November 30, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 49


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we would like to welcome ten students who are participating in the Human Resources Skills for Canada program at the MacMorran Centre in St. John's, with their instructor, Ms Dana Aylward.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before we begin routine proceedings, the Chair wishes to make a ruling with regard to a point of privilege raised by the Member for Bay of Islands on November 29.

The role of the Speaker is limited to deciding whether or not the circumstances outlined by the member meet the accepted parliamentary definitions of privilege. In other words, the Speaker must examine the matter raised by the member in the context of parliamentary precedents, the Standing Orders of our House, and in consultation with the House personnel he must determine if a prima facia case of breach of privilege exists.

Many Speakers have ruled, both in this House and others, that a dispute between two hon. members as to the allegation of facts does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege. Members may wish to refer to Beauchesne, 6th Edition, page 13, or to Marleau and Montpetit, chapter 3.

While the Member for Bay of Islands may feel offended by comments made by the Premier during Question Period on November 29, the Chair cannot find evidence in the verbatim transcripts to meet the accepted criteria associated with a breach of privilege. This may mean, as other Speakers have said, that the House may have to accept two completely opposing viewpoints of the same incident. Accordingly, the Speaker rules that the member has not established a prima facia case for a breach of privilege.

Statements by Members

 

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the Member for the District of Windsor-Springdale, the Member for the District of Exploits and Leader of the Opposition, the Member for the District of Placentia & St. Mary's, the Member for the District of Port de Grave, the Member for the District of Burin-Placentia West, and the Member for the District of Labrador West.

The hon. the Member for the District of Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in this House today to extend congratulations to Mrs. Gladys Osmond from the District of Windsor-Springdale. Gladys was the proud recipient of the prestigious Governor General's Caring Canadian Award this past Saturday.

The award was presented by His Honour, Lieutenant-Governor Ed Roberts, in the presence of a small group of Mrs. Osmond's family and friends in Springdale. The retired Salvation Army Officer received the award for her tremendous commitment to peacekeepers and missionaries all over the world. For over twenty years, Gladys has been writing uplifting letters to soldiers and missionaries at a feverish pace of nearly 500 per month. Often accompanying these letters are items such as cookies, jams, books and other small items.

Enlisting the assistance of the residents of Valley Vista Seniors Home, Gladys helped found the group affectionately referred to as the "Granny Brigade" to aid her in efforts to bring well wishes to those serving overseas. In recent years, with the wide use of e-mail, Mrs. Osmond has increased her correspondence to over 900 letters a month.

Mrs. Osmond feels rewarded for her efforts every time she checks her mail. She has received a great many written replies to her letters, and hopes to have them published in a book some day. She plans to donate the proceeds of this book to military family resource centres.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Osmond's dedication to those serving abroad is a testament to her deep concern for the well-being of others. She provides a shining example of the contribution our volunteers make to society.

I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me today in recognizing the extraordinary efforts of this remarkable lady.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour many of the volunteers who continue to help keep the Town of Bishop's Falls safe, in the District of Exploits.

Mr. Speaker, this year, the Bishop's Falls Volunteer Fire Department recently gathered for their forty-second annual Firemen's Ball. It was an opportunity for many of the town's citizens, including its municipal council, to honour the volunteer firefighters for another successful year of keeping its citizens safe from the threat of fire, and for being ready just in case the unthinkable happens.

Mayor Oliver Rose, on behalf of the town, was pleased to be on hand and present the fire department with a cheque to cover most of next year's expenses. Mayor Rose described the cheque as: the best bang for the buck that the council could ever get.

Mr. Speaker, medals for long-term service were given out at this ceremony as well. Mr. Wilf Carey, Mr. Ed Harnum, and Mr. Ernest Balsom were the recipients of pins for thirty years of volunteer service. Firefighter Ed Osbourne was honoured with the distinction of Firefighter of the Year, and Gary King received the Officer of the Year Award.

As well, the fire department's children were also recognized at this ceremony, as the town presented scholarships to three of the firefighters' children: one in Level I, one in Level II and one in Level III. Scholarships were provided to Kayla Rowsell, Christopher Green, and Reginald King. I congratulate each of these students for winning these particular scholarships.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating all of these dedicated volunteers who volunteer day and night to keep their community safe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Saturday, November 27, 2004, I had the pleasure of attending the annual dinner and dance of the Placentia Volunteer Fire Department. It was a night of great celebration following another very successful year of firefighting, fire prevention and training. The twenty-nine men and one woman who make up the department provide an invaluable service to the community and have reason to be proud of a job well done.

I had the opportunity to present pins and certificates for thirty years of service to Fire Chief Wayne Power, and Deputy Fire Chief Terry O'Keefe. It was evident to see that these two men provide great leadership to the department and have the respect of all the members. It was also apparent that training and improving their skills is a priority, when several members were presented with certificates for courses they successfully completed to reach their goals.

Once again, the Ladies Auxiliary were on hand to present the chief with another important piece of equipment. This year it was a digital camera. This Auxiliary has proven over the years to be a very important asset to the fire department.

There was also another very special presentation made on Saturday night to firefighters Terry O'Keefe, Val Careen and Vince Power. It was very deserving, but long overdue. The firefighters were awarded with the Medal of Bravery for their heroic efforts for their actions on the early morning of August 7, 1987, when a fire broke out at a residence in Jerseyside. Before the fire department arrived on the scene, three of those firefighters, without breathing apparatus or protective clothing, used an old wooden ladder to rescue three people who were trapped in a burning house. When the request went in to government in 1987 to have the awards presented to these three individuals, it was discovered that the annual deadline for nominations had passed.

The years passed by, and earlier this year the president to the fire department, Jim O'Keefe, took it upon himself to follow up on the original request through the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Fire Chiefs and Firefighters. Because of president Jim's persistence and determination, Terry, Val and Vince finally received the recognition they deserved for this brave act some seventeen years ago.

I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating the Placentia Volunteer Fire Department on another successful year, and thank them for their dedication and commitment to the residents of their community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate an incredibly talented young man from the District of Port de Grave, who has recently shown off his tremendous stage presence to the entire country.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Upper Island Cove have known for years that Jason Greeley had what it takes to be a star, and this past summer Jason had the opportunity to show off his skills to the entire country with his passion in the incredibly popular television show, Canadian Idol.

Night after night, Canadians from Petty Harbour to Victoria, B.C., had the opportunity to turn on their TVs and watch this tremendous show. Legions of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and indeed Canadians from coast to coast, dialed in every night that Jason preformed, to show their support for this talented young performer. Mr. Speaker, Jason was so successful that he made it to the final four of this Canada-wide competition, not an easy task.

I had the opportunity on Jason's return home to join with him and over 500 people in a special performance in his hometown of Upper Island Cove. This summer, all will have the opportunity to watch Jason and the other three finalists of Canadian Idol at the Klondyke Day Festival in Bay Roberts - and the tickets are on sale now. Mr. Speaker, we are sure that Jason's performance will be incredible, and we can't wait to see him perform.

I ask all members to join me in extending a sincere congratulations to Newfoundland and Labrador's Idol, Mr. Jason Greeley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in this House and bring praises to two young women in the District of Burin-Placentia West: Ms Desiree Leonard of Petite Forte and Ms Erin Glavine of Marystown. Desiree and Erin were recently named to Memorial University's Deans list for the 2003-2004 academic school year.

Ms Leonard, who is completing her Bachelor of Arts degree, graduated from Christ the King School in Rushoon. Her parents are Paula and Frank Leonard. Ms Glavine is presently completing an Honours degree in Archeology and is a graduate of Marystown Central High. Her parents are Kevin and Susanna Glavine.

I would ask all members to join me in passing along to both of these young women our sincerest congratulations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with great pleasure I rise today to congratulate the Mark Nichols Rink on winning the 2004 Canadian Mixed Curling Championship by defeating Saskatchewan 7-5 in the championship game. This is the first time a rink from our Province has won the National Mixed Curling Tournament.

The Nichols rink consists of Mark, his sister Shelley, Brent Hamilton and Jennifer Guzzwell.

Mr. Speaker, both Mark and Shelley were born and raised in Labrador City, and I am sure I speak for the Carol Curling Club and all residents of Labrador West when I say how proud we are of them and their achievements.

Mark, of course, was also a member of the Brad Gushue Rink who won both the provincial, the Canadian Championship, and went on to win the World Junior Men's Championship in 2001. By the way, Mr. Speaker, 50 per cent of that team was also from Labrador West.

Shelley has also enjoyed success as a member of the Provincial Women's Junior Team who, in 2002, won the right to represent the Province at the Nationals, where they won a silver medal, and later on that year Shelley also played with Team Canada in the World Junior Women's Tournament.

Mr. Speaker, both Shelley and Mark have aspirations of playing in the Olympic Games, and with their dedication and success to date there is little doubt in my mind that they will achieve their goal.

Both Mark and Shelley are continuing their studies here in St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in congratulating the Nichols Rink and wishing all of them continued success in their future endeavours.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before we move to Statements by Ministers, it has been brought to my attention, by a note that I just received, that Mr. Todd Russell, President of the Labrador Metis Nation, is also in the gallery today, and we wish to welcome him to our Chamber as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as members of this House are aware, the government intends to introduce legislation in this session to ratify the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement. Passage of this Bill would be one more step towards the implementation of this Agreement. Concerns have been expressed by the President of the Labrador Métis Nation that this Agreement may have a negative impact on his membership. I wish to take this opportunity to speak to these concerns.

This Land Claims Agreement exchanges the asserted but undefined aboriginal rights that may be held by Labrador Inuit for defined treaty rights in the Labrador Inuit settlement area. This Agreement was negotiated in good faith by the Governments of Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Inuit of Labrador as represented by the Labrador Inuit Association. It was ratified by 76 per cent of eligible Inuit voters.

Mr. Speaker, the criteria to qualify as a beneficiary under this agreement is extremely broad, and includes many people of Inuit descent who live outside the settlement area, including anyone with 25 per cent Inuit ancestry. Those living outside the settlement area enjoy many of the benefits of those inside, from hiring preference at Voisey's Bay to access to federal programs such as Non-Insured Health Services and Post-Secondary Education Funding.

The Agreement provides the standard protections for other Aboriginal groups that are contained in other comprehensive land claims agreements in Canada. It states, "Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to affect, recognize or provide any rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 for any Aboriginal peoples of Canada other than Inuit." Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the agreement provides for a requirement that it be amended if a court of last resort ever determines that it affects the section 35 rights of any other Aboriginal peoples of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, if the LMN is able to demonstrate the people it represents form a different society of Inuit than that covered by the LIA Agreement, it may be able to have its own claim accepted, should it meet the accepted test for comprehensive claims in Canada. The acceptance or rejection of the LMN land claim is a decision for the federal government to make. The LMN has been assured by the federal government that it will assess this claim on this basis.

LMN leadership was briefed on the well-publicized Inuit ratification process, and negotiators for the three parties to the Inuit Agreement met with the LMN to respond to their questions about the implications of the agreement. Each party has also provided written responses to the LMN's questions. All three parties have attempted to assure the LMN that, should it demonstrate it represents a different society of Inuit, its members will be unaffected by the LIA Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, where there are competing interests in our society that cannot reach agreement on their own, they have the option of seeking the guidance of a court. Members of the LMN have chosen this course of action, and that is their right. Nevertheless, we maintain that the bill in and of itself cannot cause any harm to anyone as the agreement cannot come into effect until after it passes through the Parliament of Canada, as well as this Legislature.

I want to assure members of this House and members of the LMN that, should the federal government accept the LMN land claim, and subject to our own independent assessment to ensure it meets the established criteria, the Province will join with the federal government in settling that claim. If the LMN land claim is accepted, and overlaps with the Labrador Inuit Settlement Area, then the LIA and the LMN could negotiate an overlap agreement as the LIA is doing with the Innu Nation in Labrador and the Nunavik Inuit of Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, in addition, any person who meets the eligibility criteria may become a beneficiary of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, irrespective of whether they participated in the Inuit ratification vote. Rather than having a negative effect on LMN members, this agreement, through its protection for other groups, demonstrating section 35 rights and broad eligibility criteria, provides added choice for those seeking access to federal Aboriginal programs and services.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I can tell this House that it is going to be a great day when we ratify the Labrador Inuit Association Land Claims Agreement. When we look at the past record of the plight of the Aboriginal people, the Inuit on the North Coast of Labrador, then I think we would all agree that it is going to be a great day when they can start taking shape and self-government to work out a lot of the problems that they need to play first hand.

Just as important, Mr. Speaker, I am very encouraged today in the minister's Ministerial Statement to know that they have now opened the doors to the Labrador Metis Nation. I am sure all four members from Labrador who sit in this House today are encouraged to hear this and I look forward to, as an Aboriginal person, the federal government accepting the Metis claim. Certainly, I would ask the minister to call upon the federal government to act upon the Metis' request in a fast and true manner.

Again, Mr. Speaker, as an Aboriginal person I would like to say to the President of the Labrador Metis Nation, that today this is good news for him and his people, that should the federal government accept their claim, the government of the day will then negotiate a land claims deal with the Metis Nation, the same as they did with the Labrador Innu Association. I am sure that the Labrador Inuit Association will work out an overlap claim with the Metis Nation the same as they have done with the Innu of Labrador and the Inuit of Northern Quebec.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, am very pleased that the agreement has been reached with the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, and that we will take further steps in this session of the House to see that become a part of our constitutional law. But, I will say, Mr. Speaker, on the issue the minister raised, that there is a good faith concern raised by the Labrador Metis Nation with respect to their concerns about the implications. We must remember that it was this government, prior to the last election, at least the Premier, wrote a letter indicating that they would in fact recognize the LMN and changed their minds within several weeks of receiving office. So, they do have cause to be concerned.

The serious good faith concerns are supported by an analysis of the agreement done by a University of Ottawa law professor who concluded that the LMN has good reason to be concerned about the implications of a Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement. I will say, Mr. Speaker, that that opinion is now being studied by the Department of Justice as we speak. We have concerns expressed by this professor saying that the clarification -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has leave.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) an important issue.

He suggests that clarification, at the very least, is needed and crystal clear assurance that there will be no implications for any claim or potential claims of the LMN. I would hope that the minister will be able to be crystal clear about this, that not only government would stipulate that the agreement with the LIA does not affect any claim or potential claim of Aboriginal rights put forth by the LMN, which I think the minister has done today, but, also, that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will not use the Labrador Inuit Land Claim Agreement or its provisions to defeat any claim or potential claim of the Labrador Metis Nation.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that those kinds of assurances, on the record, either at some point in this House or at the time that the legislation is brought forward, would go a long way in providing some reassurance to a group who, understandably - as a result of their experience around the time of this government taking office - need to have crystal clear assurances with what is happening with respect to the Labrador Inuit Land Claim Agreement, which I fully support, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a terrific step forward for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and obviously for the Aboriginal people, particularly the Inuit, that this going to happen, but I think we also have to be very clear that the Labrador Metis Nation, who for many years sought recognition, are going to be protected as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform my colleagues about the release of CareerSearch 2004. This publication provides parents, students, policymakers and program administrators with followup information on students who graduated from our post-secondary institutions in the year 2002.

Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to a strong post-secondary education system that will enable graduates to succeed in the labour market and continue to contribute to the social and economic development of our Province.

CareerSearch provides current information, on the job prospects, salaries and debt levels of recent graduates. Knowing these, the labour market outcome of programs allows students to make informed choices regarding their career planning goals and post-secondary study.

This report is based on the results of a telephone survey of graduates of 2002, approximately one year following their graduation. Nearly 7,600 students graduated at that time and approximately 66 per cent responded to this survey.

Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Education, I strongly support initiatives that ensure accountability for our post-secondary programs. CareerSearch helps ensure that the institutions are accountable for the programs they offer.

CareerSearch shows that graduates in general are finding employment in the labour market. Approximately 75 per cent of graduates from most programs found their first full-time job prior to graduation and within three months of graduating.

I am pleased to report that more of our post-secondary graduates are choosing to remain in the Province after graduation. This is great news for our economy and for our future. Out-migration of MUN undergraduates has dropped significantly from 28 per cent of graduates of 2000 to 22 per cent of graduates from 2002. Similarly, the out-migration of college graduates has fallen from 20 per cent to 14 per cent.

Graduates of programs, such as Memorial Master's programs, three-year College of the North Atlantic programs and journeyperson trades indicate very high labour market results in terms of full-time employment. The employment rates for nursing school graduates and Marine Institute diploma graduates are also quite good. Similarly, graduates from Memorial master's programs, three-year college programs and journeyperson trades indicate high labour market results in terms of wages. The wages reported by the nursing school graduates and Marine diploma graduates are also significant.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that this information is available to all those considering post-secondary studies. Copies of the report will be distributed to all school district offices, high schools, HRLE and HRSDC offices in the Province. In addition, an on-line searchable database version of CareerSearch available through the Department of Education Web site.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the publication of CareerSearch is essential to effective career planning, as well as improving the system's responsiveness to the needs of students and the labour market. I encourage all stakeholders make use of this valuable resource.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say thank you to the Minister of Education for sending over an advanced copy of his first ministerial statement, and I want to thank him also for acknowledging the good work of the previous Liberal Administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you very much.

This report is about the graduates of -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS THISTLE: Can I have some quietness here, Mr. Speaker? They do not want to hear what I have to say.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Members know that the hon. member replying has limited time. I ask all members to be co-operative.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the statements that the Minister of Education said: I strongly support initiatives that ensure accountability for our post-secondary programs. Does that mean you are going to increase tuition? Is that what you are talking about? Then he said: I am pleased to report that more of our post-secondary graduates are choosing to remain in the Province.

Well, the first thing that this government did after they got elected was come to this Legislature and cancel the initiative that we put forward so people who were deciding to work in our Province and pay on their student loans had an income tax break. That was their first piece of business in this Legislature, to cancel that initiative. Now, it says out-migration of MUN -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, Oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Listen, they cannot take the truth.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, the Chair asks all hon. members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, a few moments to conclude.

MS THISTLE: Thank you.

