May 11, 2010                        HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                  Vol. XLVI  No. 19


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the Chair would like to welcome some special guests who are visiting us in our galleries, a special welcome to the members of the Sunnyside 50 Plus Group from the District of Bellevue.

The Chair would also like to recognize Mayor Robert Snook and Councillor Boyd Snook from the Town of Sunnyside, who are both very active members of the 50 Plus Club as well.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would also like to welcome the Mayor of Millertown, Mr. Kevin Greene.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would also like to offer a special welcome to Ms Françoise Enguehard, the winner of a prestigious award for her most recent French language novel.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard: the hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue, the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North, the hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte, and the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans, by leave.

The hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

The hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, 50 Plus clubs are being developed throughout the District of Bellevue. Today, Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House to recognize the 50 Plus Club of my district who are doing very positive things.

This club from Sunnyside has developed a very active, healthy living program. They work closely with their town council and have partnered with their youth to administer a fitness group in the basement of the Sunnyside Lions Club. All equipment, I may add, was put there through great fundraising.

I would like to recognize Mayor Robert Snook and his councillors for their support and promotion of this great project.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate Mr. Boyd Snook, who has been instrumental in organizing this 50 Plus Club and assisting in getting these programs developed.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the 50 Plus Club of Sunnyside for their volunteer services and making the active, healthy living project possible.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the recipients of the Duke of Edinburgh's Awards at the Gold level.

Mr. Speaker, this success is a testament to the hard work and dedication of those individuals who participate in the Duke of Edinburgh's Awards Program. I myself have participated in the program and know first-hand the commitment and perseverance it takes to accomplish this award.

I would like to recognize all recipients, in particular, Catherine Orr, Andrew Harvey, and Andrew Hynes of Mount Pearl. I wish them all the best in their future endeavours and hope that they continue to participate in those activities that are of great interest to them. They are role models for others who have hopes of exploring their inner talents and interests.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the achievers of the Duke of Edinburgh's Awards Program.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, cancer is a terrible disease. Each year hundreds of people in our Province receive the shocking news that they have cancer. All these people, in their own unique way, eventually find the strength to cope with the news and the courage needed to face a more uncertain future.

Joining us today, Mr. Speaker, is a resident of my district who has been bravely walking the cancer road for close to a year now.

On her fiftieth birthday, September 25, 2009, Maxine did not attend her planned party because, instead of celebrating, she was undergoing day surgery to confirm the suspected diagnosis of inflammatory breast cancer.

Since that time, Mr. Speaker, Maxine has undergone six months of extreme fatigue and sickening nausea brought on by chemotherapy treatments. She then bravely faced the pain and the discomfort of surgery and she is currently completing her final week of radiation treatment.

Mr. Speaker, her prognosis is good. Anybody facing cancer must battle physical pain, emotional turmoil and mental anxiety. Maxine's positive attitude has enabled her to face each day with a smile, along with hope for many years of health and happiness.

Maxine is thankful to her family and friends for their prayerful support. She is also very thankful to our doctors and nurses who, through their professionalism and their compassion and their sincerity, have been of tremendous help to her as she travelled the road to better health. Finally, she is thankful to God for providing her and her family with the strength and determination needed to face each day with a thankful heart.

Mr. Speaker, Maxine's battle with cancer is not unique. Her experiences are shared by many men, women, seniors and children throughout our Province each day. Their battle is difficult and their determination should serve as an inspiration to the rest of us to never give up, to never give in, and to always maintain a positive attitude.

Members of the House of Assembly, please join with me in recognition of all cancer patients throughout our Province. Also, please join me in especially honouring Maxine, a truly brave lady, a person of extreme optimism, a person who happens to be my biggest fan, my partner, my wife, my best friend.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans, by leave.

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in this hon. House to congratulate a Francophone author who recently earned a prestigious award. Ms Françoise Enguehard, a writer and well-known member of the Province's Francophone and Acadian community, has received the Prix des lecteurs from Radio-Canada, the French-language network of CBC.

This award was presented to Ms Enguehard on April 22 in recognition of her acclaimed novel, L'archipel de docteur Thomas, which was published in 2009.

Écrivaine et membre bien connue de la communauté francophone et acadienne provinciale, madame Enguehard s'est vu décerner le Prix des lecteurs de Radio Canada, pour son roman acclamé, L'archipel du docteur Thomas, publié en 2009.

This distinction acknowledges Ms Euguehard's novel as the best French-Canadian fictional work of the year. In addition to receiving this wonderful honour, Ms Enguehard was the recipient of a $5,000 bursary from Radio-Canada.

Originally from the neighbouring French islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, Ms Enguehard has been an active member of this Province's Francophone and Acadian community and an indelible presence in our artistic and cultural landscape for many years.

L'archipel du docteur Thomas takes place in St. Pierre and centres around the discovery of a collection of photographs taken at the beginning of the twentieth century by an enigmatic doctor about whom little is known.

Fascinated by the photos' retelling of a forgotten way of life, a successful architect and a young student attempt to shed light on the reasons why Dr. Thomas abandoned St. Pierre – and his collection – so long ago.

The novel, Mr. Speaker, addresses themes which are common to both Newfoundland and Labrador and St. Pierre and Miquelon, including attachment to place, out-migration of youth, the loss of built heritage, and the pervasiveness of our natural environment.

Ms Enguehard has penned other notable works, including Les Litanies de l'Île-aux-Chiens and Le Trésor d'Elvis Bozec.

A graduate of Memorial University, Ms Enguehard has worked in the fields of journalism, translation and education. In addition to writing and operating her own communications firm, Ms Enguehard serves as president of the Société nationale de l'Acadie, Chair of the provincial Historic Commemorations Board, and Chair of the 2011 North Atlantic Forum organizing committee. She is also a member of the Province's Réseau culturel francophone.

