have been able to look at here in terms of the new amended act, Mr. Speaker, have to do with new sections around high standards of practice as well, the promoting of continuing competency and quality improvement through continuing education. Mr. Speaker, I think again in whatever we do, whatever profession we undertake, continuing education, ongoing education, is especially important, but, Mr. Speaker, it cannot be any more important than in the health care system itself. I am always happy when I see professionals come forward and ask that we include that in the legislation that we include that in the act and that is what has happened here as well.

Mr. Speaker, we were certainly happy to include the promotion of continuing competency and quality improvements through continuing education in this act. Again, ensuring public protection essentially is what we are doing, because once we have people who are interested in continuing education, once we have professionals who are working in the field out there, wanting to know what are the latest technologies, what are the latest means of being able to deal with an issue, what are the best practices that are out there, then we know that we are better serving the needs of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker. So, that piece of what we are doing here in terms of the legislation, I think, is welcomed, not only by the board but by everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador, as we know then that the treatments that we are going to receive is a higher class because people decide to make the efforts to continue on with their own education.

Some of the other pieces as I outlined when I first spoke, Mr. Speaker, just looked at some of the more mundane issues around housekeeping certainly in terms of the Web site, but for many people know using a Web site is important and it is way of being able to get some information, particularly around the regulations and the bylaws and other pieces of information that pertain to how psychologists in this Province are governed. People do like to have access to that kind of information. The duties of the registrar and so on will be contained in a particular section of this amended act, as we put it forward under section 9. I think we have repealed section 3 and through section 9 we will be able to deal with that.

We will also, Mr. Speaker, have another section that deals with registration of psychologists. Again, it is exceptionally important that we know that the psychologists that we are registering, that we are accepting here to practice in Newfoundland and Labrador, are meeting certain criteria in order to be able to be registered, Mr. Speaker. I think we have here a very clear statement around the criteria that must be met in order to be registered as a psychologist in the department or in the Province. That as well I think is reassuring to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to say to them that a person who is going to act as a psychologist here in Newfoundland and Labrador, a person who is going to treat you as a psychologist here in Newfoundland and Labrador must hold a doctoral or master's degree in psychology from a school that is satisfactory to the board, Mr. Speaker, is particularly important. It must meet certain requirements and competencies as outlined in the act and have professional liability coverage and so on. Again, really making sure that this is a very professional service that we are offering here in the Province and that it satisfies the requirements of the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the registration of the applicant, the registrants themselves want to know that there is a very clear process, and that was outlined to us when we met with the board. They want to know very clearly what the registration process is, Mr. Speaker. I think we have been able to outline that for them very clearly. We have looked at some provisional registration requirements; we have looked at some temporary registration requirements, Mr. Speaker.

Temporary registration is an issue that is really important. When we have someone coming to this Province to do work on a short-term basis, for example to testify at a trial or whatever, then they have to be registered in the home province where they are going to testify, Mr. Speaker. In order to have that temporary registration enacted here makes a difference to being able to bring these people to the Province to do their work as well.

Mr. Speaker, quality assurance I have mentioned already. I think my colleagues from the other side of the House have also made reference to the importance of quality assurance, quality assurance programs, committees, measures and so on, and recognize the importance of that. I think that has all been very well covered. We have expanded on the board's authority to make some bylaws as well, Mr. Speaker, which is again just one of those housekeeping pieces that need to be looked after.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of respecting the terms and conditions of registration, in terms of looking at prerequisites, in terms of ensuring that we have the best people practicing in this Province, I think this bill does a very good job of setting out everything that we need in terms of the practice of psychology. I am very happy to have been able to bring forward this legislation with the support of the psychology board.

I thank the members opposite for their contribution to the debate this afternoon. I look forward to passing this bill in this sitting of the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Psychologists Act, 2005. (Bill 28)

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: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Psychologists Act, 2005", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 28)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party, rising on a point of order.

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

I would like to raise a point of order regarding something that happened in Question Period today. I was waiting for a copy of Hansard, and this seemed to be the first opportunity because of the reading of the bills. I think what happened goes against a practice that may be an unspoken practice in terms of our Standing Orders but it certainly is referred to in O'Brien and Bosc, and it has to do –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Which Standing Order are you referring to?

MS MICHAEL: I am referring to the rule of order in O'Brien and Bosc, chapter 13, page 616, and it has to do with reference by name to members of the public.

Today in Question Period, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources made reference to an e-mail that was sent by the Member for The Straits – White Bay North to the Minister of Natural Resources asking for a meeting. The Minister of Natural Resources named a third party who was part of the e-mail and broke the confidence of that e-mail. The third party was a member of the public, the person who would have been at the meeting that was being requested by the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

I think the minister also went on and made references that I think should not have been made. The point of order is the naming of the person who was from outside of the House of Assembly and a person who would not have expected to have had his name used here in the House of Assembly when it was part of a private communication between his member and the minister.

I would like to make reference to O'Brien and Bosc under chapter 13, titled: Reference by Name to Members of the Public. "Members are discouraged from referring by name to persons who are not Members of Parliament and who do not enjoy parliamentary immunity, except in extraordinary circumstances when the national interest calls for this. The Speaker has ruled that Members have a responsibility to protect the innocent, not only from outright slander, but from any slur directly or indirectly implied, and suggested that Members avoid as much as possible mentioning by name people from outside the House who are unable to reply in their own defence."

In Question Period today, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources actually imputed interpretation of the Third Party, as making suggestions – I will read from Hansard, because it is in Hansard: I never heard back from Mr. Lewis. So what the member opposite did, Mr. Speaker, he tried to interject himself into the middle of the situation. He was obviously told to go away out of it. I would suggest to him that if he is going to come forward with suggestions that he make sure that they are real and they are practical.

I think that everything about what the Minister of Natural Resources said goes against the ruling that is in O'Brien and Bosc, Mr. Speaker. I put that before you for a ruling.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, what Standing Order are we referring to?

MR. SPEAKER: My understanding is that there is no particular Standing Order being referenced, but the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi is referencing a paragraph found in chapter 13 of O'Brien and Bosc.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

If you look at what O'Brien and Bosc says, it says: "The Speaker has ruled that Members have a responsibility to protect the innocent, not only from outright slander, but from any slur directly or indirectly implied, and suggested that Members avoid as much as possible mentioning by name people from outside the House who are unable to reply in their own defence".

There is no slur, Mr. Speaker, in relation to anyone here. In fact, what I find ironic here is that the Member for St. John's Centre used the name of an individual earlier today in relation to psychiatric help.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi wishes to speak to the point of order once again.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, please, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Briefly, if you would, please.

MS MICHAEL: Pardon?

MR. SPEAKER: Briefly, please.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, I will do it very briefly, just in reference to the point that was just made by the minister. Since he brought it up, the Member for St. John's Centre had the permission of the person whose name she used. She had the permission; he expected that to happen, and in this case it was a breach of privacy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have reviewed the Standing Orders that apply in this House of Assembly. I also heard the comments that were made in Question Period today. I have also had an opportunity to review the context provided by the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi that is referenced in O'Brien and Bosc and I rule that there is no point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, we have now finished the bills for today and I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that this House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is 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'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

This House now stands adjourned until 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon tomorrow.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.