The next statement he makes: Out-migration of MUN undergraduates has dropped significantly. Here the Minister of Finance got up during Budget time and was predicting out-migration and he was doing that because they cut 6,000 jobs in our public service. Now, if we are going to have people working in our Province, that says -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MS THISTLE: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member has asked for leave. Does the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been denied.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think we have to recognize that the trends indicated in the minister's statement are, indeed, positive. We have seen an increase in student enrollment in the public system, a 7 per cent increase in Memorial University, for example, despite a decline in the K to 12 population. What it proved, Mr. Speaker, is that we are on the right track in reducing overall student debt, down nearly 10 per cent in the public system. By the way, I include the journeyperson trades program in the public system because they are not for profit. But we still have higher than national average of debt loads, approximately $5,000 higher, so we have to reduce debt, we have to lower tuition and we have to reject the suggestion by the Board of Regents of Memorial, that we lift their freeze on tuition at Memorial University so that we can continue to ensure that students of this Province have access to quality low-cost higher education in the public system.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure my friend from Labrador West will not mind if I add to his remarks regarding his statement today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Mark Nichols rink of St. John's on becoming the Province's first Canadian mixed curling champions at the 2005 Canadian Mixed Curling Championship in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan on Sunday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, team members Mark Nichols, his sister Shelley Nichols, Brent Hamilton and Jennifer Guzzwell arrived in St. John's last night to many fans and supporters.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that the twenty-five year old from Labrador City - and I know the member is very proud of - Mark Nichols has been part of a championship team. As a matter of fact, both Mark and Brent Hamilton were member of the Brad Gushue men's rink which won the 2001 national and world junior championships. In fact, all team members have achieved success on the national scene. Jennifer Guzzwell and Shelley Nichols were also silver medal winners at the 2002 Canadian Junior Curling Championships.

Mr. Speaker, this recent success demonstrates, yet again, the incredible talent we have in our Province, particularly in the sport of curling. This is the second national curling title for this Province this year. As hon. members will recall, the Bas Buckle rink from Corner Brook won the Canadian Senior's title last season and went on to win the world championships.

As we prepare to host the 2005 Scott Tournament of Hearts in St. John's this year, in February, I am sure we will see some of this incredible talent first-hand. I am also hopeful that the Newfoundland and Labrador contingent will be successful in their quest to capture the Scott Championships.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in extending congratulations to Mark Nichols, Shelley Nichols, Brent Hamilton and Jennifer Guzzwell on winning the 2005 Canadian Mixed Curling Championships.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy and I thank the Member for Labrador West for bringing to the House's attention of this remarkable feat again.

I had the privilege, back in 2001 when they won the National World Junior Championships, to accompany Mark and the other four or five people to Labrador City for the homecoming; when they came back from the world's I represented the government. It was a great feat.

What amazed me more about the four or five young fellows back in 2001, and the coaches, was the humility; how good they felt but yet they were just ordinary people going back to university. You knew from the sense of their work ethic that they were going to do well and continue to do well because winning the world juniors was not good enough, they wanted to keep going. So, I congratulate all four.

I noticed one of the commentators - I am not sure which sports channel it was - he said it must be a close-knit group because you have a brother and sister on the same team getting along. They made notice of that. This national victory, I say to the minister - and I know the minister is always involved in sports and I know he is a big advocate of sports - bodes well for the feeder system in Newfoundland and Labrador to give the confidence to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that we can compete on the national level. These four young individuals have shown again that, yes, we can compete. All we need is the opportunity, with all the assistance that we can, and we will compete on the national level.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Minister of Health and Community Services stood in this Legislature and stated that the provincial government could not make any new investments with the increased health care funding from Ottawa because it may not be given to the Province this year.

We have contacted the federal government, who have confirmed that upwards of $40 million of new health funding has already been approved and earmarked for the Province in this fiscal year, before the end of March.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Finance: Now that it has been confirmed that the government will definitely receive this new health care funding in this fiscal year, will he, on behalf of the government, be investing all of this new money for its intended purpose of improving health care services in Newfoundland and Labrador, as the Premier committed, in writing, at the nationally televised health summit?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First, I want to indicate that there is no authority to spend money until a bill has been drafted and passed in the federal House of Commons. Then it will be transferred. We have been informed that we cannot spend money we have not received.

While there might be a verbal commitment to do it, there is no legislative authority to do it. We are used to complying with the Financial Administration Act on this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind members that during interruptions like we are having now, the clock still ticks. Therefore, I ask members for this co-operation. We have limited time.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, at the rate of expenditure in health care, I think it would be safe to say that any money committed here, in all probability, will all be spent, and maybe more besides. In fact, this year the boards are currently incurring about $28 million more in expenditure than were budgeted this year. In other words, we have already spent - even in this year, even without any allocation of money - significant amounts of money.

We are going to move to meet the objectives that the Minister of Health said, in dealing with the priorities established by the Premier. We will live up to those commitments and make sure they are fulfilled.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, again, maybe the Finance Minister might check with the Premier who announced the VON funding in Corner Brook as a result of the new health care funding from the Government of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, again, I might ask the Minister of Finance, perhaps he himself and his officials could check in other provinces. The Province of Saskatchewan, as he knows, has already started to spend this new money - and I am sure they are not breaking any laws in Saskatchewan - and have amended their budget. They have amended their budget in the Legislature to reflect this new source of income.

Mr. Speaker, again I ask the Minister of Finance: If other provinces in Canada are already making investments with this new health care funding, why is this minister and this government trying so hard to deny the fact that this money will definitely be received in this fiscal year and is available to be spent in this fiscal year starting two months ago?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition is getting a little carried away with the process. The day before the minister in Saskatchewan went to the House to have a fiscal update and a mini-budget, he called me and I spoke with him. That was over two weeks ago. He informed me that he is dealing this year with a $900 million surplus.

I might tell the Leader of the Opposition that a significant amount of that has come from oil revenue, but $583 million has come because of the new equalization, the double floor that was given to Saskatchewan this year and was agreed to back in September. They have a $900 million surplus, and they felt that with such a significant surplus of public money it is only fair to come to the House in Saskatchewan and deal with the specifics of this new-found wealth they have.

I am not going to speak for the legislative process in another province. I was elected here as a member of this Legislature, and I am Finance Minister in this Province, not in any other province in this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure he can rest assured he would not get elected anywhere else in the country. He need not worry about it. He probably will not get elected any other time here either.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Leader of the Opposition now to get to his question.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note, that in Saskatchewan there is a specific plan - Mr. Speaker, I know the members of the Opposition do not want to hear this. There is a specific plan -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, the Speaker is asking members for their co-operation and I ask the Leader of the Opposition now to get directly to his question.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know the members opposite do not want to hear this, but there is a definitive plan in Saskatchewan for $66 million of new health care funding, just like there is in the range of $40 million right here.

Mr. Speaker, the last question is this; the federal government has confirmed that not only is the health care funding available but there is an extra $121 million that the Finance Minister has this year from health care funding and equalization changes, and that will become $237 million next year again. When can we expect an honest, fiscal update and a revised or amended budget to find out what this government's plan is for the extra $121 million that he already has in his hip pocket?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition should know, he served as Premier of this Province, that in this fiscal year the increased equalization that was put at $10 billion this year - why we would receive an equalization. There is an equivalent clawback. The Atlantic Accord was giving us that protection anyway and a new pot of money this year in equalization on this year's entitlement does not give us any money in that regard, because the Atlantic Accord protection gave us that. If you want me to explain, there are certain protections in the Atlantic Accord whereby -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, he does not want to hear an explanation. I will state the fact and I will not give him an explanation why it is so, but I will state, in case he does not follow it, and I will indicate that there is - based on the extra equalization in the pot this year, we had that protection under the Atlantic Accord. We will not get any benefit, but we will get a benefit of $34.4 million, not counting any adjustments on population - $34.4 million for health care - and when we do get that money, Mr. Speaker, we will do exactly as the minister and the Premier of this Province were committed to do, we will improve the health care of people here in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: The people in the community of Lawn on the Burin Peninsula are in shock today with the news that a recent analysis of their water, by Jacques Whitford, show that there is E-coli in their drinking water. The town learned the news after getting an analysis done on November 18, because the community has been on a boil order for seventeen months and there were concerns about children using the water to brush their teeth. The analysis was immediately made available to the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and up to today, eleven days later, no one from the department has been in touch with the town.

I ask the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, are you aware of this report and how do you plan to deal with this most serious situation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue. Just one quick correction, there has been someone in contact with the Town of Lawn; the Deputy Minister and people within the department. Mr. Speaker, as we speak there are approximately 280 boil up water advisories in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador impacting some 197 communities. These boil water advisories are required when water supplies are not being treated and/or if their water treatment facility is not operating properly. As we speak, Mr. Speaker, I have had basically a meeting with the town council in Lawn back in January to discuss this issue and other issues. We have asked them to put a financial plan in order. To correct the problem -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Let me finish now, you have to hear the facts - $328,000 to correct the problem there in Lawn. We have offered to pay upwards to 70 per cent of that to correct the problem in Lawn with respect to the water supply.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now if he could complete the answer, quickly.

MR. J. BYRNE: As we speak, we have someone en route to the Town of Lawn to meet with the town council to address, in the immediate future, to try to come to some quick solution, Mr. Speaker, with the intent of coming with a long-term plan to correct a long-term problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: I thank the minister for that because I think he recognizes that this is a serious situation. It is not about dollars and cents, this is about life and death. This is E-coli in the drinking water and we all remember what happened in Ontario. So, I thank him for that.

Before being forced to pay approximately $700 for this analysis, the town contacted the Department of Government Services and lands and requested the government to do the analysis only to be told that the government does not carry out testing on water that is not chlorinated. In other words, the government ignored the towns concern and refused to do the necessary testing.

I ask the Minister of Government Services and lands if it is the policy of the government not to test water systems that are not chlorinated, even if asked to do so by a municipality that has been on a boil order for an extended period of time?

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am dealing with the issue, Mr. Speaker. That is why I feel I should answer the question.

Once a boil water advisory is put in place in any given town within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Department of Government Services and lands does not do water testing on that until such time that the town does something to upgrade the system, to improve the system or to correct the problem. That is the policy that they had on that side of the House and we have continued on with that.

In the meantime, as I said, I met with the town back in January on this issue and others. We are prepared to put in 70 per cent of $328,000 to correct the problem. The coliform count in the water in Lawn, at this point in time, is normal for water that is not being treated, although it is not acceptable. There should be zero tolerance, we acknowledge that, but there is a boil water advisory on. The people know this and should be advised to continue on with the boil water advisory within the Town of Lawn. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, as soon as we can get together with the Town of Lawn and come up with a solution, with respect to the financial problems in the Town of Lawn, we will correct the problem, but the boil water advisory is still on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the minister understands that we are talking about E-coli here and it is not something that you do not take seriously. Eleven days ago - you have the report, November 18. It is now eleven days later and you are telling me you have sent someone down there today and you trying to deal with it as quickly as possible. But what happened eleven days ago?

The point is that if you look at the report prepared by Jacques Whitford, it says here: No sample should contain E-coli. Also, it says: Corrective actions need to be taken immediately. That is eleven days ago on November 18, minister, that your department knew and failed to take action immediately, and it is E-coli we are talking about here. Now, the reason there is no chlorine in the water in Lawn is because the existing system is broken and beyond repair. The town, which has one of the highest mil rates of any community in the Province, has been in touch with your department.

I am asking the minister if he would commit today to finance a system for Lawn that would make it possible for them to put chlorine in their drinking water, at least as a first step towards ratifying this serious problem in one of our rural communities?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the member has not been listening, but I have already told the hon. member in this House, minutes ago, that we have someone en route to Lawn now to do a short-term solution to it. I have already spoken to her and told her that the $328,000 - we are prepared to correct the problem long-term for the Town of Lawn and put in 70 per cent. I should also mention that in 1999 the Town of Lawn received $220,000 in debt retirement to put a plan in place -

MS FOOTE: You are talking about (inaudible) in the water.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, what do you want me to do? Mr. Speaker, the town -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The question has been asked and the minister is attempting to make the response. I ask the minister, though, if he would complete his answer rather quickly.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are addressing the concerns of the Town of Lawn. Not only that, but the member should also be aware that there are 280 Boil Water Advisories in this Province. E.coli - the count that Jacques Whitford came up with is normal for water that is not being treated. The boil water advisory is on, we are going to do the long term. You are asking us to come up with money. I have already told you we are going to give you $328,000 to correct the problem, so, therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is being addressed as we speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in the coming days the Province will be in a position to sign a very historic land claims agreement with the Labrador Inuit Nation. This agreement has been a long time in the making and is a very positive step for the Aboriginal people of our Province. While we fully support a land claim for the LIA, we have been approached by members of the Métis Nation who are concerned about the potential adverse impact this agreement could have on future negotiations involving their group.

Today the Minister of Transportation, Works and Aboriginal Affairs stated in his ministerial statement, and I quote, "If the LMN is able to demonstrate the people it represents form a different society of Inuit than that covered by the LIA Agreement, it may be able to have its claim accepted."

I now ask the Minister of Justice: Will the terms of the LIA Agreement have any negative future impact on the Métis Nation in determining if Métis people of Labrador indeed have a legitimate claim?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.

As I indicated in the ministerial statement in the House today, as I have indicated in meetings going back over several months with members of the LMN, as the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the LIA have indicated on many occasions verbally and in writing, it is the opinion that we have been presented with by Justice officials, that the Government of Canada has received from their advisors, and the LIA has received from their advisors, there is no negative impact on the people represented by the Labrador Métis Nation.

The safeguards in this legislation that we are going to deal with here next week are the same safeguards that are in every other Aboriginal land claims agreement that has been negotiated across the country. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, there is a provision in the agreement that, should a court decide that some future Aboriginal group have been negatively impacted then the agreement must be amended.

Mr. Speaker, I think that is pretty clear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the government that negotiated LIA Land Claims, we always assumed that there would be no negative impact on any present or future land claims for any other Aboriginal groups in Labrador. I ask the minister if he can confirm that the current government is also operating under that same assumption, and also give assurances today to the Labrador Metis Nation that the LIA Land Claims Agreement, under section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982, will not negatively impact any other present or future land claim in the Labrador area?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I can confirm that I understand from briefings when we became the government, that was the understanding under which the previous Administration operated and signed off on this agreement in good faith. It is certainly the understanding that we have of the present situation, that the LIA Agreement will not negatively impact any other potential Aboriginal land claim in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Health and Community Services, and it concerns the provincial dental health program.

I want to ask the minister: Given the fact that this program is of utmost importance to children in our Province, and the rates that government pay to have procedures carried out is well below the fee schedule for dentists practicing in the Province, and families are required to pay the difference, and the program funding is $2.7 million below what it was in the 1970s and 1980s, I say to the minister, more than 15 per cent of children in our Province are going without adequate dental care simply because their parents cannot afford to pay the difference in cost. When will the minister commit to making funding available to ensure that children who most need a free dental health care program will have access to such a program?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member raises, obviously, a very important issue. When we talk about the continuum of health care, it includes, for example, physical health, mental health, and I think with respect to the particular question also should include dental health.

The member is right, that in 1992, for example, there was in excess of some $7 million spent on this. It was subsequently reduced shortly thereafter to approximately $5 million. The point, however, is well taken. It is an issue that this government will take seriously. As we go through our review of programming with respect to what is in the interest not only of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, but in this particular case the young children of Newfoundland and Labrador, the issue of dental health as part of the overall wellness strategy is something that this government will take very seriously.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Governments in the past have argued that the money allocated to that program right now is not being spent, and that there is a surplus. I want to ask the minister if he agrees that the reason the money is not being spent right now is because the portion that is there as a subsidy, if you want, under the program, the reason that is probably not being spent is because parents are not in a position to access that money because they are required to pay the bigger bulk of the (inaudible)?

I want to ask if the minister agrees with that statement, and if he will guarantee the people of the Province that not only will this problem be studied, but will there, in fact, be definite action taken on the dental program in the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no question, I say to the hon. member, there are some discrepancies that exist within the plan, but I think the problems that exist today result from the fact that there was significant funding some twelve or fourteen years ago, and that has now been reduced. That has led to an imbalance, and has led to a situation that both dentists and the public, obviously, have some difficulty with.

To repeat, Mr. Speaker, we do take this situation seriously. It is a serious part of our program review. Again, as we continue along with the wellness strategy of this government, that takes into account the full continuum of health care - physical, mental and dental - we will look at this seriously as we prepare and decide what programs will move forward in the next several months.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Education.

Yesterday, the Minister of Education said he planned to look at quality of programming, affordability and accessability of post-secondary education, and that he planned to deliver - he said. Yet, his first public statement indicated that campus closures at the College of the North Atlantic are a real possibility.

Can he confirm that several campuses are on the chopping block, and that the Department of Transportation and Works have already made preliminary plans for 2005 to begin mothballing campuses? I am asking the minister: Is that what you plan to deliver, Mr. Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I will just reiterate -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I will just reiterate the commitment that I made yesterday to this House, that this government is certainly looking at post-secondary education but in a positive light. We guarantee that what decisions we make concerning the post-secondary education system will be done in a very informed manner, and that we are moving forward in a very positive way. Once again, I reiterate that we will be looking at quality, we will be looking at affordability, and we will be looking at accessibility, and for sure that we will deliver.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All I can gather from that ramble is that he admits that campuses are closing.

Mr. Speaker, the Tory gospel, the Blue Book -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member knows from past experience that she should not hold up displays at any time in the House, and I ask her to refrain from that particular usage.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will try to abide with that. That is not really a prop; that is the gospel. The Blue Book promise -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has ruled that what the member is holding is a display. I ask her to accept that ruling and not to comment on it whatsoever, and I ask her to complete her question immediately.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will abide by your ruling.

Anyway, this minister and this government promised to maintain the tuition freeze at Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic, and students have heard from the University Senate that they are going to have increases that could be anywhere from 60 per cent to 85 per cent. Yesterday, the minister would not commit to his government's own Blue Book policy.

I will ask you again, Mr. Minister: Are you going to maintain the tuition freeze, as you promised, regardless of the White Paper outcome, yes or no?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, when we go back to the commitment that this government made during the election campaign, through our Blue Book, we made a commitment, and a serious commitment, that we would institute a White Paper process that would look at the post-secondary, public post-secondary education.