Ms Enguehard has previously been honoured with the Ordre national du mérite by the Government of France and the Ordre des cent-associés francophones here in Canada.

I ask my hon. colleagues to join me in congratulating Mme Enguehard on the occasion of this significant achievement, a first for a writer from this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador like the rest of the world, has felt the effects of the most recent global recession. However, we have remained far better positioned to weather it than many other jurisdictions internationally and here in Canada. We had the right plan and a strong foundation already in place, which guided us through the downturn and kept our momentum going. Now Newfoundland and Labrador is set to resume growth in 2010, and confidence in our economy is soaring once again.

Consumer confidence in this Province is the highest in the Atlantic region. Incomes are growing, housing starts are rising, and so, too, is the retail trade. In fact, Newfoundland and Labrador recorded the strongest increase in retail sales among all provinces in 2009, and another 5 per cent growth is projected this year.

Business confidence is very strong as well. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business' latest Business Barometer, even though on a national scale optimism has fallen of late, the level of business confidence in Newfoundland and Labrador is the second highest in the country and well above the Canadian average.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: In fact, Mr. Speaker, the survey showed that 98 per cent of firms in this Province rate the overall state of business here as either good or satisfactory.

Mr. Speaker, I talk to business people both in and outside our Province who see the steps our government is taking and the positive climate for business investment and the growth being created in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are doing this by investing in programs that facilitate business expansion, by investing in our education system and initiatives that support the development of the skilled labour on which most businesses rely heavily, and by improving the tax and regulatory environment, including further reductions announced in this year's Budget – reductions in small business tax and further reductions in personal income tax as announced by my colleague in the most recent Budget.

More and more businesses are recognizing that Newfoundland and Labrador is an attractive place to be. Capital investment growth is poised to lead the country this year, Mr. Speaker, at a projected 23 per cent increase. This will be spurred by the industrial activity and expansion, from Long Harbour to Labrador; and also our own government's unprecedented investment in infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, this is a choice location to invest, to pursue a career, and to live. Our government will continue to ensure that we have the environment to support new investment attraction which will generate prosperity and pay dividends for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians well into the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I appreciate the advance copy of the minister's statement.

The only thing missing today is the blue pompoms, I say to the minister. It must be the polling period again, Mr. Speaker, and it is very unique to see how conveniently we have some information left out.

I do start my response by saying thank you very much to all of those individuals and corporations in this Province who do keep our economy going. Thank goodness for you people.

The minister conveniently left out a few things. For example, he is the Minister of Business, ladies and gentlemen, and he forgot to mention that he heads up a department that in the last three years since it has existed it has had $75 million to use to attract businesses to this Province. Guess how much they have spent? Less than $10 million. Guess where $8 million of that $10 million went? It went into the boot factory in Harbour Grace, and I say to the minister and I say to the Premier the catching going around -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr, Speaker, for your protection.

Mr. Speaker, I notice there was a photo a couple of years ago about the $8 million they put into the Harbour Grace boot factory but a caption out there today, Mr. Speaker, is: Who got the boot? There were fifty workers who were laid off last Friday, I say to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, you look at the Estimates in the Budget for this year, it showed that it cost $5 million to operate this business last year. Guess what? They only put $4.5 million out the door. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, it is time to get rid of the Department of Business and put it back into Industry, Trade where it ought to be instead of being a pet project of the Premier.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

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

Obviously, this is good news and it is good to see that our business community is strong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: I would like to recognize both the people who give leadership in the business community, as well as the employees who work hard to develop the business climate that we have in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: However, Mr. Speaker, while things are going well and while average incomes are rising, we also have a responsibility in this House to remember the many people who live on fixed incomes and others who are seeing housing costs outpace their salaries. We have an income gap that is spreading now between the high earners and the low earners in our Province and that is leading to problems.

I do encourage government while they do more investment in business, both small and large, and while they do look at the labour market development and how we have to develop more jobs in this Province, to also make sure that our social programs keep pace with those who do not benefit from what is happening in the Province right now.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Health damaged the reputation of an air ambulance pilot in this Province. He tried to suggest that the reason they were moving the air ambulance by the end of this month out of St. Anthony was because a pilot refused to fly this past weekend.

Well, Mr. Speaker, what the minister did not say was that this pilot was indeed sick and that this pilot was told only a few hours before he was due to fly that he would have to make a decision within two weeks as to uproot his family and to move if he wanted to keep his job. The other thing the minister did not say, Mr. Speaker, is that the decision to move the plane had been made before the pilot even called in sick on that shift.

I ask you today, minister, to do the honourable thing, to stand and apologize to this pilot and to his family for the accusations that you threw at them yesterday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, let's talk about damaged reputations and spurious allegations and let's look at what the Member for The Straits & White Bay North said yesterday when he talked about Mr. Wes Drodge having been responsible for the death of an individual in James Bay.

Mr. Speaker, we have looked at that report. Mr. Drodge was the CEO of the James Bay Hospital and no responsibility for the air ambulance in that area. Mr. Drodge, Mr. Speaker, operated the land ambulance only. So if we are going to talk of spurious allegations being made against people, let's look at what happened there yesterday. I note that when the MHA was asked to go out and make his comments publicly, he did not do it then, he backed down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Is he intending to apologize to this pilot and to his family for the false accusations he made yesterday?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding, when I look at the information that was provided, that the individual in question refused to fly. Now that is the information that I put out there yesterday. I indicated that there was a situation that had been looked at by Labrador Grenfell Health; they are the authority that deals with this matter. They had spoken to the individual. There had been at least one other incident, Mr. Speaker, that caused us concern. There is no question that the plane – we announced on March 26 that the plane was moving and these individuals were notified recently that the plane would be moving. As a result of what is the emotional and volatile situation that exists in St. Anthony, we felt it best to move this plane as quickly as possible and that is what we are doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister indicated yesterday that it was because this pilot had refused to work, which we know now was indeed sick, I say to the minister, along with other incidences that prompt him to move this aircraft out of St. Anthony immediately.