That process is ongoing right now. I am not jumping out ahead of that process, and I ask that the stakeholders out there bear with us as well, as we go through a process that is going to lead us down the road to a public post-secondary education system that is second to none in this nation, and leading us down a road for not next year but the next five and ten and beyond, I say to the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: That sounds like a Rambo II statement, a rerun.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that this government has no commitment to affordable post-secondary education. I ask the minister this question, this very important question: Are you going to cut public college funding and force students into expensive private colleges, like you did with the Business Administration program in the Carbonear Campus? Will other students -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members to my left for their co-operation.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Education this very important question: Will he force other students to take $12,000-a-year courses at private colleges to replace the publicly-funded $1,200-a-year program? Is this what you call affordable education?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I say again, for at least the fourth time, to the hon. member on the other side, there is a process that this government has put in place. We have over 100 consultation papers that are in our possession right now. There are over 100 written briefs, thirty consultations, that we have checked, and we have gone out and we have also done the research that is necessary for us to make informed decisions, not to listen to rumours and innuendo from across the House here, because obviously they are just grabbing it out of the air, I say to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that was three questions the minister did not answer. Maybe I will have more luck. My questions are also for the Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker, it has come to our attention that in School District # 3, that is the Corner Brook area, that the board, in an attempt to save money for this government, has adopted an airline business model for the busing of our school children. This model involves having fewer seats than students on particular bus routes, while hoping that on any particular day a percentage of the students will not show up.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Are you prepared to jeopardize student safety by overcrowding buses simply to save money?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: I certainly would have to say to that, unequivocally, no.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Oral Questions has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the Chair is not going to be recognized, the Chair will recess the House.

Thank you very much.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I table the Public Accounts for the Province for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2004.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further reports.

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, the Public Accounts Committee of the Forty-Fourth General Assembly had not finished their deliberations when the House dissolved before the last General Election. The Committee therefore recommend that the House refer the evidence adduced before their predecessor during the Fourth and Fifth Session of the Forty-Fourth General Assembly be referred to the current Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Presenting further reports?

In accordance with the Auditor General's Act, I have the honour, on behalf of the Auditor General, John L. Noseworthy, to table the Report on the Audit and Financial Statements for the Province for the Year Ending 31 March 2004.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act. (Bill 56)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act. (Bill 53)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again to present a petition on behalf of the people in Labrador, in particular the youth. Today, Mr. Speaker, I present a petition on behalf of the people in Nain.

Again, Mr. Speaker, as I have done so many times in this House, I present a petition calling on this government to build an auditorium in the Upper Lake Melville area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation. The Member for Torngat Mountains is presenting a petition on behalf of his constituents, and I ask members on both sides of the House to give the hon. member the attention that his people and his petitioners deserve.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess many of the children in Labrador who are watching today probably have a better understanding now as to why they are not being heard.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important petition. The children in Labrador, and everyone in Labrador, deserve an auditorium in the Upper Lake Melville area. Mr. Speaker, it is crucial to the students in Labrador and to all the people who live there. Students and people in every other part of this Province have the opportunity of a facility that they can go to, to attend plays and festivals. Mr. Speaker, it is totally wrong for the people in Labrador who travel to the Upper Lake Melville area on a regular basis to perform their skills and to work for their communities.

Mr. Speaker, the auditorium is crucial to the existence and the well-being and the health of all people in Labrador. The youth in Labrador have been denied. They have been denied the right to participate the way that other students do, by having an auditorium to go to.

Mr. Speaker, I was proud to be a member of government and I was honoured to be the Cabinet Minister who went before Cabinet and got my government to allot $2.4 million to build the auditorium. I know that the government of the day talks of coming under big financial restraint when they took over but, Mr. Speaker, the importance of the auditorium for the people in Labrador, in particular the children, that I would ask all members on the other side and those who sit in Cabinet, the Minister of Tourism and Culture, the minister who handles the file of Aboriginal Affairs, the minister who handles the part on Labrador Affairs, the Department of Education, and most of all, the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Member for Lake Melville is pushing this as well, and I fully support him because this is not politics. This is about providing a facility to the children in Labrador which they so rightfully deserve. On behalf of the children in Labrador, I call upon this government to do the honourable thing. Do this before December, before the old year runs out. Give them some hope for the new year, knowing that there will be an auditorium built in the Upper Lake Melville area, built just for them by this government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of people in the new Labrador health board area. This petition is asking the government to - in moving forward with health care delivery in that region, it is also asking them to pay down an accumulated debt that the boards have incurred over a period of the last few years.

Mr. Speaker, that debt, as I understand it, is to the amount of about $14 million in that board area alone. I do not have to explain, I am sure, to many people the dynamics and the geographic challenges to providing health care in this region of the Province. When you look at all of the Labrador region, which spans from L'Anse au Clair and the Quebec border to Labrador City in the west, to Nain in the north. It encompasses a great deal of rural, isolated communities in this particular region and also takes in a great portion of the Northern Peninsula, as well. A number of rural areas, rural communities in that region to comprise what would be considered, I am sure, geographically and from a demographic perspective, one of the most challenging board areas in the Province when it comes to the delivery of health care.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this board has an accumulated debt, and as we heard here in the House of Assembly today, that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador this year alone will receive an additional $121 million in transfers from the federal government to top up its budget. Also, looking at the fact that they will receive $237 million next year in their budget to top up their amounts in federal transfers. All of these funds have nothing to do with the Atlantic Accord, they are funds that are already approved and will be transferred to the provincial government.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleading on behalf of the people who are being serviced by the new Labrador Grenfell health board area, that government give some very serious consideration to addressing the deficit that this board has. If government does not address the deficit, then the board themselves will have no other choice but to tackle it. In order for the board to bring down a deficit of this amount they have very little options, because there is no avenue to raise revenue, as you say - I certainly hope there isn't. So their only other options would be to cut services and cut programs that are being provided in this particular area.

Mr. Speaker, I live in this district, and I live in one of those communities that are in the remote area of Labrador. I can honestly tell you that right now we have a good primary care health system, but can we sustain any cuts to that system in any region of Labrador? No, we cannot. We definitely cannot. We have what is considered the bare minimum of service right now being provided to us through small clinics along the coastline, through nurses being staffed in those clinics. There are no frills attached to that delivery. Most people who are accessing any other type of health (inaudible) is by air.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member her time has expired.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again today to present a petition from a group of residents of Labrador West in relation to the fares that they must pay to access health care in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, while other residents of Labrador do not have to pay the exorbitant high fees that people in my area have to pay. It is totally unfair.

I say to the Minister of Health, when they received the new money from the federal government, the $35 million that is allocated to this year's budget, the minister, upon questioning yesterday by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair stated, or he evaded the question, when he was asked whether or not that new money would be in addition to the funding that is already in place to offset health care travel in Labrador. He sort of evaded that question. He did not answer.

Today in Question Period the Minister of Finance stated that they did not have this money spent yet, as other provinces are doing, because they do not actually have it in their hands. Well, I say to the minister, even if you do not have that money in your hands, does that prevent you from rolling out your plan as to what you will use that money for once you do receive it? I think the people of the Province should be able to expect that much from this government rather than wait until - if what they say is correct, when they get the money then there will be further delays on the spending of that money simply to develop a plan.

I think the people of the Province should be able to expect the government to tell them today what the plans are for that money. I certainly hope, and the people of my district certainly hope, that some of that money will be used for air transportation to avail of services in Happy Valley-Goose Bay that are not available in Labrador West. Even further to that, to provide a higher subsidy that exists now so that people in Labrador, when they have to travel to the main health care centres, such as St. John's or Corner Brook, that they will able to do so without running up their Visa card, without taking out a personal loan and, in some cases, if they are not able to use either one of these two options, do not keep their appointment at all simply because they cannot afford to. That, Mr. Speaker, is not access to health care as we are guaranteed as one of the principles of our medicare system. The bar to health care, being finances, should not be allowed to take place in this Province. I would suggest, for many people it is a bar. Added to the cost of airline travel, there is also the cost of living in this area once you get here to receive your health care; things like staying at the hostel for almost $50 a night, your meals and ground transportation while you are here. These are huge costs that a lot of people from closer areas to St. John's do not incur when having to travel back and forth to one of our major health care centres.

It is important, Mr. Speaker, that this government understands that people in Labrador, first and foremost, should be treated equally. Which means that people of my district should not be treated as second-class citizens when it comes to a health care benefit that others in Labrador enjoy. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, is that all residents of Labrador -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. COLLINS: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, it is important that all residents of Labrador have a travel assistance plan in place so that when they have to leave Labrador entirely, they do not have to pay the total cost out of their own pockets, which, in many cases, as I said earlier, some people are just not able to do.

I ask the government to immediately correct these problems and make the Labrador region of the Province a part of the whole when it comes to access to health care.

Thank you.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I assume we are at Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: You are calling Orders of the Day, Sir?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, Sir.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: Under our rules, we are now in Orders of the Day.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion 4, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act. (Bill 45)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act. (Bill 45).

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act," carried. (Bill 45)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a first time. Is it the pleasure of the House 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.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act. (Bill 45)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Today.

MR. SPEAKER: Later today.

On motion, Bill 45 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion 7, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997. (Bill 52)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997. (Bill 52)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997," carried. (Bill 52)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a first time. Is it the pleasure of the House 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.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997. (Bill 52)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill No. 52 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 9, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Jury Act, 1991. (Bill 50)

I believe the Minister of Justice and Attorney General is ready to begin debate on that, An Act To Amend The Jury Act, 1991. (Bill 50)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 50, An Act To Amend The Jury Act, 1991, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Jury Act, 1991." (Bill 50)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the pleasure to rise in my place today to introduce An Act to Amend The Jury Act, 1991. This amendment will allow the High Sheriff to use personal information, but only the names, the dates of birth and addresses that are garnered from the Newfoundland and Labrador medicare records, in preparing the Province's jury list.

Mr. Speaker, the right to a jury trial is one of the most ancient and fundamental rights that we possess as citizens of this country. It is a right that people have fought and died for. It is a cornerstone of our system of justice, and today it has been enshrined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms in section 11.(f) of the Charter.

In common-law systems, trial by jury in criminal cases has traditionally involved a process whereby the guilt of a person accused of a serious crime is legally determined by a body of lay persons. These persons, usually twelve in number, are summoned by the state and chosen at random from the widest population - and I emphasize widest population - to perform this function for a particular trial and not as a general continuing service.

They are to make the determination solely on the basis of evidence properly admitted and the law as explained to them by the presiding judge in the trial, and not on the basis of preconception, partiality, or their own opinion as to what the law ought to be.

The jury is summoned and selected ad hoc by the state as a body randomly picked by lay members of society. It is not a body of law-trained persons; nor is it drawn from any one class or any one professional group within society. It does not represent any group in society. It is not a body of the accused's type of person. It is a small number of ordinary citizens picked out of a hat to participate in the administration of justice in its own society, not on a regular basis but in the context of one specific trial.

It is not to make its decisions on the basis of personal knowledge, prejudice or out-of-court information, but must base its deliberations solely on the evidence admitted at the trial. Hence, the jury is selected at the trial through procedures that permit the identification and exclusion from its membership of individuals who are not impartial, and once properly constituted it is protected from external and improper influence until it has given its verdict as to the guilt or the innocence of the accused.

In this jurisdiction, in Newfoundland and Labrador, as in others, the responsibility for maintaining the Province's jury list from which prospective jurors are summoned to court rests with officials of the court, and in the case of this Province with the High Sheriff of Newfoundland, Mr. David Jones, the High Sheriff of Newfoundland and Labrador. That authority is vested in him under the provisions of the Jury Act of 1991.

Mr. Speaker, while the Sheriff is permitted under that act to use a number of sources of information in order to compile the Province's jury list, including the Province's list of electors, the source which is primarily used by the Sheriff is a list that is supplied to the Sheriff electronically by the Motor Registration Division of the Department of Government Services and lands, containing a record of all those persons who have driver's licences. This list has been used by the Sheriff's Office for this purpose since 1997.

Prior to that date, Mr. Speaker, a list of electors compiled by the Province's Chief Electoral Officer and the results of enumerations conducted by the Sheriff's Office were used as the source of jury lists in the Province. For cost-saving reasons, the ability to use records of the Registry of Motor Vehicles by the High Sheriff has ceased, although he has the power to do so to conduct enumerations for the purpose of creating a jury list.

As for the permanent list of electors used by the Chief Electoral Officer, it is no longer used by the High Sheriff in generating this Province' jury list. The reason for this is that the permanent list of electors currently used by the Province's Chief Electoral Officer is created in the main from federally supplied information coming from consenting individual taxpayers. Because of the terms of the agreement on the use of this information between the federal and provincial Chief Electoral Officers, an amendment to the Election Act of 1991, and the provisions of federal privacy law, the use of such federally obtained electoral data for purposes other than those related to an electoral event is not permitted. The Sheriff cannot legally gain access to this information for the purpose of compiling a voters' list and, in fact, it would be illegal for the provincial Chief Electoral Officer to supply this information to him.

Therefore, to save the Province the cost of funding an enumeration of prospective jurors, and because of the above noted changes in provincial electoral law, the Sheriff's Office in 1997 began using driver's licence records supplied by the Registry of Motor Vehicles for the purpose of generating the Province's jury list.

While this information has proven useful, because of the mobility patterns in this Province and the fact that people holding drivers' licenses often move, often change addresses, without advising the Registry of Motor Vehicles promptly, this source of data is not as useful as might otherwise be the case in compiling the list of prospective jurors.

Mr. Speaker, this has resulted in situations where the Sheriff's Office has had to send out more summonses than would otherwise be the case to return the number of prospective jurors to conduct a jury trial. I understand that normally while one would have to summon fifty jurors to empanel a twelve-person jury, because of the inaccuracies in the Motor Vehicle list, eighty jurors have to be summoned in order to obtain a jury of twelve. This inconveniences the Sheriff's Office, it inconveniences prospective jurors and the employers of those jurors, who must, by law, pay such employees their normal wages when they are summoned to jury duty. It also increases the cost of summoning jurors.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Province's jury list is at present primarily assembled from one source alone, Motor Vehicle's records, exposes that list to potential legal challenge by persons who might have a right to sit on a jury, but because of the manner in which a jury list is assembled, from Motor Vehicle's records alone, i.e. from most people having drivers' licenses alone, others are excluded from being part of the same, and from accused persons, also, who might believe it excludes a class of persons, in other words non drivers' license holders who should be included. Passage of this particular piece of legislation would help to avoid such a challenge.

Under the Jury Act of 1991, as it exists today, the Sheriff does have the right to conduct an enumeration of prospective jurors. However, the High Sheriff reports that this would cost somewhere between $250,000 and $300,000. Well, this is a small price to pay for the cause of democracy.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment which I am proposing here today, and which the High Sheriff of Newfoundland and Labrador has requested be passed, offers the High Sheriff another way, in a cost-effective and responsible manner, to update the jury list without incurring this cost.

This, then, brings me to a direct discussion, Mr. Speaker, of the present bill which is before the Legislature, Bill 50, An Act To Amend The Jury Act of 1991. The proposal of the High Sheriff of Newfoundland and Labrador, which is contained in this Bill, to permit the High Sheriff in Newfoundland and Labrador to have access to the names, the addresses and the dates of birth of residents of the Province who are prospective medicare beneficiaries under the Medicare Insurance Act of 1999, for the purposes of assisting the sheriff in developing a provincial jury list is one that I, and the government, support. It is important to note that the sheriff does not seek, neither does he want, neither is the government prepared to give him or to any other persons information that relates to the medical history of any individual resident of this Province. Rather, as I have previously stated, all that he is seeking, as the bill clearly states, is the names, addresses and ages of those persons who potentially qualify for medicare - no health related information or data.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing remarkable about this. There is no threat to any person's privacy as a result of this amendment. Indeed, six other Canadian jurisdictions, six provinces, namely: Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and the Yukon Territory already permit the use of health data for this purpose. I know that all other Atlantic provinces, expect Newfoundland and Labrador, permit access to health information for this jury purpose.

While there are present problems with the accuracy of the existing list of medicare beneficiaries in the Province, this matter is being addressed. Soon, I understand, the Department of Health and Community Services will likely launch a re-registration blitz of medicare recipients in this Province. It is the data that will be garnered from this re-registration blitz - namely, the names, addresses and dates of birth alone of perspective beneficiaries - that the high sheriff is seeking for the purpose of broadening and improving the present jury list, and for further refining it from time to time. This data, once it is received by the sheriff, will be integrated into the present jury list and used to improve it. Further, it will not be used for any purpose other than the generation of perspective jury lists that are supplied to the courts, to the accused and their legal council, and crown prosecutors in criminal jury trials and for use by persons who are parties in civil jury trials.

It is important to remember that I, as Minister of Justice and Attorney General, as the chief legal adviser to the Crown in this Province, and the sheriff, as a senior peace officer and chief enforcement officer in the courts of this Province, are charged with the responsibility for upholding the rights for all persons in this Province, including the right of all of this country's citizens and this Province's residents, to a trial by a jury of their peers. What is proposed in this bill respects, protects and furthers such rights.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House today strengthens the ability of the sheriff and the courts to ensure for the proper functioning of the constitutionally protected right of every resident of this Province and country to a trial by a jury of his or her peers. It does so in a way that will not abridge any other right that any citizen or resident of this Province enjoys and in a manner that is practical and cost-efficient.

Mr. Speaker, it is for these reasons that I am pleased to introduce this bill in the House today. I ask for the support of my hon. colleagues on all sides of the aisle in the passing of this needed legislation.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to make a few comments about this amendment to The Jury Act. I appreciate the history lesson on why we have juries and how it is the foundation, I guess, of our judicial system. The only comment I have ever had a problem with is people say: You get a jury, you have an opportunity to be tried by twelve of your peers. When I started practicing law back twenty-five years ago, a fellow in Burgeo said to me: Where do your peers have to live, Parsons? I said: What do you mean? He said: Well, I heard that you have a right, under our system, to be tried by your peers, but if I commit an offence down here in Burgeo, I have to be tried in this Province up in Corner Brook in Supreme Court and they never, in Corner Brook, select anybody from Burgeo for jury duty. So, he said, they are not my peers. What do people up in Corner Brook know about me and the offence that I am charged with down here in Burgeo?

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Yes, and that was my response, I say to the Government House Leader. Depending on what you are charged with, you might want to be tried out of the Province. You might not want to be tried even in Corner Brook.

It made the point that we have a system and the system is intended to work the best that we can make it but it is never always proper. We have the Lamer Inquiry in this Province, of course, today which is, no doubt, indicative of the fact that it is not a perfect system. Everybody understands who is involved in and outside the system, I think, that it is not perfect. We are subject to some mistakes from time to time and the system is fallible but it is a good starting point.

With regards to the specific information here, the only caution I have - and we have no problem with this. We are, basically, trying to devise a way here where the sheriff, who has to come up with a pool of people from whom he or she can draw a jury list and from that list we will draw the jurors and alternatives for a particular trial. Where do we get the names from? Not a problem. I notice it does not say here, but some common sense stuff - for example, why isn't the phone book useable? If all you are going to get by putting the medical records information here, a person's name and a person's address and a person's date of birth useable, I mean, I would think that Aliant, for example, puts out a phone book that is pretty well up-to-date every year.

In the phone book it says, the Member for St. John's Centre, for example, what his name is. It tells what street he lives on, and it is a pretty good assumption that Aliant would not have given you a contract to have a phone unless you were more than nineteen. So you know you are of age, generally. So, why wouldn't we have a common sense approach as well and say, from the other sources that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may prescribe - I mean, to me it makes sense. If we are trying to save money, which is what this is all about, and is identifying a pool - and this is not rocket science. How many people live in a certain area that might be eligible for jury duty and we want to make it as large as we can - let's use some common sense stuff. Let's say the phone book is useable, an up-to-date phone book. What is wrong with that, if that is all we are going to give the sheriff anyway is a name and an address of where somebody lives? They will show up for jury duty when they are summoned. They get called and then they give their reasons as to whether - they are examined as to whether they are fit to be a juror or not. Sometimes they do not want to be a juror, and there are certain reasons you can be exempted and, in which case, you tell the presiding judge: Sir, I cannot be here for this trial because it is six months long or whatever. You give your reasons and the judge decides whether your reason for not wanting to be on the jury is acceptable. It is not earth-shattering rocket science stuff, so why not say here one of the prescribed methods is a phone book? The phone book tells you everything you are going to get for your medical insurance.

What is wrong with, for example, vital statistics? Where there is every birth and everything in this Province and everybody who was ever born here, I presume, gets registered in the department of vital statistics. Why wouldn't we use the department of vital statistics information and say: Yes, we have these many people, this is their names, this is their date of birth, and this is their address, at least, at the time of birth. Tell them that. There is no problem there.

I guess the only concern I have is the big brother concept of we are passing people's names, we are passing people's addresses around, and we have to be very careful about whose possession that information falls within. I think it is fairly clear that we operate today, as we speak, under the Freedom of Information Act, which is some years old. It is pretty dated actually, and we have sitting on the shelf an Access To Information And Privacy Act, which will put some of these protections and safeties in. Despite the minister's commentary to me some months ago, back in the spring sitting of the House in 2004: Stay tuned, we are going to get to that. I am still tuned and I still have not heard. I have been told as recently as a week or two ago: Stay tuned again, by the Government House Leader. You are going to get that Access To Information and Privacy Act coming at you in this accountability session of government. I am still tuned. I still have not heard it. I still have not heard the proclamation of it.

I say it with a caution from the big brother perspective, we had better be very careful when we start letting anybody, Sheriff officers or whomever, start peeking into your medical records here in this Province. If we were to pass this here today in all of its stages, I would submit, if we were to go from where we are today, second reading, talking about the general principles of this jury duty list, go on to Committee, go on to third reading, pass this today and proclaim it today, we would have done so without giving it the protections that will be in the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I think that deserves a little note of caution, that until we proclaim the one we should be very careful about who we let get into the medical records of this Province.

We are saying right here that it shall only be the names, only be the addresses and their dates of birth. What about the persons who might not want that known? Where is the protection for them? For example, if I put my name in the phone book, I have pretty well given an indication to everybody in this Province that I do not mind be looked up in a phone book. If Mr. Byrne puts his in a phone book there, that is pretty good information and confirmation that the Government House Leader does not mind his personal name and his personal address being stated in a public document and is there, in fact, to use.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is there today.

MR. PARSONS: It is there today.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Yes, but I did not tell Dr. Taylor, when I went to see him and I gave him my name and date of birth and he transferred that to the MCP files of the Province, that I wanted it to be divulged. I did not tell him that. There is a difference here.

I am wondering, if we are looking for a way to get a list, we do not need to complicate it and we do not need to give information to people unnecessarily. That is the only caution that I would use. We have not proclaimed the privacy provisions of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. We have not done that, and I submit we should not be releasing information until we do, in fact, proclaim that. I think then the protections would be in place, but I would not put the cart before horse.

I have no problem in passing this, I would suggest - we are certainly in favour of it - but I think as a caution and a precaution we should not proclaim it until we get from stay tuned to proclamation on the access to information.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to say a few words about the amendment proposed to the Jury Act. As the minister has said, and the Opposition House Leader has confirmed, we are dealing with a system of justice that provides for a trial before a jury in certain circumstances. Obviously not every circumstance but in the most serious of offences for the criminal law and in certain circumstances for civil matters.

The jury system is one of the most important and significant safeguards that we have, as citizens, in this country. It goes back an extremely long way, Mr. Speaker, perhaps a thousand years in the civil law system, common-law system that we have. It goes back to ancient times. The principle is that in respect to criminal law in matters of importance, that a person has the right to be judged not by somebody up on a high bench looking down upon them but by a jury of their peers determining the facts of the case. That is a fundamental importance, and I think it is worth talking about why that is.

It has been shown over the centuries, Mr. Speaker, to be a tool of the people against oppressive government, for example. It has been seen that juries are able to refuse, in some cases, to convict, because they believe that the state has been oppressing citizens and those citizens who happen to be before the courts.

It has been also an instrument of political opposition in some cases. I know there are a lot of cases in Ireland, for example, where juries, coroner's juries, during the time of the potato famine, would find a verdict against the Government of England for the fact that people died of starvation in Ireland during the potato famine, and the associated misery that went with that; a result not of a force of nature, Mr. Speaker, but in fact a result of a disastrous public and economic policy of England at the time.

We have seen, even in modern times, where certain laws which are of great controversy have had extreme difficulty passing muster before a jury when a jury was able to decide the facts. I am thinking of some of the Morgantaler cases that were before the courts maybe in the last twenty years or so, where the Crown found it very difficult to convict in certain circumstances despite the fact that a judge may, in the same circumstances, have convicted for an offense under the Criminal Code.

In the last analysis, Mr. Speaker, it is an individual, twelve ordinary people. When I say ordinary people, I say the Minister of Justice could not serve on a jury, Mr. Speaker, and the Government House Leader could not serve on a jury. Certain people are not permitted to serve on a jury, and lawyers are one of those categories of people who are not permitted to sit on a jury, because, Mr. Speaker, they are considered to be officers of the court or they are considered to have too much influence in terms of the law, perhaps, over others. It is supposed to be people who are not, technically, legally trained sitting on a jury. In other words, it is supposed to be a jury literally of the peers of the person who is before the court. It is a very important right and I think that has to be the first point that needs to be made about any legislation dealing with how juries are constructed, how they are able to be picked, and whether or not they fairly represent the peers of the person who is before the court.

The question then becomes - the corollary of this right of trial by jury is that citizens must serve. If you are citizen, you have an obligation to serve on a jury, subject, of course, to the rules. There are exceptions. If someone is in extreme circumstances or ill or may have reason to be excused, they can make their application to the court if they are called before a jury. It is an obligation of citizenship. With every right there seems to be some sort of obligation, and in this case a citizen who is entitled to a trial by jury also has an obligation to participate.

I guess it is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that the desire exists that we have a list of citizenry, to be able to ensure the right of a citizen to a jury trial, the right of a citizen to a panel of jurors that is representative of the community in which they live, which is as complete and accurate as possible.

In principle, Mr. Speaker, what the minister says, that the election lists are not accurate - and anybody who have been in an election, and everybody in this House has, knows that no matter when the electoral list is actually drawn up there will always be people on polling day who come and say, I am not on this list, or I moved or, or for some reason I was missed, or even worse: I have been living in this same house for the last thirty years and my name is not on the list and I am disgusted with the system. Some people, Mr. Speaker, even refuse to vote. I have lost a few votes that way. You bring them down to the polling station and they say, my name is not on the list, I am not even going to vote. People get disgusted because their right to vote is not recorded and written down and they object to that, and I can understand those feelings. They are disgusted with the lack of accuracy of a system that is supposed to be designed to ensure that they have a basic right to vote.

I know that the voters list is not accurate, Mr. Speaker. I know that. There may be people who are not on the voters lists who happen to have a vehicle. I share the concerns of the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, the Opposition House Leader, that we have to preserve people's secrecy and privacy, but if someone applies for a drivers licence and they are on that system, they are a citizen of the country, they are using their right to use the public roads and drive a vehicle, they have announced their citizenry and surely that makes that information available or eligible to be used to determine whether they should be on a jury list, or summoned at least to appear.

I think the one that my colleague on this side of the House raised concerns about was the MCP list. Subject to whatever the minister has to say here, I have the same concerns. I am concerned, obviously, about medical information being given away, but we do have an MCP system. You do not apply to a doctor for an MCP card. You do not go to a doctor and say: I am sick, give me an MCP card, and I am talking to you privately about this. You get your MCP card - I went and got MCP cards for my children within a number of days after they were born. You go into the MCP office, you fill out an application form and you get your card. Your card has your name on it and your card has your number on it. The number includes your date of birth. Anybody who can read the number knows what your date of birth is. The issue here is that this information be made available to a person - we are not talking about to some agency. We are talking about people who are employed directly by the public service, by the Department of Justice, who work in the court system, who are Officers of the Court, who have clear obligations to uphold the rights of justice, having access to information to prepare a list that is considered to be a jury list.

I have a lot less concern about that than I do about a matter raised the other day in the pharmacy bill, where the legislation that we are talking about amending now says that an employee or agent of the department, in the Department of Health, can go in and demand all sorts of records from a pharmacist. It does not say what they are supposed to do with them or what the purpose of them are. That is a different story altogether. What we are talking about here is the person who has an MCP card and whose address is known to the Medical Care Commission, and that information can be used to create a list. It is not passing around a list of MCP recipients and what their numbers and names are, but the information of a person, the name and address and a date of birth, perhaps, is available to the Sheriff's Office to compile a list from which subpoenas are sent. I do not really have a problem with that. These sheriff's bailiffs and sheriff's officers are officers of the court, as has been confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Premier made a statement yesterday in the House about a case that went to the Supreme Court of Canada involving William Chafe, or Billy Chafe as he was known to all of us. His funeral the Premier and I attended yesterday, and many members of the judiciary of this Province. The chief justice was there, former Premier Clyde Wells, a chief justice of the Trial Division, many, many judges which will give you, I guess, an indication of the esteem in which Billy Chafe was held in this community and in this Province for his many years of service as a sheriff's officer, as a sheriff bailiff, as an officer of the court. It is people like that who would have access to this information for the purpose only of compiling a jury list, and perhaps the minister can confirm that. But, the only purpose for which access to the names and addresses and dates of birth are is to compile a jury list which list then is used, along with the voters information, the driver's licence information to say: okay, this is a list of people to whom we will send subpoenas to show up in court on a certain day and potentially become a juror, depending on the selection process.

I think we have to recognize that in order for this system of justice to work, in order for people to have the right to a trail by a jury there must be an impartial jury available from as wide a group of citizenry as possible so that it is as objective and as representative of the community as possible. If we do not have very good lists from the electoral office - and I know that Mr. Green works very hard to try to ensure that he has us a complete list as possible. We passed legislation in this House to allow the Chief Electoral Officer in this Province, Mr. Wayne Green, to work with the Chief Electoral Office of Canada to ensure that they have as up to date list as possible. But, frankly, this has been going on for a number of years and each election discloses, whether it is a federal or provincial election, that the lists are clearly not up to date or as up to date as we would like to see them. So, that is something that I think needs to be supplemented and I agree that it needs to be supplemented.

Subject to whatever assurances that can be given by the minister, I really do not have a problem with the information being available to compile a list. I believe the minister will confirm that, that this is information only goes to officers of the court to prepare a list of citizenry to whom subpoenas would be sent. While I share, in general, the concerns that the Opposition House Leader has raised - and I, too, share the concerns that we have not properly passed legislation in this House to protect the privacy of individuals. In this particular case, we are dealing with officers of the court who are sworn to uphold the law and uphold confidentiality in carrying out their duties. I do not see the kind of difficulty there as I would see if you broadened it out about medical information, generally, which I think members of this House have been vigilant to protect.

I know the Minister of Transportation and Works and Aboriginal Affairs and I last year - when he was here on this side of the House, where I am now - took great pains and steps to try to improve the legislative and structural framework for the Centre for Health Information to ensure that it was set up as an agency of the Crown, as opposed to an arm's-length outside organization that was going to have access to a tremendous amount of confidential information. That was done to ensure that it was a Crown agency who had access to information, that there were proper protocols in place, that proper ethical standards were adopted to ensure that any information which they had and they used, they could only use it for the purposes of research and that they were bound by very strict conditions of ethical standards to ensure that the confidentiality of the public was respected and protected. I would expect nothing less from an Officer of the Crown who happens to be working for the Sheriff's Office or sheriff's bailiff, carrying out this important public function of protecting the rights of citizens to have access to a jury trial.

In saying that, Mr. Speaker, we support the legislation. We see its importance. We understand that it would create lists, but these lists only go to a certain place for a certain purpose. They have, obviously, no information attached to them which would disclose anything other than, in the case of MCP, that someone is eligible for medical service in the Province. In other words, that you are a resident of the Province. If you are not a resident of the Province, you do not get an MCP card. If you are a resident of the Province, you do get one. It is very simple. So, the only information that would be available to the Sheriff's Office is that Tom Jones, or Tommy Toe, is a resident of the Province and he is of a certain age. In other words, he is eligible for jury duty and perhaps he lives at such-and-such an address. That is useful information that is needed to protect people's rights to jury trial, and I have no difficulty supporting that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

I want to thank the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi for the contribution that he has just made to this debate, and the fact that the comments that he has made, I think, address some of the concerns that the hon. the Government House Leader expressed earlier in the debate. I want to thank the hon. Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, the hon. the Government House Leader -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Opposition House Leader.

MR. T. MARSHALL: The Opposition House Leader, I am sorry - for taking part in the debate. The Opposition House Leader is a well-respected Crown prosecutor and lawyer for many years, and the hon. the Member for Quidi Vidi as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the same day.

MR. T. MARSHALL: They were admitted to the Bar the same day, and he, equally, is as respected and distinguished as a lawyer. I am sure the hon. Member for Quidi Vidi has never been a prosecutor, though.

The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile felt that we could use some more common sense here. I am certainly always one who likes to see the use of common sense. He did mention phone books, that phone books could be used, and he also mentioned vital statistics.

It might be helpful to look at some notes I have here on Saskatchewan, what they do there. In Saskatchewan, other data, other than the information obtained from the health records, was rejected as being too exclusionary. Motor vehicle records eliminate anyone who does not have a driver's licence, and this would have a disproportionate impact on poor people and Aboriginal people. Henderson's Directory, post directory, the telephone books that the hon. member mentioned, municipal assessment records, eliminate people from serving on a jury. They eliminate people who do not own property, who do not own telephones, or who move often and this, of course, would have a disproportionate impact on poor people and Aboriginal people.

The purpose of the list is that one's peers can be summoned for the jury, and it is important that we do not exclude from that list any particular class of people because they may not have a phone or they may not have a vehicle or they may not own property.

The other concern raised by the hon. member was with respect to his concern about big brother. Most of his concerns, I think, were addressed by the hon. Member for Quidi Vidi, so I do not need to repeat those.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. T. MARSHALL: Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I am sorry. I don't exactly know all the St. John's names, yet but I am sure I will.

It is important to note that we are talking about the rights to privacy and the rights to a trial by jury, and the reasons that we are talking about obtaining the MCP records, for obtaining only the name and the address and the date of birth. I have been assured by my officials that the computer system that will be set up, will be set up so that it will only extract three fields from the health record: the name, the address, and the date of birth.

This information is being permitting in six other jurisdictions, and it is permitted here because of the nature of the right that is being protected. It is a right, an absolute right, to a trial by jury. That right is enshrined in the constitution of this country.

Unlike the right to a trial by jury, which is an absolute right, the right to privacy is a relative right, and in the case of a legal conflict between an absolute right that is enshrined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and a relative right, it is the absolute right that must win. However, where they can live together in a manner such as this bill proposes, without offending either, that is the course which should be followed, and I believe that is the course which is being followed here.

I thank everyone for their contribution in this debate and I urge hon. members to pass this legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 50, An Act To Amend The Jury Act, 1991, 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 Jury Act, 1991. (Bill 50)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. E. BYRNE: Later today, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Later today.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Jury Act, 1991," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 50)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is a piece of legislation that everyone supported, I believe. One of my colleagues, I think, being a little bit facetious, indicated that was the Jury Act and we should have only spoken for about twelve minutes.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I want to move to Order 10, second reading of a bill, An Act To Revise Various Acts Of The Province With Respect To Certain Functions Of Justices Of The Peace. (Bill 49)

We are looking forward to the brief commentary, the Minister of Justice has told me, with respect to this opening, and the ensuing debate, which I understand all members support as well, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 49 be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Revise Various Acts Of The Province With Respect To Certain Functions Of Justices Of The Peace." (Bill 49)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am pleased that my previous remarks on the Jury Act were so well received that I am called upon to get up to speak again.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce Bill 49, An Act To Revise Various Acts Of The Province With Respect To Certain Functions Of Justices Of The Peace.

With this amendment, if the House deems fit to pass this amendment, Provincial Court Judges and Unified Family Court Judges will conduct all judicial functions currently being performed by JPs, with the exception of those relating to the processing of summary offence tickets.

Mr. Speaker, as members are aware, Justices of the Peace in this Province perform different functions. They perform judicial functions and they also perform what are known as administrative functions. Federally, JPs conduct bail hearings under the Criminal Code and they issue search warrants also under the Criminal Code. Judicial functions are also carried out by JPs under provincial legislation, and the list goes on and on. They can issue search warrants; they can issue warrant to seize; they can issue subpoenas; they can preside over trials of an offence.