I ask you today minister: Tell us what those other incidents are?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

There was another incident that occurred around the day of the protest - I am informed by the paramedics here who run the air ambulance system - that did not meet with their approval.

Also, Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of other e-mails sent to me by pilots that have been – by one pilot in particular, has been particularly disconcerting. When we look at, Mr. Speaker, that five pilots are moving, and we have a number of them who are obviously refusing to comply with the requests that are being put forward to them, then this is something that Labrador Grenfell has to deal with. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the Labrador Grenfell authorities have dealt with these individuals. They are personnel issues within the health authority, and I understand that they are satisfied that they have been dealt with and there will not be a repeat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is fairly cavalier in his attitude, and yesterday he did state that it was this incident over the weekend regarding this pilot that prompted him to move the plane immediately.

I ask the minister today: Isn't it true that the decision to move this particular aircraft took place even before this pilot called in sick for this shift?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Hansard will reveal exactly what I said. I think what I indicated was that there are a number of factors there that required the movement of this plane, and there had been an incident this weekend which caused us concern. Mr. Speaker, the pilots and the other individuals had been notified that they had a number of – I do not know if it is seven or fourteen days to determine if they were going to move with the plane, and it had been indicated, yes, that the plane would be moving by the end of the month.

So I think if you review Hansard, what I said was that there are a number of factors, but this was sort of a factor now that caused us to even move along quicker because of the potential danger to the health care system.

Mr. Speaker, I had, over the weekend, on the day of this incident, received e-mails from the Director of Air Ambulance in the Province and also the Chief of Emergency Medicine in the Province expressing their concern about what had happened in St. Anthony that day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister has stated that he wanted to move the plane quickly to stabilize the situation. In actual fact, he has now further demoralized the system and will be putting a plane in another area of the Province that has no medevac team and is an extra hour flying time from St. John's.

I ask the minister today: How is this action going to stabilize the system as we see it today?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

As a result of everything that has taken place since last July, there has been a lot of review and thought gone into the air ambulance system and how it should be best structured.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of the question raised by the MHA for The Straits & White Bay North yesterday, I went back and had some work done on statistics, and it shows that approximately 5 per cent of the flights that pick up the medical flight service team come out of St. Anthony. So the St. John's aircraft goes with the medical flight service team to most of the requirements in this Province. A lot of them, Mr. Speaker, are routine flights and we know that approximately half the flights had the medical flight service team.

I am currently discussing as we speak, yesterday, and will be again tomorrow, discussing with the people who run the air ambulance system how we can best deal with this situation. When we announced in the Budget that there will be a medical flight service team, it was recognized by all that it would take time to recruit and train the proper personnel.

So, Mr. Speaker, the plane will be in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. We will continue to fix up the system and we are working on solutions as we talk.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister also knows that the second air medevac, the aircraft that is based in St. John's, is currently down and is scheduled to be down for the next few days, even a week, and that this has been a frequent thing that has been happening with this aircraft over the past year.

I ask the minister: Will you confirm that this is indeed the case, and will you also explain to the people of this Province how with one provincial air medevac left in operation today, how moving it to Goose Bay where there is no medevac team, is going to help to support the rest of the Province and provide for a more effective service? Why are you not waiting until the plane, the new plane, is on the ground in St. John's?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition raises a very good point in terms of the problems with the plane in St. John's. That is an older plane and we announced in this year's Budget $8 million to replace that plane.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what we will be looking at – we are told by the experts in the air ambulance division of Eastern Health that two dedicated aircraft with a charter service suffices to serve this Province. We have charter airplanes, Mr. Speaker, that are available to us and that we hire on a regular basis. In fact, we spent quite a lot of money on charter aircraft.

In relation to what the hon. member is talking about, Mr. Speaker, I can indicate that as late as yesterday discussions were ongoing to address the issue: if you have two planes, there is one in the air or one down, how do we deal with that situation? We are currently looking at a short-term solution and we may be in a position in the not too distant future, Mr. Speaker, to outline how we are going to provide an efficient and effective service with one plane in Goose Bay and the other plane in St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister's response is evident that he has no clue what he is doing. He is putting the lives of people in this Province in jeopardy, Mr. Speaker. How can he stand in the House today and defend moving an aircraft further north to a site with no medevac team in place at this stage when the other aircraft in the Province is not even in working condition?

I ask you, Minister, to start putting your head around this issue and start making decisions that will provide for the life and safety of people in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Further questions?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will ask the question again. You have only one air ambulance plane available to the people of this Province right now. You want to move it further north where there is no air medevac team in place at the present time and where you have an aircraft in St. John's that is not in working condition.

I ask you, Minister: Why would you do this knowing that you are putting people's lives in jeopardy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, by not doing this we are putting people's lives in jeopardy because I think we have to go back to how all of this began on July 15 last year with the terrible incident that occurred in Labrador West. We have to then move forward, Mr. Speaker, to September and what occurred in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and, most recently, what occurred in Labrador West.

Mr. Speaker, we have identified our risk area - the major risk area right now as being in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, the Labrador West North Coast area. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite presented a petition to this House asking to have the plane moved to Labrador; we have done that.

Mr. Speaker, as pointed out by the MHA for The Straits & White Bay North, there is quite extensive medical personnel in St. Anthony; four anaesthetists in St. Anthony for a population of 14,000 people on the Northern Peninsula; four general surgeons, Mr. Speaker, more than in Grand Falls-Windsor or in Gander.