It is interesting that under section 26 of the Wildlife Act, two JPs can preside over the trial. They can impose a penalty; they can cancel a licence; they can enter a conviction, such as under section 48 of the City of St. John's Act; they can deal with applications for peace bonds and for recognizance under the Judicature Act. In addition, Mr. Speaker, Justices of the Peace also perform administrative functions such as swearing affidavits, solemn declarations and acknowledgments.

Mr. Speaker, case law and legislative reforms across the country make it clear that the status quo in this Province with respect to JPs is no longer acceptable. Judicial functions performed by the Province's JPs could be challenged by way of charter applications and would likely be successful. This amendment to the functions currently performed by Justices of the Peace is in response to increasing pressures where the judicial functions of JPs have been brought into question or could be challenged.

JPs in the Province currently include - there are four types. There are court clerks appointed under the Provincial Courts Act of 1991. Other court staff have been appointed at the request of the Provincial Court under the Justices Act to facilitate the processing of summary offence tickets. Court staff at Unified Family Court, under the Justices Act, conduct peace bond hearings.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, members of the general public appointed by the Attorney General under the Justices Act. It is estimated that there are currently seventy-five to eighty-five active JPs in the Province. Mr. Speaker, I understand that there was a freeze on the appointment of JPs instituted fifteen years ago, and that freezes continues.

Mr. Speaker, most of the Justices of the Peace are appointed under the Justices Act. This act lacks detail in providing no more than general authority to appoint JPs and some general authority to determine the qualifications of JPs to be appointed. As result, these JPs are untrained and they lack fundamental characteristics that make up judicial independence, such as security of tenure. Under the Justices Act, JPs can be dismissed at any time. Their appointments can be revoked by the Attorney General, so therefore there is no judicial independence here.

These factors expose the employment of JPs for judicial functions, which affect the rights and liberties of individuals to a constitutional challenge based upon lack of judicial independence in the exercise of their duties. To date, the authority of JPs in this Province to perform judicial functions has not yet been subject to a constitutional challenge, but case law in other jurisdictions has made it abundantly clear that it is no longer acceptable under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to use JPs without judicial independence for judicial functions that touch upon a citizen's right guaranteed under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These cases have made it clear that these judicial functions include warrants to search, seize or arrest, remands, bail and peace bond hearings.

To eliminate the possibility of a successful constitutional challenge, a provincial legislation authorizing JPs to act judicially, this bill will clarify that Provincial Court Judges only will have the authority to act judicially. The transfer of judicial functions will not eliminate the necessity of court clerk JPs to perform the administrative function of processing tickets, issuing of subpoenas and the swearing of information. JPs who are not court staff will continue with the administrative functions of swearing affidavits and acknowledgments.

The discontinuation of using JPs for all judicial functions will necessitate the expansion of access to provincial court, and the court will now be available 365 days a year throughout the Province on a rotational basis.

Mr. Speaker, this is a positive initiative to more clearly define the role of Justices of the Peace, and will remove the possibility of a constitutional challenge.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate a moment to have a few words about this act which I think is long overdue, and we certainly are supportive of it.

There is no question that the role of JPs in our society has changed dramatically. As the minister alluded to, there has been a freeze on it for the past fifteen years. I guess, to a lot of people, particularly in the general public, it was seen as a badge of honour, a sign of respect in the community, at one time, to be appointed as a JP. It had a very practical purpose back in the days of old, back when our transportation system wasn't as developed as much as it is, the transportation systems and the communications systems. There was indeed a need for Justices of the Peace in a lot of rural Newfoundland in particular, where they did not have access to courts, and we did not have the circuit courts even that we have now. Because we have a good transportation system, you can have a circuit court more readily than you could back then even. So the need for a Justice of the Peace today, I would submit and I agree, is basically administrative, and that has not always been the case.

I think, in addition to making the changes, there needs to be an education piece here to those seventy-five persons, the non - I am not referring here to the court staff JPs. I am referring to the general public JPs who are still out there. There needs to be an education piece, I would submit, from the Department of Justice, the minister's office, to notify these people of what their continuing responsibilities and duties are, and to make it clear to them that these changes have taken place and that their duties are administrative. I mean, this is not a time and place for getting into names, but in my travels throughout this Province I know of JPs who did it all, and continue to do it all. They did deeds - and I am sure the minister, who is probably one of the foremost practitioners of property law in this Province, has seen lots of deeds that were done by JPs, and continued to see them up to the election last year - and still do it. In fact, there is a section in the Law Society Act which prohibits them from doing it. They are not supposed to do it, and it could be a fine. I believe at the time it was up to $1,000 if you broke your law or your obligations as a JP, but there are some JPs in the Province who still think they are lawyers, who still think they have a right to draw deeds for people and to charge for it. There are JPs in this Province who think they can do wills. There are JPs in this Province who have little will kits, that you buy at Wal-Mart for $1.99, in their back porch and they do wills.

I had a case, for example, where a will that was done by a Justice of the Peace ended up in the Court of Appeal of this Province, because a couple divorced back - we had our Matrimonial Property Act - in 1979. This couple divorced and both of them remarried. There were kids in the first marriage. Of course, when this person remarried, they went to the JP and said: Me and the new missus - and they had kids, by the way, of the second relationship - need a will done because we are going away on a trip. So, the Justice of the Peace whips out his little homemade kit from, not Wal-Mart at the time, I think it was K-Mart, and says: No problem.

He knew nothing about the Matrimonial Property Act, and the consequences of what the Matrimonial Property Act did for this formerly divorced couple who had remarried, who had kids from two marriages, and made commentaries and instructions in the last will and testament that were absolutely abominable in terms of what the intentions were and what the law was. It ended up being contested in our Court of Appeal.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: No, I say to the Minister of Health, the court did not uphold it.

It is a case again where, if someone is not told what you can do, you assume sometimes that I am not told, so silence is acquiescence. It is easier to get forgiveness than it is permission, so I will do it until somebody tells me I cannot do it. This is telling them now, you cannot do it. Your duties are administrative in nature only, and they need to be told that, not for only their own protections and safety, because I would think now if they went out and did it, contrary to what they are authorized to do, they could be the subject of lawsuits themselves for negligence and whatever, and misleading representations and so on. So they need to be told for their own safety and protections from lawsuits, but, even more importantly, for the people who think that JPs can still do certain things - because they are a lot cheaper than lawyers - be careful, because this person is not legally trained.

The other purpose of their need, of course, is not as great today, is because Commissioners of Oath - you pay a small fee to the Department of Justice, and assuming you are of pretty good character, you can normally get one. So, when it comes to administrative purposes, not a problem in any community in this Province today for a community, a town clerk or anybody, to be a Commissioner of Oaths and have the signing authority abilities, or even apply in certain cases to be notary publics.

All lawyers have the designation of notary public, but for the information of the public that is not because you are a lawyer. There are lots of people in this Province who are notary publics who are not lawyers. They are barristers and they are solicitors, and they get to be notary publics because they tag that on and they get permission to be one. Anybody in the Province is eligible to apply to be a notary public. The administrative function, I agree with the minister, can be served today, not only by JPs but by commissioners and by notaries, so we don't need the Justices of the Peace from a judicial point of view, like we did in the past.

Dare I say that the minister is doing this for any clandestine reason of removing the so called judicial functions that they used to fulfill. I remember being at a minsters' conference a couple of years ago and the issue of Justices of the Peace and their role in society came up for heavy, heavy discussion from the Minister of Justice from Alberta. Out there, apparently, they are on the payroll and Justices of the Peace in Alberta get paid something well over $100,000 a year. I was amazed that not only do they have their provincial court judges and their tribunals and whatever to deal with, they also have Justices of the Peace who are into the tribunal scenarios that we have seen here in the past ten or twelve years for their JPs.

I guess from a financial fiscal point of view it is a very prudent move by the minister too, because if they don't have any judicial functions anymore after this bill it is going to be kind of hard to justify that you should be paid as if you did perform judicial functions. I guess that is another thing that will be caught by making this change at this time.

There is no question, as he alludes to the constitutional concerns, there is no doubt that down the road if some of these JPs carry out certain functions we may very well have constitutional implications and difficulties, because they don't have the judicial training that is required to perform some of the functions in our judicial system. It is better to be safe and not have them doing it than it is to think they have the ability to do it and to do something that might impact somebody negatively. It is better to not be involved.

I agree, the judicial functions that they used to perform are no longer necessary. Their historical significance in a place like Newfoundland and Labrador, where travel and geography might have been an issue in the past, that is not relevant anymore. We have other avenues for administrative things, such as commissioners of oaths, notary publics and the court appointed Justices of the Peace. This is high time that we are getting this piece of clean-up legislation, I call it.

I strongly recommend to the minister that once this is done, a little note to the existing general public JPs, as to what you can and cannot do in the future, I think would be very helpful to those individuals; not because they do not want to abide by the law, but because they just may not be aware of what happened here, and due to being uninformed, they may continue to do something that would not be wise for them or others.

I think it is a fair statement to make as well, that because we have had a freeze for fifteen years - that takes us back to 1989. I think it is a fair statement to make, we have not had any appointed since 1989. So the number of Justices of the Peace in this Province today will, by death and attrition, look after itself, in the short term anyway, but it would not hurt to give them notice so that we do not leave anybody caught short because we might make a change here that they are not aware of.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say a few words on this topic of Bill 49, to deal with the issue of Justices of the Peace in the Province.

The first remark I was going to make was the same one that the Opposition House Leader made, that this bill is long overdue. We have seen tremendous strides in the provincial administration of the justice system. The training of provincial court judges being one of the most important in the last twenty-five years, the access to justice that has been guaranteed by the Chart of Rights, starting in 1983, and a general increase in awareness amongst the public of their legal rights and their opportunity to have access to the courts, as well as, for better or for worse, a huge increase in the number of lawyers in the Province available to provide legal service. I say that with tongue in cheek. I think it is an improvement to the citizenry to make sure that people have access to good legal advice, both through legal aid where it is available, and also from the private bar.

The Justice of the Peace system is a relic from previous times. Although I tend to agree with the Opposition House Leader, that we do have a number of Justices of the Peace who still carry around their Justice of the Peace manual, probably a fairly ancient document itself, which is a manual for Justices of the Peace used throughout the British Empire. I have seen them. I do not know if the Minister of Justice has seen them. It is a manual for Justices of the Peace, and I am sure there are people who treat that as a very important document in the carrying on of their functions. I think the key here is that we have to recognize that they do not have the same education and training, they do not have the same independence. In terms of the performance of jurisdictional functions, it would not pass muster under scrutiny based on the Charter of Rights. I think it is time we recognize that and ensure that people who are carrying out jurisdictional functions have the kind of jurisdictional training and independence required to protect the citizenry and guarantee the rights that we have under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I think the second point made by the Opposition House Leader is also a valid one. I never did know, and I wondered from time to time, what the relationship between the JPs and the Department of Justice was once you had gotten your appointment. A person who had an appointment of a JP had certain statuses and privileges and rights and carried them out, but I never did understand what level of supervision or interest the Department of Justice ever took in these appointees after the appointments were made, and I say that just purely from lack of knowledge. It certainly would be appropriate, given this significant change in the role of JPs and the acts under which they are able to operate, that all Justices of the Peace be certainly notified of these significant changes and perhaps even notified as to what remaining functions they can safely perform. I say that based on my own experiences, as well as what I just heard the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile say, that Justices of the Peace often undertake activities for which they do not have requisite training. People are well advised to get proper legal advice in the carrying out of documents, such as land transactions, wills and various matters of that nature that often were performed by Justices of the Peace in the past because it can lead to very wrong decisions and very led down into directions which cost a lot of money and lead to the wrong result if their intentions are not carried out properly.

The legal profession is a very complicated one and many years of training and study are required to be able to carry out many of the duties that are carried out by Justices of the Peace, or they seem to be carried out by tradition in this Province. I think it would be very appropriate for the minister's department and the minister, not only to - I think they need to be treated with respect. Obviously, they have been performing functions for many years in areas where access to legal service of any kind were non-existent and non-available. Perhaps an opportunity for an education seminar, get together and to talk about the role of JPs under the new regime and offer them some assistance in carrying out the remaining roles that are left to them while we still have Justices of the Peace being given a commission under the Department of Justice. Treat them with respect, but ensure that they are able to carry out their functions properly and not go beyond what is expected of them under the current judicial system in the Province.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say we support the legislation and hope that the minister takes these comments under advisement.

Thank you.

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

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

I just want to say that I appreciate very much the comments of the hon. Member for Quidi Vidi and the Opposition House Leader. I think it is a worthwhile suggestion that we notify all JPs to advise them that the role they now play is limited to an administrative one of witnessing affidavits and statutory declarations, and acknowledges Justices of the Peace never had training nor the authority to practice law, to do deeds or to prepare wills.

I think one of the difficulties is that I do not think there is a very accurate record kept of the number JPs that have been appointed. Finding them might prove a bit difficult but I think the suggestion made by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile and the Member for Quidi Vidi, that a document be prepared and publicized and possibly forwarded to JPs advising them of the change in this law, I think is a good suggestion and one that I am sure the department will follow on.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This will now close the debate and I look forward to the bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill, Bill 49, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Revise Various Acts Of The Province With Respect To Certain Functions Of Justices Of The Peace. (Bill 49)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House? Now? Tomorrow? Today?

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Revise Various Acts Of The Province With Respect To Certain Functions Of Justices Of The Peace," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 49)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

By agreement, I move the motion today to read first reading, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act. (Bill 45)

On motion, Bill 45 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: I believe, by agreement, we are going to move into second reading right now, today. So, I do move now second reading of a bill, Bill 45, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 45, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act, be now read a second time.

All those in favour ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act." (Bill 45)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to begin debate on Bill 45, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act.

Mr. Speaker, right from the outset I want to make it very clear that we are dealing strictly today with the motorized snow vehicles and not ATVs. Even from the title we will get that clarified right away, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation basically will enable snowmobile organizations, the Newfoundland and Labrador Snowmobile Federation and the Labrador Winter Trails Association, to impose mandatory trail user fees to those who use groomed trails.

In that sentence alone, Mr. Speaker, I will start discussion in the debate. I know there are a number of members on all sides of the House who have some points to make on this. As I recall, Mr. Speaker, just over a year ago, in becoming minister in this department - a lot of members will remember the circumstances last year when we were about to begin the new season for snowmobiling - the federations came to see me with a situation of rising insurance costs. That was the biggest thing last year, but also other costs, Mr. Speaker, fuel costs and so on, but specifically last year the situation was the insurance costs.

All members in the House know exactly what we are dealing with when we talk about the problems that we have right throughout the Province with insurance. Just to give an example, Mr. Speaker, in 2001, the Newfoundland and Labrador Snowmobile Federation paid $18,000 for liability insurance - that was in 2001 - and two years later, just two years later, they paid $117,000. We saw the escalating rise of insurance and, of course, Mr. Speaker, that brought it to a very serious situation last year.

I had many discussions with the Snowmobile Federation, with tourism operators, with people in general who last year were getting ready to use the groomed trails, who enjoyed them years before, Mr. Speaker. We came up with a very serious circumstance, and last year, for a short term, what we did as a government was provide some small amount of funding so that the Federation could hire an executive director to basically get them through last year with corporate sponsorships and so on, but we knew that was short term and that would not last.

This year, as I said, we looked even throughout the summer with more research going on across the country of what other provinces did and so on, and I will get to that in a second. I am just going to introduce the bill today and give a few comments on it, and then give some of my colleagues in the House a chance to get up and certainly have their say on this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the industry has gone through a lot of changes in the last number of years. The fact of the matter is, when we look at what happened in this Province, $21 million of federal and provincial money has been spent - taxpayers' money spent - in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to basically build the infrastructure of trails.

Mr. Speaker, $21 million is a lot of money, and when infrastructure is put in place - a lot of people say a lot of times that government lots of times build things without thinking in the future of how to maintain and how to sustain that once you build the infrastructure. Well, Mr. Speaker, much the same thing has happened in this case, but this is not a day to point fingers or to look back, as some member said yesterday. We are talking about today, in 2004, we have $21 million invested, taxpayers' money, both through provincial, and a big part of that through the federal government, Mr. Speaker, to build a groomed trail system throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at that and you look at the tourism industry, and especially winter tourism as many of us have talked about, Newfoundland and Labrador is not going to make it a tourism industry by just having a July and August summer tourism activity. We have to look at the shoulder season and, Mr. Speaker, we also look at the winter season.

Of course, with snowmobiling that has grown so quickly in the last number of years - and I will go into some specific numbers later on when I get back in debate again throughout this debate in the next couple of days, and talk about some of those numbers - we all know, Mr. Speaker, in our own districts and so on, what it meant to a lot of parts of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I know in my own district those trails are in place now. They are groomed, in very good shape, signage, and a lot of people enjoyed them the last number of years.

So, from the previous administrations, from federal to provincial to municipal to corporate sponsorship, at the end of the day we have $21 million worth of infrastructure in this Province which, by the way, has an incredible potential when you look across the country and Quebec and New Brunswick and so on, and British Columbia, there is an ever-increasing number of people who are interested in using groomed trails and enjoying winter activities that a lot of families throughout this Province certainly have enjoyed over the last little while.

Mr. Speaker, the insurance last year certainly brought it to a head. I think it was something that was basically delayed for a long time. I do not know really how many years back, but in my own mind I believe that as the infrastructure was starting to be developed - and it is good to have hindsight, I guess, but as we look at that whole $21 million being spent in this Province to create this infrastructure - I believe that this whole idea of sustaining it and maintaining that system should have been part of that plan. Mr. Speaker, it is nice to say that we want certain things and we like the luxuries of a groomed trail, but at the end of the day somebody has to pay for it.

As we have seen in this Province, Mr. Speaker, up to now at least, depending on what happens with this piece of legislation, it was not mandatory. It was basically on your own. If you decided that you wanted to pay for that permit, then so be it.

Mr. Speaker, also in that first line, I want to make this clear today, right from the outset: This is to impose mandatory trail user fees to those who use groomed trails. Anybody in this Province - and right up even to this morning I had that question again. Mr. Speaker, anybody who is going anywhere else aside from groomed trails on the South Coast, anywhere in the back country where they are snowmobiling and cutting the wood, that is still the same as. The only fee that will be imposed is for people when they come onto a groomed trail that is signed and has been developed and under the auspices of the two federations, the one on the Island portion, the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation, and also the Labrador Trails.

Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of points made from different people. We have had lots of feedback over the last number of months, since talking to the association last year, dealing with it last year and trying to get it up and running. Of course it almost, by the way, did not get up and running last year because of a crunch that came. It all comes down to operation and maintenance and the continued growth of this particular industry in the Province which had so much, so much potential.

Under this new legislation, the Snowmobile Association will have the authority to impose mandatory trail use stickers on all those who use groomed trails in the Province, meaning a significant increase in revenues to address the issues such as increasing insurance costs and ongoing trail maintenance and infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, that is basically the crux to the bill that we will look at and discuss back and forth here today, but I want to tell you that there is a long history behind snowmobiling in this Province. People have varying views, and I appreciate that. We take all of those into consideration, of people who have used trails over the years and so on, but this particular trail system under the two associations, the one on the Island portion and certainly the one in Labrador, they have very good reason for saying that they want to continue to maintain, continue to groom and update and expand some of those trails and to grow the industry the way it should be grown. I think it is important to note that. I am not going to use a lot of time on the introduction of this today.

Also, another couple of points, I think we should mention about the accountability. Right now, what this will do is allow both federations in the Province, the Island portion, the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation, to collect those fees and to spend those fees as they see fit. The same thing with the Labrador Trails, Mr. Speaker. But, at the same time, also in the legislation it says that annually there will be an audit statement from each federation, from each Snowmobile Federation, on all the fees they have collected and how they spent the money.

They have agreed with that, through consultations we have had with them, that is transparency, that is accountability. We will know what trails are being done, how many snowmobilers are using the trails, how many are paying for the fees, and, I guess, most importantly, how that money is spent to enhance the trails and to improve those trails.

I think, with all of that in mind, remembering that the federations themselves will come with the recommendations on fee structure and so on, for this year we are going to move ahead with the recommendations they have made. It varies throughout the Province, Mr. Speaker, for a number of reasons, and we can go into that as we debate in Committee and so on. For example, in Southern Labrador there is a grant program, as the member knows. That will be taken into account in fees, but basically each federation, the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation and the Labrador Trails Federation, will take all those things into account, come forward to the government on an annual basis, of what those fees should be, what that structure should be, and certainly it has to be passed through the department first of all before that moves forward. That will be done on an annual basis, and also on an annual basis, as I said earlier, an audited statement of how the money was collected and how the money was spent.

Mr. Speaker, this bodes well for what we can see down the road. As I look through the research that we have done, throughout the summer even, dealing with this issue, we can see that most other provinces in Canada, with the exception of Nova Scotia, Alberta and B.C., who are now also looking at it, have this already in place. They have looked at that. It has been growing in Quebec, certainly. New Brunswick has been marketing their winter tourism and snowmobiling for a long time. Mr. Speaker, in this Province we have the best in the world, as the Member for Labrador will tell you. We have gotten feedback from last year from people who have come from Europe and so on, who have gone into Labrador, who say it is the best in the world.

We have the product, when it comes to that, the snowmobile trails, the groomed trails, the network we have in place. With everybody co-operating, Mr. Speaker, and everyone understanding that the more people who use the trails and are willing to pay the fee, then we can improve and keep these trails, not just maintained but improved throughout the Province.

I think it is a bill that is timely. I believe it should have been a long time. We were going to build the infrastructure and spend $21 million. A part of that plan should have been to also find out how we are going to maintain and enhance those trails over time.

Mr. Speaker, I won't take up any more time in introducing the bill and having those few comments. That is basically it. I will have more comments as the time goes. I am looking forward to my colleagues and their input.

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 the words. Again, this is a big issue out on the West Coast and I am sure in the Labrador area. I have had many contacts, many phone calls, and many acquaintances have stopped me in the grocery store, even in Canadian Tire last week, and asked me about this bill.

I agree with the minister that it came about because of the high cost of insurance last year. We almost got into a situation where the trails were not groomed. Personally, I was one of the people who called the minister and said, let's see what we can do, see if we can introduce this trails (inaudible). The minister agreed at the time that, yes, we would look at it and see what we could bring into it. In the short term he did give some money to the snowmobile association to help with last year, and that was greatly appreciated by the Snowmobile Federation.

Mr. Speaker, the whole crux of this snowmobile association are the volunteers. We cannot forget that this is done by volunteers. These are not paid positions, these are volunteers who commit themselves to better Newfoundland and Labrador to help with our tourism industry. We must recognize the efforts of the volunteers. They are the heart and soul, they are the driving force behind this, and they are the ones putting a lot of time and energy into improving the trail system for the snowmobiles in Newfoundland and Labrador to help out the tourism industry, to help out safety on the trails and to help out people in general who want to enjoy the wilderness and the outdoors in Newfoundland and Labrador.

After speaking with the minister - I am sure the Government House Leader can concur - that both sides will try to have this legislation done this week, hopefully, because I know the deadlines they are faced with the insurance. I know the deadline that they have to get the registrations out. We all agreed that we would try to get this done by this week so the Snowmobile Federation can start issuing permits, start with trying to get fees in.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of people brought to my attention about the Snowmobile Federation - there are a few things there in support, when they came to my attention. The amount of money that they will save on repairs and maintenance on the machines by having groomed trails is well worth the $50, $60, $70 or $80. It is well worth the money. The safety also - this gives it a family atmosphere, where families now can go out on groomed trails and enjoy the outdoors, where before it was a bit hard on some trails if they were not groomed to drag your sleigh behind or go out as a family with three or four skidoos and everybody trying to keep up some of the trails. So, this is more of a family adventure, for a lot of people who brought it to my attention.

I say to the minister, it is great to see that the - and this would alleviate a lot of the fears of a lot of people, that the fees just cannot be jacked up anytime anybody in the Federation feels like it. It has to be approved by he minister, and I agree with that. People on their own just cannot increase fees without having it justified. I think it is proper to bring in legislation that has to be approved by the Department of Tourism to ensure that the average person who wants to use the trails - if there is a fee increase, it will be justified. It just cannot be done for the sake of being done to raise funds for the association. That part of the legislation will alleviate a lot of fears that the people have.

Another issue, Mr. Speaker, that I think a lot of people will be pleased with, especially in my riding down in the Bay of Islands, is that the Federation are looking to improve trails and expand trails. There are some trails, that I know of down on the south shore, that are not connected. Hopefully the Federation, that has been behind the group to try to expand trails, will now be able to help out and expand the trails for the whole south shore of the Bay of Islands. That is something they have been advocating and trying to seek funding for. Once this fee structure is in place they may be able to help out a bit more. This is just something else to help out our tourism.

I know the Minister of Tourism mentioned the tourism potential. What we have been finding on the West Coast - it is the same on the West Coast in the wintertime as it is in the summertime - is that more people in the Province now will take a holiday in the wintertime and go skidooing for three, four, five, six or seven days in the Province instead of leaving the Province. So our winter tourism is not only good for people coming from the mainland down to Newfoundland and Labrador, but our local residents now who stay in Newfoundland and Labrador who would pack up for a weekend, pack up for a week, and go out and enjoy the winter outdoors in Western Newfoundland.

People on this side of the House will support this bill. Again, I am saying I am confident and hoping to have the bill done by Thursday. With all agreement, I am sure that we will. The Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair brought to my attention about some of the roads that are not connected - the main roads will receive grants now to have the trails groomed. The minister confirmed and agreed that these grants will stay in place. So there is no fear that these trails will be eliminated because of these mandatory fees.

I think this is a good piece of legislation. I think it is good for the tourism of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think it is great for the wilderness of Newfoundland and Labrador. It adds safety. It adds some kind of stability to the snowmobile federation. I will tell the minister that our side of the House will support it. Congratulations to the volunteers who pushed this, who pushed the minister last year, pushed me last year, pushed everybody in this House. The volunteers deserve a great deal of credit for their hard work and endurance to ensure that this (inaudible).

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise today and have a few comments on Bill 45, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say from the outset, that while I kind of support this in principle, I do have some concerns. I want to outline some of these concerns to the minister here today. In my district we have the largest snowmobile club in the Province. Last year, and the year before, our memberships go anywhere from 1,100, 1,200 or 1,300 members - paid membership. I want to say to the minister that we have already started, and the White Wolf Snowmobile Club in Labrador West has certainly been active in pursuing people to purchase memberships. They have different functions on the go throughout the year that are of benefit to members who choose to join the club.

Mr. Speaker, some of the concerns that I have, is: What happens when someone who says I do not want to purchase a trail sticker but has to use the trail that they have used historically to go where they want to go? If they use the trail to get from point A to point B, to go where they have always gone before the trails were there and they get caught, are they going to be subject to fines? That is an important question, I say to the minister, because skidoos were around and trails were around long before the advent of the snowmobile associations. There are some concerns in that area, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to also see an area, almost like a buffer zone. If somebody is using these skidoo trails to go great distances, a couple of hundred kilometres, fifty kilometres, twenty or thirty kilometres, and the trail is groomed then it is only fair, Mr. Speaker, that someone has to pay for that. Nobody, absolutely nobody, who has ever ridden a skidoo on a groomed trail would want to go back to the way it was before we had groomed trails. I can assure you of that. Anybody who has ever been on a skidoo and on a groomed trail knows the benefits of having such a groomed trail when it comes to their back, when it comes to the maintenance required on their machines. So the value is there, Mr. Speaker, in having a membership.

The rates that are going to be charged, that is going to be a concern. Right now it is not the same in Labrador and the Province. I do not even know, Mr. Speaker, if it is the same within Labrador. I know that in Labrador West I pay $150 to buy a trail pass for one skidoo and for my second skidoo I pay $50. I think the total for two skidoos comes to $201.50.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. COLLINS: I can say, yes, I can afford two skidoos. I have two skidoos and they are two Scandics. I want to say, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. COLLINS: Well, we do not have decent roads to drive on. We have no choice but use skidoos most of the time.

Mr. Speaker, there are benefits to having a trail pass system in place that will greatly improve the trails. As the minister and others have pointed out, that will be useful to tourism but it is also very useful for residents of the area when they go out and enjoy a skidoo trip or to get to wherever they may want to go.

I say to the minister, will there be a uniformed rate structure within the Province? Will it be uniformed for second skidoos, third skidoos, and families? Will the rates be the same throughout?

If there are a number of people who join, will rates go down? Because right now, one of the reasons for the rates being so high, I suspect you could argue, is the fact that not everybody is a member. If everybody became a member, would there be a requirement for rates to go down, rather than stay the same or go up? I am sure these are questions that a lot of people are going to be asking as they make their minds up whether or not they will comply or not comply with this bill when it is passed.

There is also the issue of insurance, Mr. Speaker. I think it is important to realize that a lot of snow machines these days cost in the neighborhood of $10,000, $12,000 or $13,000. That is quite expensive. That was the price of a car a few short years ago, Mr. Speaker. The requirement of having insurance is something that you have to show proof of before you can obtain a sticker pass and become a member of the Snowmobile Association, at least in our district. That is a good requirement, Mr. Speaker, because as I say if you have an accident on the trail or somebody happens to run into you, or you run into someone else, then it would be great for both to have insurance to cover off the damage that could be substantial at times.

I know that the White Wolf Snowmobile Club in Labrador West are supportive of this legislation. As a matter of fact, they have asked me to talk to the minister about it for the last two or three years, and I have chatted to him on occasion about whether or not there was going to be anything done. Even when he was in Opposition we had conversations about this.

Mr. Speaker, I also know there will be people in my district who will greatly resent being forced to purchase a sticker to use the skidoo trails, and that argument holds true mainly, Madam Speaker - I see the Chair has changed- that argument holds true particularly for what I talked about in the beginning, about the historic use of trails to get from point A to point B. If I am just crossing a trail or using it to go 500 or 600 yards, to go to my cabin which may not be on the groomed trail, then am I subject to being fined because I do not have a sticker to go that route, that I have used for many, many years? These are going to be part of the arguments that will come from people who do not want to purchase a sticker under a mandatory trail pass system.

The minister is quite correct, I have done some research on this myself, and most provinces in this country today have such legislation on their books to comply with mandatory trail passes. I think that when we set that we have to cognizant of the fact, Madam Speaker, that the rate, $200 per year, while it may not seem like a lot of money for most of us here in this House, and it is probably manageable for a lot of people, it is a severe hardship for a lot of families who probably have a Skidoo and just use it occasionally going for a ride. Two hundred dollars is a significant lot of money.

I would be very interested, before this legislation passes, if I could get some sense from the minister and from the snowmobile associations, as to what type of rates are going to be in place. I am sure if the rate were modest and reasonable, then I do not think you would find too many people arguing. As I said, to be honest with you if I had to go back to trails that we grew up on, that we used for the first twenty-five years, go back without a groomed trail, I would sell both Skidoos. I would not bother to have one, to be honest with you, because it is not something that I would want to go back to. The groomed trails are a benefit and they are a plus. I know in my area we have close to 900 kilometres or more of groomed trails that we can access, and, you know, it is a pleasure to ride on them.

There are a lot of questions and concerns that I have, that I hope the minister will address before final passage of this bill.

Thank you.

MADAM SPEAKER (Osborne): The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I wanted to rise, of course, and have a few words with regard to Bill 45. This bill, no doubt, has impacts in my district, as I am one of the areas still, in this Province, where communities are not connected by any kind of roads, and our highway, in a lot of these cases, is a snow highway and the groomed trails are very essential to the quality of life in many of these communities.

Now, Madam Speaker, on the Coast of Labrador and in the district that I represent, a number of these communities still use snowmobiles to access medical services, to access postal services, to access wood supply, and to be able to access air services and even groceries, in some cases, and to other towns. Some of these trails are sixty, seventy kilometres between communities, and it is very important that they be maintained to a standard that provides for the safe travel of the people who are depending upon their use.

Madam Speaker, I certainly understand the direction in which this bill is headed and the sentiment that has been expressed by the Newfoundland and Labrador Snowmobile Federation, and the sentiment that has been expressed by the Labrador snowmobile corporation. Madam Speaker, what they feel is that there needs to be a fee structure, or at least a permit structure, that is universal within the Province so that it is a system whereby all people participate and have the opportunity to do so on an even playing field.

I also realize, Madam Speaker, that these particular entities had great difficulty in past years in maintaining a standard of trail that is acceptable to the tourism industry, that is acceptable to the travelling public, and therefore they have probably been stressed more than usual in terms of providing for the financial ability to maintain those trails. I can certainly understand why they would be very supportive of a piece of legislation at this time that would help them provide a better service for people who need to use those particular trails.

I guess I want to make a couple of points. First of all, I think that any legislation like this that is to be brought forward should not impact at all upon communities that do not have road connections. I hope that the minister - and I understand his comments today say that it will not - I know that he will sincerely honour that commitment, because there are communities in this Province today, and in my district in particular, where this is their main highway connection. I would not want to see them having to pay a fee to access that particular highway or that particular road in the name of a snowmobile trail. I think that those communities should be exempt from having to pay those fees simply because that is their only way to access health care services, postal services, air services and so on. If they have to pay this particular fee, Madam Speaker, I think it would be unfair and unreasonable to those particular residents.

The other thing I want to ask of the minister and of the government is, that in introducing and enacting this legislation that they also continue their subsidization of trails in Labrador. At the present time, there are four or five corporations or development associations that receive funding to be able to clear snow on these trails, keep the proper signage there, put in safety shelters on the trail for bad weather conditions and so on, and it is very important that the funding be maintained at the level that it is today, at a minimum, in order to ensure that these trails that they depend upon are kept to a quality and a standard that is acceptable.

I ask the minister to ensure that in enacting this legislation that the funding for those entities is not affected. He tells me, in his comments, that it would not be affected, and I am glad to hear that because there is a very high dependency upon that funding in order to operate the trail groomers in order to keep the trails to a safety standard that is required.

Madam Speaker, I also want to ask the minister, as well, in enacting the legislation, if there is to be a fee implemented, because I know that it is the minister's and the government's prerogative under this legislation to implement a fee, if they wish, or to charge for a permit for the registration and operation of snowmobiles on trails within the Province, that they would also give an adequate period of time for adjustment because it would be a change that has not been, I guess, legislated before. I guess for a lot of people in my district in particular, we have not paid fees to use these trails and it is a very new concept. The Snowmobile Federation just a few years ago, maybe two years ago, brought in a structure whereby you would buy a fee to use the trails. It has not been mandatory. There has to be an adjustment period, so I would ask that he would give some consideration to that if there is to be a fee implemented.

The other thing that I would ask is that the rates would be uniform; because, as you well know, there will be areas of the Province where snowmobiling is considered more of a luxury than a dependency to enhance the quality of one's life in the region that they live in, and therefore you will see different amounts of membership. When you look in an area like on the West Coast of the Island, an area that I am quite familiar with when it comes to the snowmobile trails in that area, you are obviously going to have a lot more people purchasing permits. Therefore, the amount of revenue that is raised by the Federation is going to be a great deal more revenue than what is going to be raised in smaller communities and smaller regions of the Province where the population is a lot lower.

I would not want to see a highjacking of rates in certain areas of the Province to compensate for the cost, or the recovery of costs, of maintaining these trails. If there was going to be a fee charged by the government - and, as I said, we are not sure that would actually happen yet, but if there was - it would certainly have to be uniform and it would have to be streamlined so that we do not have a highjacking like we do now. I think the Member for Labrador West spoke a few minutes ago, and I think in Labrador West you pay a lot higher rate for the use of a trail path than you do in some parts of the Island.

I guess those would be my comments, Madam Speaker, just to reiterate that, of course, this bill has a great deal of interest for me and for my constituents because there is, as I said earlier, a lot of the communities, a lot of the people, who depend upon the trails and the winter trails as a means to be able to travel between communities. They have no other road connection, and it is essential to the quality of life that they live in that area. The trails in my region are not just for pleasure, and they are not just to cater to a tourism industry. They are to cater to the everyday livelihood of people who live there.