Mr. Speaker, besides all of that we have put over $12 million in capital equipment in this hospital in the last number of years. There is a hospital there to serve the needs of the people. I would suggest to the members opposite that they should concentrate on that because when you look at the numbers of doctors there, it certainly causes concern.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the minister was really concerned about the people in Labrador, he would be adding a third air medevac aircraft in this Province today and not diminishing the service in the way he is.

Mr. Speaker, the minister is telling us today that because he does not like the comments from pilots with the air ambulance services and e-mails and letters in the papers, that he is going to promptly move the plane out of St. Anthony before there is even a medevac team in Goose Bay, before there is even a new aircraft on the ground in St. John's.

I ask you, Minister: Do you not see how this will jeopardize the service further to the people of the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated whether or not the plane is in St. Anthony or in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, the reality is that the medical flight service team would not be in place for approximately eight to ten months to a year; people have to be recruited and they have to be trained.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, most of the medical flight service flights come out of St. John's, approximately 95 per cent of those flights, so that they originate in St. John's.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that we are aware of the situation that exists and that we are working on it as we speak. I am in contact with the air ambulance experts at Eastern Health who dispatch throughout the Province, Mr. Speaker. We will take such steps that are necessary. As I indicated, as late as yesterday, we were discussing which charters we use, how do we use them to provide the level of service that is required.

So at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, this is the right decision. We are making it for the right reasons and when we look at a population of 30,000 people as opposed to 14,000 we look at twice as many flights coming out of Labrador and we look at the risk areas, Mr. Speaker, this is the right decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Trevor Taylor, the former high-ranking Cabinet minister in the Williams government recently sent a letter to the Northern Pen. In the letter he stated that the people of The Straits & White Bay North voted against the government and implied that they are now being punished related to the air ambulance decision. This is a very serious allegation being put forward by someone who worked inside this government and very closely with the Premier.

I ask the Premier today: Are the statements made by your friend and former colleague accurate and if not why would this ex-cabinet minister make such statements?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear, this government never has and never will inflict retribution on a district; it does not happen. During my entire life, I watched it happen too much while Liberal governments were in power in this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - and saw too many communities and people punished for supporting the government. So, in fact, as I have stated before when this decision was being made with regard to the air ambulance, we convened a committee of Cabinet ministers to make sure that there was no partisanship whatsoever went into this decision. In fact, we have indicated throughout - and Minister Taylor has advocated very, very strongly on behalf of his district up there. He has advocated for roads. He advocated, of course, for the air ambulance. He advocated for funds for the bottling plant for the hon. member right now so we could employ people in The Straits &White Bay North.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows very well that we support districts. We support your district. There is a school in L'Anse au Loup. There is a school in Port Hope Simpson. More road money has gone into your district than the entire Province collectively put together, so we do not punish districts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The former Cabinet minister, Mr. Taylor, also bragged about the investments that he secured as an MHA and left the impression that that would now stop because the people of his district voted against the government.

I ask the Premier: Do you stand by Mr. Taylor's description of how decisions are made around your Cabinet table?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite continues to speak out of both sides of her mouth. One day this is a one-man show; it is a dictatorship. Another day now she is advocating that because he was a team member and he had a strong voice at the Cabinet table that he was successful in advocating for his district. Well, we are quite proud of the fact that he and every member here, and every member over on that side of the House advocate strongly for their district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: This morning I met with four members, yesterday afternoon I met with three members to hear specifically, exactly, what they wanted for their districts.

Trevor Taylor was a strong voice at the Cabinet table. He is very proud of his record on the Northern Peninsula, just as Wally Young, the Member for St. Barbe district is proud of what he has done. Everybody here makes a contribution. Everybody advocates for their district. As I have said before, we do not exclude hon. members opposite. To the school in Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, we do not sit there and say because someone sits on the opposite side of the House that they are going to be punished because that is not a government district.

Trevor Taylor did a good job. He advocated for his district, but certainly no more than any of the other hon. members that join us here in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Taylor, in his letter, also said that he provided the necessary information and arguments to his Cabinet colleagues to keep the air ambulance in St. Anthony.

I ask the Premier: If Mr. Taylor's information convinced you and Cabinet to keep this air ambulance in St. Anthony over the past several years, why did you ignore the validity of this information once he resigned?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we come down to the nub and the heart of this. This issue was raised by the Leader of the Opposition. She brought a petition to this House. She asked that this particular service be moved to Labrador. We then conducted a study. I would have to say, quite honestly, that until that study was conducted I did not know where the chips would fall. I had no idea where the preference would be. We now find that St. John's is number one, Happy Valley-Goose Bay is number two, and if, in fact, there was ever a third air ambulance it would be in Deer Lake. So, St. Anthony has been completely eliminated from the picture as a result of the actions of the hon. member opposite.

While that was happening and while that petition was being brought before this House and while that study was being done, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, at no time met with the minister or asked for a meeting with any of us.

So, you are the author of your own misfortune. You asked for a solution, we gave it to you and now you are blaming us for it. That is not acceptable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Premier, in case he has not noticed, I do not sit at the Cabinet table, I do not make decisions, and I do not own the decisions, Premier, that you make in this Province, and it will be you and your Cabinet that will own that decision.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask this question to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, because last week we found out, Mr. Speaker, that the remand centre for Happy Valley-Goose Bay was cancelled and the funds were removed from the Budget. Well today, Mr. Speaker, I have learned that the funds allocated to build a new wharf in my district, in Williams Harbour, which had been allocated for the past two years, has now been cancelled and the funds have been removed from the Budget.