I want to ensure that there is going to be protection for those communities who are a part of that trail, to ensure that people who live in those communities will not have to pay for any kind of a trail pass or permit to use the trail, as it is essential to them, and also to ensure that the grants that are presently offered by the government - and have been for some number of years now, going back probably twenty years - to these regions to maintain the trails, to operate trail groomers, to employ operators, to put in survival shacks and shelters, and to put signage on the trails for safe travel for people using them, that funding would be maintained, that it would be kept in place, and it would not be reduced from the amount that is there today.

The Minister of Transportation and Works is agreeing that would indeed be the case. Obviously, that was one of the main concerns that I had with regard to any legislation being enacting in terms of snowmobile trails.

Those are my comments, Madam Speaker. I am sure there are other people who would like to speak to this bill, so I thank you for the time.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I would like to conclude today's debate by saying that I appreciate full well the comments my colleagues have spoken to date. I understand there are going to be quite a few more speak yet in Committee stage also, and we will get more comments. I will directly answer all of the questions raised by my hon. colleagues today; some very good points raised.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we have to keep in mind that this is a new direction. There is no doubt about that. There are varying views and certainly people have opinions of this, who have been snowmobiling in the Province for a long time. We all want to enjoy the great outdoors, Mr. Speaker. I would just say, I take the comments very seriously.

Certainly, as we move into Committee stage with more questions and answers, I will certainly provide more commentary on some of the points raised by my colleagues today. I look forward to more discussion and debate from all sides of the House as we move into Committee stage.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM 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.

MADAM SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All Terrain Vehicles Act, Bill 45.

MADAM SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow.

MADAM SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All Terrain Vehicles Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 45)

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Order 12, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act, Bill 48.

MADAM SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 48 entitled, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act, be now read a second time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act." (Bill 48)

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bills 47 and 48 as they relate to the same issue.

The creation of a single Financial Services Regulation Division is consistent with the government's Blue Book commitment to make regulation more efficient. The measures outlined in the bill are consistent with our commitment to streamline operations and get the best value for taxpayers' money. Up until April 1, 2004, financial services regulation was carried out by the Insurance and Pension Division, the Securities Division, and a part of the Trade Practices Division. Each of these three divisions had it own licensing, examination and investigation sections. This resulted in poor integration of these functions and more management positions than were necessary.

On April 1, 2004, the Financial Service Regulation Division was created by combining the Insurance and the Pension Division, the Securities Division, and the portion of the Trade Practice Division relating to real estate, mortgage brokers and prepaid funeral regulation. At that time, as well, the Residential Tenancy Division was combined with the Trade Practice Division. The reorganization and integration of the licensing examination and investigation functions of Financial Services Regulation made it possible for the department to carry its regulatory responsibility more efficiently at a reduced cost.

These changes demonstrated government's commitment to reducing duplication and consolidating common functions. Under this reorganization, there will be a single licensing and enforcement section staffed with three examiners and two investigators to handle all examinations and investigations. This allows for a more efficient use of our employees, and reduces duplication of staff efforts.

Legislative changes will also provide for a consistent administrative structure for Financial Services Regulation. The insurance, pension and securities sector will also have a Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent. This is consistent with the credit union sector and the real estate sector. The mortgage broker sector has a Registrar and a Deputy Registrar.

The securities bill, Bill 47, replaces the Securities Commission with the position of Superintendent of Securities, and replaces the Director of Securities position with the Deputy Superintendent of Securities Division.

The insurance Bill 48 provides for a Deputy Superintendent of Insurance. This is not an additional position but will give the Director of Financial Services Regulation the ability and authority to act as a Deputy Superintendent in absence of the Superintendent.

The Deputy Superintendent, the Deputy Registrar, will carry out duties assigned by the Superintendent Registrar and act in the absence of the Superintendent Registrar.

The goal of these changes is to make regulations more effective and to consolidate common factors. This is, Madam Speaker, an administrative function.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I gather we just passed a piece of legislation prior to this, An Act to Amend The Insurance Companies Act, Bill 48, without any comment and debate. I may have missed that, but -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: We did not deal with Bill 48 yet?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: We did not deal with Bill 48 yet, at all?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Securities Act, now before the House, I just want to say a few words about it. It is quite extensive in that it deals with a fair amount of the regulatory powers that the department now has, and tries to make things a little bit more sensible.

Obviously, we had the announcement a couple of days ago of the government supporting a national system of allowing securities regulation to have a more national focus with each province which has securities regulations, accepting the rulings and the registration of other provinces. I think that is a positive step. I do not think we did a lot of that work here in any event, but it was quite an ordeal for companies to go through to make sure that they met the securities regulations of each and every province. There has been talk for many years, in the financial community, of having a system that was more accessible and more usable across the country. I think that step is acceptable.

I was concerned at one point a few years ago - and even Ontario has not bought into it now - there was some talk of national securities regulations. This move seems to have superceded that, but I think that the changes brought about by this regulation here really create an office of Superintendent of Securities to do the work of what was formerly called a commission. I think it is probably more in keeping with the kind of work actually done in this Province under the function of securities regulation. It is important, however, that we have access to the kind of information that would be available if a securities regulator were in this Province, or if documentation was filed in this Province, that there would be public access to the kind of information that such a local system would require.

If, for example, documents are registered in Alberta, or British Columbia, or Ontario, if they are part of the system, will people in this Province have the same access to the kind of documentation that would be available here in Newfoundland and Labrador if the Province conducted its own securities regulation? Perhaps the minister can address - I see her making note of this, but I think that is an important question. I raised it the other day when the minister had her statement about this.

If we not going to actually have the registration requirements here in Newfoundland and Labrador, does that mean that the people of this Province will not have access to the information contained in such filings? Will there be an ease of access to that information that may be filed in Alberta, or filed in Saskatchewan, or filed in Ontario or British Columbia, so that even though we are not forcing companies to go through the same processes in Newfoundland and Labrador, the people of this Province can access the information and the regulatory information that is on file, that is available? Will there be ease of access in this Province through copies of documentation or some sort of system which - currently you can do down now and search in the Registry of Companies and search in various registries in this Province of matters that are subject to regulatory approval here.

To what extent is the question. To what extent will people in this Province be able to access that kind of information when we are accepting under this - I think the name that the minister applied to it was the passport system, not to be confused with visas and travelling, where, as I understand it, by filing and meeting the securities regulations of one province, this Province accepts that other province's procedures, processes and approvals to the point of allowing the securities to be traded here in this Province in the same manner as they would be if they were registered here.

That is how I understand, in a nutshell, the system would work. In order for that to make sense, there would also have to be access to the kind of information that would be publicly available if it were, in fact, registered in this Province.

I am hoping that the minister can deal with that. There are a lot of individual sections of this act that probably could do with a fair bit of scrutiny. Unfortunately, given the time frames - we are at second reading right now - that are available, there has not been time to study each individual section of the act, and the consequences.

I guess, Madam Speaker, what I am saying is, with a bill like this, with its complexity, we did have a system a few years ago where parliamentary committees, or legislative committees, were used to study bills of this nature so that some members of the Legislature - not just the minister's officials - had actually gone through the bill, clause by clause, to make sure that the kind of things, the consequences of taking certain words out, or striking certain sections, and all of the ninety-four clauses of this piece of legislation actually made sense and fit within the existing framework, that was actually done.

This is the kind of bill that, I think, invites that level of scrutiny. The members of this House should be able to study this kind of legislation in some detail in order to perform their functions. I know in other legislatures that takes place. In the House of Commons there are people who specialize in interest in financial matters and they end up on the Finance Committee. They scrutinize in great detail the legislation that is before them or get officials to come and give briefings to the legislative committees on the legislation, to answer questions, to make sure that the bill is properly scrutinized. We did do that for a couple of years, about ten years ago. We stopped doing that, or the government has stopped providing for it, not this government, the previous government. This government appears to be continuing on that road.

When we talk about enhancing the role of Members of the House of Assembly, one of the things that needs to be done if the role of Members of the House of Assembly is going to be enhanced and that members abilities and competencies and experience is to be taken into consideration, we have to make more use of legislative and select committees of the House so that the expertise and experience knowledge of members who are elected to this Legislature can actually be put to use in analyzing legislation, even in the kind of detail that I am talking about here. We recognize this is pretty technical, regulatory type information and legislation but you know what happens, Madam Speaker - and you have been here long enough to see these bills come in called, An Act To Remove Errors and Anomalies in the Statute Law. They come in with a bill, usually once every year, with twenty-five or thirty or forty amendments to make to fix up errors that slipped through the legislation in the previous year or the previous year before that.

Madam Speaker, the use of legislative committees with the kind of detailed scrutiny that is required is something that would and should remove some of these errors before they find their way into the law. Also, there have been occasions when committees of this House - and I do not mean Committees of the Whole - where committees of this House have made substantial or substantive recommendations to amend particular sections of legislation that has had the result of improving it.

In terms of the purposes of the legislation here at second reading, we are eliminating both the Securities Commission and the Director of Securities and putting in place a superintendent, I think, in keeping with the plans of the minister and department, that is a good move. I do not think we need a commission to deal with all of this if essentially what we are going to be doing - and I am not suggesting we are rubber stamping. We are accepting the fact that other provinces who may approve securities for sale in their province are going to do a good job of that. I think the reason that this government and the other governments of Canada have gone along with this is because those provinces are also saying that if the prospectus is filed here in Newfoundland and Labrador, if it meets our regulations, if it meets our scrutiny, then it will also be accepted in Nova Scotia or in British Columbia or in Saskatchewan. So, there is a quid pro quo here in that the legislation is based on mutual respect for each others competency and ability, and that itself is a very positive indication of the kind of co-operation and legal respect for each others regimes that we have in this country.

I think that is a good idea, the including of a deputy superintendent. I think that is consistent as well and a good thing. Giving the superintendent the powers of the commission, that is fine. I think the fact that the superintendent is no longer required to hold formal hearings is also protected by suggesting that people have an opportunity to be heard, even though a formal hearing is not required in each and every case when an order is about to be given. I think that conforms with the expectations of fundamental justice, and I support that.

Once again, we are, to a large extent, relying on the minister and the minister's officials in all of the technicalities that are set forth in this bill, including the amendments. Like I say, seventy or eighty or ninety sections of this act that are being presented to us. However, on the principle of the bill, we support this move. We think it is a positive step for this Province to be a part of this national system and to provide for a streamline way of dealing with this type of regulation of securities in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Just a few words about Bill 47. The minister said it is a Blue Book commitment that is being honoured here. I remember seeing that in the Blue Book, how they wanted to streamline the Securities Act here in the Province.

One of the other commitments in the Blue Book that is not being honoured, unfortunately, was the layoffs - that there would no lay offs in this mandate. Unfortunately, this bill is prompted by the fact that there was a layoff there. The last round of layoffs that the current government had eliminated the position of Director of Securities, and that was a Mr. Tony Patey.

Under the old act or under the present act - because this one is not in place yet - the director had specific duties and responsibilities. Part of that was answering to the Chair of the Securities Commission and the Securities Commission itself. So, as I understand it now, the Chair of Securities and the Securities Commission are eliminated. They are no longer in existence in the Province. I haven't had the opportunity to go through this whole act because it is quite lengthy and quite complicated but, I guess, minister, we have to depend upon you and your officials to ensure that the best interests of the public are being represented here in this particular bill. But, I also understand that this bill, Bill 47, paves the way for Bill 48, which is the appointment of a deputy superintendent of insurance. So these two bills go hand in hand.

Some of the concerns I had here were mentioned by my colleague, the Leader of the NDP. You know, by eliminating that commission we seem to putting a lot of dependence upon the regulators of other provinces before things are done here in this Province. I have some questions, minister, that I would like to get answered. I will probably wait until we get into committee before I get those questions answered. I will tell you up front that the questions I have are concerning the accessibility of the public to hearing some of the hearings on the regulations that are put in place here.

The other part of it, too, minister, and I will give you some time to find out, in fairness to you, is that the added workload to the people, I think, who would be assuming these duties. Will this slow down the process or will it speed up the process? Those are the things that we have, and I always have some concerns - as we all should as politicians who represent the people of this Province - when you remove a process or remove the public from a process in the Province, that people, at least, have access to attend the hearing and to voice their concerns.

Minister, probably, when you give your conclusion on this bill, you may answer some of those questions or when we get back to Committee.

I guess, for the most part, putting trust in the officials who drafted this, I will vote in favour of this bill as it stands.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

If the minister speaks now she will close the debate.

MS WHALEN: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleagues for their commentary. All the powers are still status quo. It is purely an administrative bill that we doing today, striking out the word commission and substituting it with the word superintendent.

In conclusion, the bill is brought forward.

Thank you.

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

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act. (Bill 48)

MADAM SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House? Now? Tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tomorrow.

MADAM SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 48)

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Order 11, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Securities Act, Bill 47.

Madam Speaker, before I sit down, I just want to reference that when the minister spoke to Bill 48 she was also speaking to Bill 47 because both bills are really companion pieces of legislation. I do know that there has been commentary from both sides related to that. I understand, as well, that potentially the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi wants to have a few words dealing with the insurance companies. I just want to preface our remarks on behalf of the government, that in dealing with that we now put forward second reading. The minister has already spoken to both pieces, essentially, because they are companion pieces of legislation.

Now, we look forward to any other commentary that may be forthcoming from members on the opposite side of the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Securities Act." (Bill 48)

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

These are rather unique circumstances in our House, that we had the debate on this bill when we called the other bill, and now we are going to have the debate on the Insurance Act, having called that. We have done worse things, I suppose, in this House.

With the indulgence of hon. members and the Chair, when I spoke last I spoke about Bill 47 which is now before us, so I will not say any more about that. I did want to have a few words to say and had hoped that there would be an opportunity to talk about the Insurance Companies Act, so I will devote a few remarks to that.

We currently have a Superintendent of Insurance and this act very simply requires or allows the government to appoint a Deputy Superintendent of Insurance to act in place of the Superintendent in his or her absence or incapacity, and to exercise the powers and perform the duties of Superintendent under an act or regulation may be assigned.

In short, it is a very important and increasingly important part of our daily lives in this Province, whether it be automobile insurance - and we all know the concerns about that - or whether it be home insurance, and home insurance is another expensive item that people who want to protect their property need to have or are required to have by a bank or a mortgage company if they are seeking a mortgage. The cost of that is something that we all have to bear if we want to do that. In fact, because of that it impinges on other aspects of our lives too. Being able to get the money from a bank or a mortgage company to buy a property requires you to have insurance and insurance is becoming difficult to obtain, in some cases, in the City of St. John's in the downtown area, for example. That has given rise to a lot of concerns and concerns not only with the getting of insurance but the cost of that insurance. I understand that insurance brokers are very much aware of this problem and they have found a way to ensure that people get access to insurance, but it is at a very high rate.

I think it is an area where government should start finding ways to regulate how this process works, because we have that problem in the City of St. John's and other places. In rural areas, we have the problem of fire protection being an important precursor to obtaining insurance. When we see situations like we have seen in the Bay St. George area in the last little while, we have concerns about how fire protection works and whether or not it is going to be available so that people can (a) have their homes protected when fire strikes, and (b) have the financial security of knowing that they can get insurance and therefore be able to obtain a mortgage to buy a property or, in fact, be able to sell the property if they chose to do so, so that someone else can get the financial means to buy that property. It is very important. It is becoming a fact of modern day life that insurance must be had and must be paid for. In that context, I suggest, Madam Speaker, that we are focused on that because the cost has increased considerably in the last little while.

We have had debates about why that is so, to the point that we have suggested in the past year that we ought to have a public automobile insurance program. Now that is not something that the representative of the insurance companies really likes. In fact, the vice-president of the insurance bureau of Canada - the Atlantic Insurance Bureau of Canada, they call it now - has gone so far as to say that public insurance does not work. In fact, he says in the letter to The Telegram today - this is by Don Forgeron - "It has been proven time and again that government-run auto insurance systems do not work for consumers." This is a direct quote. "It is time to put that idea to bed, and to concentrate instead on real solutions to our very real problems." Now there is a statement made by Don Forgeron, the fellow who came this Province many time to tell us that we should pay more for insurance or we should have less benefits because somehow or other the system was being abused.

Mr. Speaker, the statement that he made, that it has been proven time and again that government-run auto insurance systems do not work for consumers, is totally contrary to what is being said by the Consumers' Association of Canada, for example. I have to say, that if I were going to choose who I would listen to on whether or not public auto insurance works for consumers, I would listen to the Consumers' Association of Canada before I would listen to Mr. Forgeron who is the representative of the insurance companies; the insurance companies who, by the way, made $1.8 billion in the first nine months of 2004 in property and casualty insurance. That includes auto insurance, home insurance, commercial insurance and marine insurance. The property and casualty insurance businesses in this country made $1.8 billion in the first nine months of this year, more than they made in all of last year combined. The insurance companies are doing very well. They have their representative, their hired gun, out there talking down to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, criticizing me and our proposal for public auto insurance, and saying that it has been proven time and time again that government-run auto insurance systems do not work for consumers.

Madam Speaker, if you look at the reports that the Consumers' Association of Canada produced last year, they have shown that the lowest rates in the forty cities studied, the lowest rates in this country in the forty cities studied, are in those province that have public auto insurance systems.

That is who I would listen to, Mr. Speaker. I would listen to the Consumers' Association of Canada, who had a study done for that purpose. I would also invite Mr. Forgeron to listen to the man who runs the British Columbia automobile insurance company. It is called ICBC, the Insurance Bureau of British Columbia. He was appointed by the government of Premier Campbell shortly after they came to office. His name is Geer, and Mr. Nick Geer was appointed by the Provincial Government of British Columbia by the Free Market Liberals, I think they call themselves, and one of their first acts was to appoint this fellow, Nick Geer, who was a former vice-chair of the Jim Pattison Group. He was appointed as the Chair of ICBC, and later President and CEO, and they were asked to assess whether or not the Crown insurer ought to be fixed or sold for parts, as this article says.

They had a look at the insurance company of British Columbia, and here is what Mr. Geer had to say from a private sector point of view. He was a director of one of the Jim Pattison Group. That is a very big money group in British Columbia, lots of companies owned by Mr. Jim Pattison. I think he owned the B.C. stadium, or whatever it is called. He owned the B.C. Lions and various other big activities out there - lots of companies, and very much a free marketeer - but he went in to look at ICBC, and what is interesting were his comments.