I ask the minister to confirm that that is the case, and if so, tell me why that is?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I came into this department in November, Mr. Speaker, and we were in the midst of Budget preparations. One of the issues being brought forward was the Williams Harbour wharf. Take it back to 2007, there were tenders called but the tenders came in 35 per cent over budget, so it was re-tendered again. Two bids were made, Mr. Speaker, the lowest bid, the bidder disqualified himself, backed out of it, and the other bid was of a million dollars, in that particular range. When I found out that the volume of traffic there is about four to five boats that tie up there, I had to question whether this was a prudent investment during this Budget process. I am not saying to the member that I will not bring it forward, all I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is before we are going to finalize something, I want more information to guarantee that this is a worthy expenditure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to remind the minister that this is a community that is on an island in the middle of the Atlantic with no roads and no transportation network. It is a fishing community whose wharf burnt down, whom your government seen fit two years ago that it should be replaced and made a commitment to the people to do just that.

I ask you today, minister, to continue that commitment and to, at the very minimum, give the people in this community a wharf to dock their fishing boats at.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, what I have directed officials to do is to see and work with the people in that particular area to see if there are alternatives.

Mr. Speaker, I simply cannot stand and say, yes, here is a million dollars and go to it. I want to make sure that the investment that we make is the best one. So I will have officials work with the community to see if there are in fact alternatives, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a front page story in The Telegram today is about fishing company Cold North Seafoods, owned by Daley Brothers, who want to transfer its licence to St. Joseph's, which will leave another community, Little Bay Islands, very likely having to close up shop.

So I ask the minister: Does the future of this or any other community depending on the fishing industry come into play when decisions such as these are made by the fish licensing board and ultimately approved by your department as the Minister of Fisheries?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, from the statement you would take that a decision is made, and that is very far from the truth.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that it was advertised in the paper on Saturday points to a process that indeed is working, Mr. Speaker. A company has asked to transfer a licence. They have to issue it through the media, through the paper. Proponents, community leaders, community groups have two weeks to submit, it goes to the licensing board, they review all the information and then a recommendation will be brought forward to my office, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, back during a by-election in 2008 the Town of La Scie on the Baie Verte Peninsula was reassured by this government they would get a shrimp licence transferred from St. Joseph's. It will soon be two years now and people have yet to see the reality of that promise.

I ask the minister: Why this promise is not fulfilled and if indeed he intends to make good on this commitment?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, the proponent has to put the licence there. We have granted - I cannot tell you specifics to that right now but I can certainly get follow-up information and bring it to the House, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits &White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, the minister has been referencing of late about the evolution of the fishery as the MOU process unfolds and I think we are starting to see the beginnings of that process now with licence transfer requests and so on.

I ask the minister: Given the implications of communities for plant closures and so on, can you reassure these communities that they will be given a voice in the MOU process so they can help decide their own future?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we had Estimates last night, it generated a few questions it seems.

Mr. Speaker, the MOU process is indeed unfolding. Mr Speaker, I think we are at a point in this Province in the fishing industry where people recognize that things cannot continue as they have always continued. Both parties in this MOU process have admitted to that and they want to work as closely as we can.

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to change or somehow manage the evolution of the fishery in this Province I think that community representation is key because there is not only fish plant owners and harvesters who have a stake here, Mr. Speaker, it is all the communities that are involved and they certainly should have a say in that, and I am welcome and open to any commentary that those groups want to provide.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, one of the communities that expressed much concern about the future of their fish plant is that of New Ferolle on the Great Northern Peninsula. This multi-species plant was bought by Deep Atlantic Sea Products, Greg Mullowney, in May of 2009 for $1. This would be the second year now with no production.

I ask the minister: Why has he allowed this community to be held at ransom by this operator, and if Mr. Mullowney allows his licence to lapse, what it will mean for the community whose residents feel like they have been forgotten in this situation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I made a commitment to both of the Opposition parties last night in the Estimates. It might be a good thing for them to come over and we will give them a little briefing on the MOU and how it is moving along, and that they might, in fact, Mr. Speaker, come out and support this process. We often hear criticism from time to time. Well, if they had some of the ins and outs of the MOU that they might want to support that process along the way.

In reference to New Ferolle, Mr. Speaker, the MHA, Mr. Young, has certainly met with me on it, the Member for The Straits has raised the issue as well. Our most recent conversation with Mr. Mullowney, he reports to us, Mr. Speaker, that he indeed intends to go in there and operate. Hopefully, the folks in the area will see that rather soon, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Natural Resources spoke about regulations and safeguards regarding potential accidents in the offshore and that there will always be risk, but, Mr. Speaker, regulations and safeguards are useless if the worst happens and oil spill containment technology fails in extremely deep water.

Mr. Speaker, there is latent hypocrisy in saying that a review of what happened in the Gulf is required on the one hand and then allowing exploratory oil drilling to ocean depths of 2.6 kilometres on the other hand. How do we know that what is happening in the Gulf cannot happen here?

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: How can the people of this Province have any confidence that government is serious about protecting lives of workers and our fragile environment?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is no one in this House or outside of it that would ever be able to tell the member opposite that there is no risk associated with drilling for oil or putting any kind of a ship on the water, whether it is for fishing or for drilling or for whatever.

What we have to do, Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, is understand that risk as well as we can, understand how we can mitigate that risk, put the proper legislative and regulatory controls in place, and then decide whether or not that is a risk that is acceptable.

That has been done by the federal government, by the provincial government, by other agencies, by certifying third parties, Mr. Speaker, and we have decided in this Province, in this country, in this world, that there are acceptable risks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to point out to the minister that all of those people in the world that the minister is speaking about are starting to question things now that they cannot deal with what is happening at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico.

Mr. Speaker, the government explained yesterday that they will not stop exploratory drilling in the Orphan Basin because it is unlikely a spill will happen in the first place. Today, Chevron is promising to be careful in the wake of the current oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. This kind of thinking is setting us up for a reactive response to a disaster and puts us at great disadvantage.

Mr. Speaker, we know nothing is impossible, and it was that kind of rationale that allowed the S-92 to be approved without a thirty-minute dry run capability. Sikorsky said the likelihood of complete oil loss was extremely remote. Well, we know how remote it was, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS MICHAEL: I am posing my question, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier today: Will he put a halt to exploratory drilling until we have better information on what caused the blowout on the Transocean rig and how to contain a spill at 2,600 meters deep (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If there is an answer to be given, I ask that it be put forward now.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is disconcerting to stand in the House and try to answer questions when the member demonstrates such ignorance about what goes on in our offshore.

Any time that you drill a well, whether it is onshore or offshore, Mr. Speaker, you need a blowout prevention valve. Mr. Speaker, not only are they used in exploration wells; they are used also in drilling production wells, which happens in Hibernia all the time.

Mr. Speaker, there is no assurance that we can give to the member opposite, or anyone else, that there will not be something happen in our offshore that is going to have some kind of an environmental impact. Does she want us to shut down all three producing projects, Mr. Speaker - because there is risk there - as well as any exploration work that is going on (inaudible)?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

The Chair would like to refer back to Question Period again and ask hon. members, when they are asking questions, or answers are being provided, that they not refer to members by their names, but by the executive position that they hold or by the district that they represent.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, the Government Services Committee have considered the matters referred to them and have passed, without amendment, the Estimates of the following departments, agencies and offices: the Department of Government Services; Government Purchasing Agency; Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat; Volunteer and Non-Profit Secretariat; Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs; Department of Finance; Public Service Commission; Office of the Chief Information Officer; Department of Transportation and Works; Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee Vice-Chair is the Member for Port de Grave. The other members on the Committee are the Members for: St. John's East; The Straits & White Bay North; Kilbride; Bay of Islands; Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; Burgeo & La Poile; Baie Verte-Springdale.

The Committee would certainly like to thank the ministers and their staff in the particular departments for allowing us the time to review their revenues and expenditures, and also responding to questions that were put to them during the Estimates procedure, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further reports by standing and select committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition from the people on the Northern Peninsula, Mr. Speaker, in the New Ferolle area. Mr. Speaker, these individuals have submitted a petition, and obviously they are looking for answers on the condition and the sale of the fish processing licence that was issued for the plant in New Ferolle.

Mr. Speaker, these individuals, who did not work last year because that plant did not open, were under the impression that when the licence was given to the operator for $1, that operator would go in, would reopen the plant, and would process fish in that community.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member for the area is well aware of the issue, probably much more than I am, in terms of what is happening there, but this is a situation where these particular workers are afraid that again this year that plant will not open. If it does not open, the terms and conditions of licences in this Province would dictate that once the licence is dormant for a period of time that it would be revoked or it would be lost, and if that was to happen what would it mean for this particular community?

They really feel that they have no control over the situation as it is right now, that they are at the mercy of a processor that was given a licence and a plant for $1 and has not met the commitment of operating and providing for employment in the community, and if they continue to not operate and the plant lies dormant then what will happen to the licence. The community is afraid that the licence would be transferred out of that particular area, because it is a multi-species plant including a crab processing licence, and they are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, they have been petitioning the House of Assembly. They have been making calls to government offices with regard to this issue. I know they have made many calls to my office on this particular issue. I understand the minister says today that the operator says that he intends to operate, but he certainly has not given that assurance to the people in the community, that he intends to operate or what species he intends to buy.

Mr. Speaker, we know, because of the number of plants that has been shut down on the Northern Peninsula, and the number of plants that have not been opening in the past year, that small-boat fishermen are finding it harder and harder to have somewhere even to sell their catch these days. That is what is happening in a lot of these regions around the Province.

There is one thing about streamlining licences in the area, amalgamating plants and restructuring the industry, but you need to be cognizant of the fact that if you live in a certain area of this Province and you are a small-boat fisherman, and you are bringing in only a few pounds a day of a certain species, and there is no local plant in your area to buy or process, these people are really out of a job. They do not have a livelihood. I remember, Mr. Speaker, talking to fishermen even in the Cook's Harbour area last year who did not have anywhere to sell any of their fish.

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue in New Ferolle; it has been going on for over a year. We are into the second year of the issue, and I ask the minister to work with this community, to work with the plant operator, to get this plant open, and, if not, to secure the licence for that community so that they can move on with a new operator and start processing fish in that community and put people back to work again.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure again today to present a petition on behalf of my district on the moving of the air ambulance service. I would just like to reference the comment of the Premier a moment ago when he said that it was not a political move. He referenced the petition that was presented last summer, some 3,000 signatures from Labrador.

I want to remind the Premier and the minister and this government that we have presented 5,000 signatures from people along the Northern Peninsula and the West Coast and Southern Labrador on this movement. We have attempted many times to arrange meetings with the Premier. Our council has met with the minister, I have met with the minister, there have been numerous e-mails and letters come through. There have been public rallies, there have been demonstrations, you name it; it has taken place.

At no time since this decision was made six weeks ago have we been able to even get the minister to reconsider what is being done; to get the government and the Premier to really sit back, and whether they should take a second look at this decision that was made. It is very difficult to get away from the conclusion that this was a political decision. When the decision was first announced, I was one of the first people to stand and say that I did not think it was political, that I believed it was a lack of information and so on. I have to stand today, Mr. Speaker, and acknowledge with many other people in this Province who have acknowledged the same that it is very political.

Even though we have been able to present much information that discredits this report, discredits the process, here we are again this week with the minister announcing that they are going to fast track it and move the aircraft to Goose Bay. No medevac team in place; the service is just not there to properly do the thing and so on. Again, a service that has been in St. Anthony servicing the Province well, I might add, for fifty-five years, all of a sudden you have to move it out before you are really ready to do it.