The question asked to Mr. Geer: It was assumed that, with your business background, you had an agenda to privatize. He said: No, I went in to have a look at it, and we found things going on inside that company that I had no idea existed. This company has hidden its light under a bushel for many, many years.

What they found, Mr. Speaker, they found that this company provided good value to consumers, and they provided tremendous other benefits to consumers' - safety issues. They had considerably significantly lower operating costs than the industry. He said somewhere between 15 per cent and 16 per cent of the premium dollar was spent to operate the system, whereas the private industry runs between 24 per cent and 27 per cent. So, they were running their system at 10 per cent less cost in terms of operating costs. They were running their system on a non-profit basis, and that will save you another 10 per cent to 12 per cent per year. So we have a system that not only is running well, but, when somebody went in with a private sector mind, he found that it was a system that worked and was valuable to keep.

He was also asked: As a B.C. consumer, what was your impression of ICBC ? Well, he said, I did my darndest not to have preconceived notions but the idea was to have a good hard look at it, understand what was good and what was bad. Most people now realize that we have some of the lowest premiums in the country - now, this is the President of ICBC, the former private sector guy. Most people now realize we have some of the lowest premiums in the country.

I want you to contrast that with Mr. Forgeron's statement in the paper today, " It has been proven time and again that government-run auto insurance systems do not work for consumers."

Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what systems Mr. Forgeron has looked at, because if he looks at ICBC in British Columbia he will find that they have amongst the lowest premiums in the country. If he looks at the Manitoba public insurance system, or the Saskatchewan government insurance system for automobile insurance, he will find that they too have amongst the lowest premiums in the country.

In fact, a study done for the period 1992-2002 shows that in fact the three provinces whose insurance rates rose the lowest on the average over that period were British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, an average of less than 4 per cent per year, whereas in Newfoundland and Labrador it was an average of 11.2 per cent per year. Two-and-a-half times, almost three times as much in each and every year did the increases go up in the private system in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where Mr. Forgeron gets his information, but I am sure that his opinions and statements of fact about what has been proven time and time again in this country, that government-run automobile insurance do not work for consumers. He says, "It is time to put that idea to bed, and to concentrate on real solutions to our very real problems."

Well, Mr. Speaker, the real solution proposed by Mr. Forgeron is to maintain the super profits that the insurance company gets at the expense of consumers, and to maintain those profits at the expense not only of consumers having increased rates but at the expense of consumers having less choice, less benefits and less opportunity, if they do have an accident, to get the benefits of automobile insurance that they are paying for.

We do need to have an improved system of supervision of insurance, Mr. Speaker. We do need to ensure there is always somebody available to deal with insurance issues and insurance companies. A superintendent of insurance needs to have somebody who is able to stand in for him or her when she is not available. We do need to have someone able to fill those shoes at all times, because we do have major concerns about insurance products in this Province, how insurance companies operate, and the situation where we are now going into a situation where the Public Utilities Board is going to be looking at certain aspects of insurance, not public insurance. They are not going to be looking at public insurance. They are going to be looking at other aspects of it. They are going to be looking at the kind of fine-tuning or the kind of tinkering that has been proposed by this government in the past and by the Liberal Party in the lead up to the last election, when they were in government and seeking public support for them to continue on.

It is only this party, Mr. Speaker, that actually had a real solution going into the last election, and that was to come up with a system of public automobile insurance that was going to, in fact, provide the consumers of this Province with a product without a profit motive, a necessary but also mandatory service, that people driving automobiles in this Province are required to have insurance and they are entitled to have the lowest possible insurance rates and the best product and the fairest system. Public auto insurance has proven to be able to deliver that in British Columbia, in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

I know that Mr. Forgeron and his companies don't want to believe that and they want us to think that somehow or other these organizations have failed. In fact, the exact opposite is true, Mr. Speaker. They have succeeded, and succeeded mightily, in delivering the goods and in providing a fair system and a cheaper product to the people of their respective provinces. We should be entitled to examine that system and develop our own if we so choose, contrary to the attempts of Mr. Forgeron to dampen down the debate, to say that there is no opportunity for public automobile insurance. The exact opposite is true and I would invite other members to join with me in calling for a proper study into the kind of system that we could have and should have in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few words on Bill 48. The insurance business itself is a pretty complicated and contentious, I might add, industry. Just yesterday morning I had the opportunity to attend a round table hosted by the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the IBC. They wanted input from the public, from stakeholders out there who are concerned about insurance and growing insurance rates in this Province, and in the country as a whole. One of the interesting things that came up, they said that the cost of insurance wasn't a problem with the insurance company, it was a Canadian problem. I cannot help but note, how much of a problem would it have been if the government of the day had lived up to another one of its Blue Book promises, minister? You talked about Bill 47 being part of the Blue Book. I know you are not listening but, in any event -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SWEENEY: She did not respond so, obviously, she wasn't listening. That is fine but -

MR. E. BYRNE: We can't take your time away.

MR. SWEENEY: I will make my points - I have my time, I say to the Government House Leader.

But had the government of day lived up to that Blue Book promise, then maybe we would not want a Deputy Superintendent of Insurance. You know, the whole thing - the people of this Province are calling in to government, on a regular basis, their concerns, their problems that they are having with insurance in this Province. We talk about the affordability of insurance. We talk about the accessibility of insurance. We talk about the things that the ordinary people of this Province cannot get their hands on.

There are all sorts of things happening to people out there, homeowners in this Province. Take, for instance, somebody who, up until a couple of years ago, could get an oil tank changed for $400. Now, all of a sudden, because the insurance company comes in and determines that: No, there is no date on that tank. Maybe you should replace it. Six months later they get a letter that says: You haven't replaced your tank, your insurance is cancelled - or maybe even thirty days later.

There were stories told yesterday at that round table about how a bill came - and, of course, nobody wants to get a bill from their insurance company anymore. That is the last thing you going to open when you get your mail, that bill from the insurance company. That is one of the problems that we have here. Of course, then what happens is that the insurance superintendent and the new Deputy Superintendent of Insurance will get a phone call from these people: What am I going to do? I have just received notice that I have six days to change an oil tank. Can you help me? What can you do for me?

Those are the things that are happening out there in the Province. That is great here in the city because you have people around who provide that service, but when you are outside, you step outside the Province into rural Newfoundland when inspectors cannot get up to inspect the tank - like Labrador. I notice the Member for Lake Melville is sitting there. To go up the Coast of Labrador and get an inspection done, you may have to wait six months before somebody determines that there is enough business up there -

MS JONES: (Inaudible)

MR. SWEENEY: Or even a year, as my colleague from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair says - before there is enough business up there to merit sending an inspector up; going through that expense of sending somebody up to do it. Those are the problems that we have and that is what generates the work.

If the government had to honour their commitment of doing something with insurance - I notice, minister, you still have not gone ahead with your hearings that you promised this fall.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: Yes, I understand - to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo - that she is not even listening to me, so how can the public be heard in the hearings? How can they be heard?

I think we are placing a lot of work here that does not have to be placed upon these two people, the Superintendent of Insurance and the Deputy Superintendent of Insurance. If we could get our act together in this Province with regard to insurance - and it is not just the insurance companies, I have to say, who are the people that are making the big money here in this Province on insurance. The legal community, the legal profession has all kinds of money that is being made here in this Province with regard to insurance claims. There was one firm last year, I was told, that made $23 million out of insurance claims.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: No, I do not want to mention any names here in this hon. House regarding that, but most people can figure out who the big companies are in this Province. Twenty-three million dollars, that is a lot of money coming out of the consumers pocket. When we look at a deductible of $2,500, well that deductible is not going into the consumers pocket. The 35 per cent fee that a legal firm charges is coming out of what somebody gets paid. When it all comes together, the consumer is still being the one who is being persecuted here with insurance. It is not coming down to the consumer having clear rights in doing things.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I am having some difficulty here trying to speak because there are four discussions going on around me here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: The minister responsible over there is -

MR. SWEENEY: The minister responsible, if he wasn't aggravating my colleagues over here with his feedback back and forth across the floor, I would be able to get some more thoughts together on all of this.

I do want to say to the minister that when her hearings start, whenever they are supposed to start, I want her to entertain and give the public a chance to have some input. The people like the rabbit town community centre, the various groups, the volunteer organizations around this Province, allow them to have some input into what it is costing them in insurance in this Province, and do what is right for them.

One of the things that you will find, minister, as I encountered, that when your public hearings start it will come down to the battle of the wallets. It will come down to the legal community marching in their people. It will come down to the insurance company marching in their people, and everybody will have all the answers. I say to the minister, the only answers that you will have, that you will be able to provide to people, is reasonable and affordable insurance. That is the only answer that you will have. If you did that in this Province and created the right atmosphere where money was not the main object here, then you would end up with no need for another Deputy Superintendent of Insurance.

Minister, I say to you, that if you had honoured your Blue Book promise in the first place and provided the 20 per cent reduction that you had promised the public of this Province when they went out to the polls, then we probably would not encounter some of these useless things that we are encountering.

Thank you.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the minister giving her opening comments in terms of questions. Normally, we would end the day at 5:30 p.m. today, I believe at that point, based upon agreement between myself and the Opposition House Leader in discussions with the Leader of the NDP, we have agreed to stop the clock for about fifteen minutes or so, just to try to clue up a piece of business that we have agreed to for this parliamentary day. So when we do hit that, I am not sure if you need me to stand and say the clock is stopped, but I want to put forward that now.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Speaker could ask for the consultation of the House, is there agreement that the clock will stop at 5:30 today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: The agreement has been recognized by all members. I think we are ready now for the question on second reading.

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 Securities Act, Bill 47.

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House?

MR. E. BYRNE: Today.

MR. SPEAKER: Today.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Securities Act," read a second time, ordered referred to the Committee of the Whole House presently by leave. (Bill 47)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy to provide any further clarification if you so need it, Mr. Speaker.

I do move now that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider a number of bills which we will put forward.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bills to be named by the Government House Leader?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I want to move the Committee on Bill 50, An Act To Amend The Jury Act, 1991.

CHAIR: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Jury Act, 1991." (Bill 50)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Jury Act, 1991.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 50, An Act To Amend The Jury Act, 1991, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 50 is carried.

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

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In Committee, An Act To Revise Various Acts Of The Province With Respect To Certain Functions Of Justices Of The Peace, Bill 49.

CHAIR: Bill 49, An Act To Revise Various Acts Of The Province With Respect To Certain Functions Of Justices Of The Peace.

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

 

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 53 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 53 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2 to 53 carried.

On motion, clauses 2 to 53 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, the enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Revise Various Acts Of The Province With Respect To Certain Functions Of Justices Of The Peace.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, the title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 49, An Act To Revise Various Acts Of The Province With Respect To Certain Functions Of Justices Of The Peace, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 49 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Committee of The Whole debate, Mr. Chairperson, An Act To Amend The Securities Act. (Bill 47)

CHAIR: Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Securities Act.

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 94, inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 94 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 94 carried.

On motion, clauses 1 to 94 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

 

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, the enactment clause is carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Securities Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, the title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Securities Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 47 carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Committee of the Whole debate on Bill 48, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act.

CHAIR: Bill 48, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, the enacting clause is carried.

CLERK: An Act to Amend the Insurance Companies Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 48, An Act to Amend the Insurance Companies Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 48 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Bill 35, Mr. Chairperson, An Act to Amend the Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes.

I am calling that now. I believe, just for brevity's sake, we have passed every clause associated with this bill with the exception of clause 29, and we do have an amendment that is on the floor that has been circulated and I understand there is consent to the amendment. I believe the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi wishes to make a few points with respect to the amendment and with that, Mr. Chair, I will sit down.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I am speaking to the amendment proposed by the minister to clause 29. This is a significant amendment, Mr. Chairman. You will recall, at second reading I raised concerns about the existing section 29, the draft that was before the House, which provided a very broad power to the Department of Health to examine records of pharmacists across the Province, and under discussions with the minister and with consultations with the Pharmaceutical Association and the Registrar, under the proposed Registrar of Pharmacists, the legislation was amended to narrow the purposes for which information can be obtained for pharmacists.

The issue here is one of privacy of patient records, privacy of health records. The provision, as it reads now, says that it limits the access to information, to the purpose of the administration of the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program, including for the purpose of processing, monitoring, verifying or reimbursing claims for payment under the program and program development and evaluation. Upon the request of an employee of the department authorized by the minister, a pharmacist shall provide the information that the employee requests with respect to prescription drugs prescribed to a resident of the province and received by that resident with the assistance of the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program.

Mr. Chairman, that limits the access to information by the government employee of the department to the information required to administer the Prescription Drug Program, and we do have to accept that if the government is going to be paying for these drugs through the Prescription Drug Program, there must be some means of an auditing to ensure that the claims are valid, that they are not being put forth fraudulently by the pharmacist involved, which is certainly possible, or that the drugs are not, in fact, being delivered to the individual.

The government has the responsibility to manage public funds. We in this House have to concern ourselves with that, in part, but also we have to concern ourselves with the protection of the privacy of individuals to the extent that is possible, consistent with that goal.

I will say as well that more needs to be done. We do have to have the Protection of Privacy Act put into force in this Province. For some reason, it has been on hold for more than a year-and-a-half. I know the Minister of Justice tells people to stay tuned, but we are running out of tunes, Mr. Chairman. We are running out of twiddling our fingers, and we are keeping our fingers crossed and hoping that the minister will provide some other explanation, other than what we have so far, and will announce the proclamation of the protection of privacy legislation so that we can be sure that a greater degree of protection and privacy is available under the laws of this Province.

Nevertheless, the amendment that the minister has agreed to present, I have had a look at it. I have consulted with the Table officers, the legal consultants to the House, and I have been assured that this amendment deals solely with the administration of the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program and cannot be used for other purposes.

There is a secondary provision that allows the employee of the department to have that information made available to an agent of the government, and I understand this to be a computer processing type of circumstance where that information will be used again solely for the purposes for which it was obtained on behalf of the minister, and that is the administration of the program.

I think we have to understand that this was inserted in the legislation, really, to protect the pharmacists; because, if you did not have that in there, the pharmacists would be obliged not to release this information about patients because they would be in violation of their own ethics. That was not the concern that I had, because they do have their own ethical provisions and that protects the public as well, but I was concerned about some broad access to that information being authorized inadvertently in this act to allow information to be obtained for other purposes.

I believe the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile talked about big brother the other day. I think we should, as a matter of principle, keep to a minimum the kind of things that government knows about your personal life and, of course, what drugs you take, what diseases you have. These are personal, private matters and they have to be protected to the utmost degree possible. I think this amendment does achieve that by limiting the access to information to a departmental official solely for the purposes of properly administering the Prescription Drug Program of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair would assume that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is moving the amendment.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) necessary to move the amendment. I believe the minister had the amendment put forth.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the commentary of my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. At this time, I now move the amendment to clause 29 of Bill 35, and we will now proceed.

It is also my understanding, as indicated by my colleague, the hon. the Government House Leader, that all other sections, of course, have been approved at Committee level.

CHAIR: The Chair has received a copy of the amendment as proposed, and the Table rules the amendment to be in order.

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

MR. HARRIS: I did note that the minister didn't announce that he had a seconder. If he needs one, I would be prepared to second the amendment. We have discussed it, and I am certainly happy with the amendment that satisfies the concerns that I have raised at second reading.

CHAIR: Since the amendment is in order, the Chair will read the amendment.

"Clause 29 of Bill 35 is amended by deleting the proposed subsection 34.1(1) and substituting the following:

"34.1(1) For the purpose of the administration of the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program, including for the purpose of processing, monitoring, verifying or reimbursing claims for payment under the program and program development and evaluation, and upon the request of an employee of the department authorized by the minister, a pharmacist shall provide the information that the employee requests with respect to prescription drugs prescribed to a resident of the Province and received by that resident with the assistance of the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program.

"(1.1) An employee of the department authorized to do so by the minister may provide the information obtained under subsection (1) to an agent of the department approved by the minister for the purpose who may use it for the purposes for which it was obtained on behalf of the minister."

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment to clause 29 of Bill 35?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt clause 29, as amended?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 29 carried, as amended.

On motion, clause 29, as amended, carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Association Act,1994. Is it the pleasure of the Committee to carry the said bill with amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 35 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and the Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 50, Bill 49, Bill 47 and Bill 48 passed without amendment, and Bill 35 passed with amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee has considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bills 49, 50, 47 and 48 pass without amendment, and Bill 35 pass with amendment.

When shall these reports be received?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Be received now.

On motion, reports received.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report that Bill 35 pass with some amendments.

When shall the report be received on that bill? Now?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, report received.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded the said amendments be now read a first time.

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?

Carried.

CLERK: First reading of amendments to Bill 35.

On motion, first reading of amendments carried.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against?

Carried.

CLERK: The second reading of amendments to Bill 35.

On motion, second reading of amendments carried

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move third reading of Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994.

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 35, An Act Amend The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994. (Bill 35)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 35)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Jury Act, 1991. (Bill 50)

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 50, An Act To Amend The Jury Act, 1991 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Jury Act, 1991. (Bill 50)

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 Jury Act, 1991," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 50)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move third reading of a bill, An Act To Revise Various Acts Of The Province With Respect To Certain Functions Of Justices Of The Peace. (Bill 49)

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 49, An Act To Revise Various Acts Of The Province With Respect To Certain Functions Of Justices Of The Peace, be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Revise Various Acts Of The Province With Respect To Certain Functions Of Justices Of The Peace. (Bill 49)

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 Revise Various Acts Of The Province With Respect To Certain Functions Of Justices Of The Peace," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 49)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Securities Act. (Bill 47)

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 47, An Act To Amend The Securities Act, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Securities Act. (Bill 47)

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 Securities Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 47)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act. (Bill 48)

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 48, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act, Bill 48.

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 Insurance Companies Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. ( Bill 48)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I move the adjournment motion, I want to just thank all colleagues in the House for their co-operation again today. Tomorrow when we come back it is Private Members' Day. We will be debating the motion put forward by the Member for Gander vis-á-vis the inland fisheries program and I think to call upon Ottawa to take their responsibility serious on behalf of that resource in the Province. We look forward to that debate and the participation of all members on both sides.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I do now move that the House adjourn and be back here at 2:00 p.m. tomorrow of the clock.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that the House do now adjourn and that we reconvene tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 1.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

This House is now adjourned.

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