It is one thing to say that it is not political but really, many residents of this Province have already made that conclusion and some day, I am sure, that the government members might even want to acknowledge that as well. It is very unfortunate that this kind of a decision gets made because of sour politics, if you will. The fact that you would take a service that is so vital to this Province, that you would remove a piece of the economic engine that drives our district and so on, and that you would do that just to kind of get even at a district if you will, or whatever the case might be. There are other options. Options have been placed before this government and yet there has been -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North has been recognized on a petition and is still using his time to present the petition.

The hon. member.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, we have offered solutions. We have tried to be a part of finding a way through this. Residents have worked tirelessly in organizing and presenting the facts from many who work with Labrador Grenfell and –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time for presenting his petition has expired.

MR. DEAN: yet, it has all fallen on deaf ears. Unfortunately, I guess that will be a reflection of the government –

MR. SPEAKER: Please, does the hon. member have leave?

MR. DEAN: – and in time we will see the outcome of that.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

From the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services for leave to introduce a bill, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Social Work, Bill 20, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. the Government House Leader if she would mind repeating that bill number again, please?

MS BURKE: Bill 20, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Social Work, Bill 20, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that Bill 20 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting The Practice Of Social Work", carried. (Bill 20)

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Social Work. (Bill 20)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 20 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 20 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, Motion 1.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1, That This House Approves in General the Budgetary Policy of the Government.

The hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a privilege to stand in this hon. House of Assembly this afternoon and take some time to talk about Budget 2010 which was delivered on March 29.

This year's Budget, Mr. Speaker, focused on its theme: The Right Investments For Our Children and Our Future. Mr. Speaker, when we look back at post budgets since 2004, since we took over government, and its themes you will quickly realize that our Premier and government indeed does have a plan for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, it has been the approach of this government since being elected in 2003 to make investments to ensure a prosperous future for our children and our grandchildren. We have come a long way, Mr. Speaker, from the bleak and hopeless days under the previous Administration and that is due to strong leadership, proud results and strategies, determined minds and a strong will to get the job done.

This Province, Mr. Speaker, is on the centre stage. We are the envy of the country. We are a shining example of a Premier, of a government, and of a Province that has turned things around as we become masters of our own house and firmly on the path to self reliance. As the Minister of Finance said, this is not the time to slam on the brakes. We must move forward. This is what we must do, Mr. Speaker, if we are to reach our goals and our destination.

Our measures, our planning, our policies, our programs, our investments will grow the economy and of course it will enhance the lives of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. The things we have done and will do, Mr. Speaker, will certainly build a strong footing and foundation for a great future for our Province. Budget 2010 tells us where we are making the investments to ensure this bright future.

Mr. Speaker, we are spending in education. In fact, we are spending $1.3 billion in education, the largest ever for education in this Province's history. We are investing in improvements in the K-12 system; for example, $2.2 million for the Excellence in Mathematics Strategy which will be done through new curriculum, textbooks and resources for students and teachers.

Mr. Speaker, we are investing $1.9 million for the extension of the class size cap for Grade 6s and 9s and complete the implementation of capped class sizes from K-12. We are also investing money to augment the number of hours for student assistants so that our students will be provided with the highest quality of education possible. Mr. Speaker, this equates to about 25,000 hours per year.

We are investing in our K-12 infrastructure, Mr. Speaker. We are building new schools, renovating others; we are addressing repair and maintenance problems. I know full well, Mr. Speaker, the need for infrastructure repairs in our schools.

Since 2007, since I became the elected MHA for the District of Port au Port, approximately $1.6 million was spent in my district for roof repairs, window replacement, brick and siding, electrical upgrades, soundproofing of musical rooms, just to name a few in our ten schools. The ten schools are: Ecole Ste. Anne, Ecole Notre-Dame-du-Cap, Our Lady of the Cape, Lourdes Elementary, Stephenville Primary, Stephenville Elementary, Stephenville Middle School, Stephenville High School, Piccadilly Central High and St. Thomas Aquinas.

Mr. Speaker, we are also investing $250,000 to the Provincial Information and Library Resources Board for repairs and maintenance. In January of this year, I was pleased to join my hon. colleagues, the Minister of Education and the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East, Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services, for the official reopening of the Kindale Library in Stephenville. Through government spending $200,000, the library underwent the installation of a new roof, windows, furniture, shelving, flooring, a new circulation desk and refurbished washrooms. Mr. Speaker, a reading area was also designated and renovated at Cape St. George Public Library.

These, Mr. Speaker, were the first changes and repairs since 1991 at the Kindale Library in Stephenville. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it was the year that they opened. Much needed renovations and repairs were done. Over the past four years our government has provided $1.8 million plus one-time funding of $1 million for infrastructure improvements, development of the early literacy program and increased operating hours at forty-seven libraries across the Province. We also increased salaries and training.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we are investing in our provincial roads. We are spending approximately $235.6 million in provincial and federal funding for roads and bridges throughout the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: The Provincial Roads Improvement Program, which all roads in my district fall under, is starting to roll out. While there has been no formal announcement for my district, yet I am working with the Department of Transportation and Works to highlight priorities for the district and provide input on where the work for improvements should be done. Since 2007, we have seen much needed improvement in my district in roads and, indeed, throughout the Province. One only has to ride the Trans-Canada Highway from Port aux Basques to St. John's.

Our government, Mr. Speaker, recognizes that municipalities and communities are built on a strong foundation of sound infrastructure. Our government's commitment of $135.5 million for municipal infrastructure, combine that with the federal contribution, and the municipal community contribution, this makes our total investment at approximately $225 million; record investments, Mr. Speaker, in municipal infrastructure.

In the District of Port au Port, while I await this year's project announcement, last year, the Town of Cape St. George received $2.1 million for a waterline extension of approximately six kilometres. The Town of Stephenville received funding for improvements to municipal roads, approximately $1.3 million for upgrades to Queen Street, Main Street, Hillview Avenue, and Ocean Drive.

Mr. Speaker, we are also investing in diversification. We are investing in tax credits and incentives - $61 million. To the Regional/Sectoral Diversification Fund - $11 million. We are investing in the Innovation Enhancement Fund, the Oil and Gas Manufacturing and Services Export Development Fund, Oceans of Opportunity Strategy. We are investing in the Small and Medium-sized Enterprise Fund, and Mr. Speaker, we are also investing in the Business Attraction Fund.

Mr. Speaker, we are investing in the fishery, aquaculture, forestry, mining, agriculture, and the list goes on and on and on. The investment in our Poverty Reduction Strategy this year will be a whopping $134 million, a combined total –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: That, Mr. Speaker, is for a combined total $482.7 million since the strategy was introduced in 2006.

Mr. Speaker, I look at the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment and she certainly has a smile on her face and certainly a worthwhile smile because we know that this strategy is working for the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: Mr. Speaker, we have many naysayers, especially from the two Opposition parties. We can never do enough to please the Leader of the NDP who professes to be the champion of poverty reduction. She wants everything. She wants everything, but yet, when we laid the ground work and we put the strategy in place it is not good enough, or we are not doing enough, or it is not what she likes to have done. Sorry, the people of the Province agree with what we are doing and we are delivering to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: Mr. Speaker, let's take a look at where we are spending this year. Mr. Speaker, $2.5 million to increase the income thresholds under the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program Access Plan; $310,000 to enhance the Family Justice Services Division; $519,000 for the continuing Family Violence Intervention Court; $2.4 million in funding for Supportive Living Community Partnership Initiative; $125,000 for supports for Inuit women in Labrador; $100,000 in sustaining funds for the Newfoundland Aboriginal Women's Network; $6.8 million in affordable housing to build an additional 230 rental units for seniors, persons with disabilities and person requiring supportive services. We will spend $17.6 million to leverage funds to modernize and renovate more than 2,300 housing units in the Province. We saw some of that work as well last year in my district.

Mr. Speaker, we are increasing the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation's annual maintenance budget to $10.2 million. We are providing $1.2 million to the raise the heating allowance to low income tenants who rent from the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation. Mr. Speaker, $70,000 in additional funding for transitional employment support services for victims of violence and $44,000 in additional funding for women centres, including one in my own district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: Mr. Speaker, we are also investing $200,000 to continue the Home Heating Oil Tank Storage Replacement Assistance Program. The minimum wage is set to go up to $10 an hour in July, a commitment made, Mr. Speaker, a commitment delivered by this government.

Mr. Speaker, our seniors will see an increase to the Low Income Seniors' Benefit, another great initiative that this government has enhanced since 2003. This year seniors who are eligible to see this benefit on their October GST Rebate, paid by our Province to our seniors, our Province's Low Income Seniors' Benefit will go up to $900 per senior or senior couple. This is for senior couples and singles with partial benefits for incomes up to $33,500. This means more seniors are now qualifying for the benefit. Again, Mr. Speaker, this is to fulfill our mandate. This is to fulfill the commitment made to make Newfoundland and Labrador the Province with the lowest level of poverty in Canada by 2014.

These are just a few of the accomplishments thus far and I would be here for days, Mr. Speaker, weeks, Mr. Speaker, months, Mr. Speaker, I would be here a year on my feet if I had to detail all the initiatives and programs of our strategy, our investments and our concrete solid results.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: Mr. Speaker, we are investing in health and well-being and we are spending 10 per cent more than last year. When I look at this number I cannot believe how many zeros or how many digits are to this number, this Budget, this investment we are spending in health care. Mr. Speaker, we are investing $2.7 billion – yes, with a B - in health care, an incredible amount of money for health care.

Mr. Speaker, we are investing $5 million to continue to implement the recommendations of the Cameron report; $3.2 million to cover the cost of ten new drug therapies under Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program. This will include cancer drugs.

Mr. Speaker, we are investing $240,000 for a new Colorectal Cancer Screening Program. In my district, just Friday past in fact, I was joined by the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services and the MHA for the great District of St. George's-Stephenville East and the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services where our government made significant investments in health care in the region. Mr. Speaker, the Province is investing over $950,000 for a new urology outreach program which was just implemented at Sir Thomas Roddick Hospital in the beautiful Town of Stephenville to serve the whole Bay St. George region.

Mr. Speaker, this program will provide support for enhanced access for patients in the region for an investment of $410,000 in equipment, in addition to new positions to support this program. The new outreach program at the hospital will provide flexible cystoscopy procedures and outpatient consultation weekly to reduce wait times. The wait time right now is about sixteen weeks. Through this investment and this new program we would like to cut this to a more reasonable period. We would like to cut it down to about six to seven weeks. This new specialized service will advance and enhance the quality of health care already being provided to area residents at Sir Thomas Roddick Hospital. It is yet, Mr. Speaker, another shining example of this government's commitment to health care in all parts of our Province.

Since 2003, Mr. Speaker, our government and our Premier has invested over $5 million in health care equipment, repairs, and renovations in the Stephenville area. We are funding $606,000 to enhance the Medical Transportation Assistance Program to allow for reimbursement of mileage of over 5,000 kilometres over a twelve-month period when using a private vehicle. An investment of $1.1 million for dialysis machines for Labrador City and for Port aux Basques.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, we have a lot of people in our district, and in fact in the whole Province, who are of Aboriginal decent. Budget 2010 calls for the creation of an Aboriginal Health Liaison that would help develop a Provincial Aboriginal Health Policy Framework. In addition, $200,000 for the Provincial Wellness Grants Program for community-based agencies and groups in my district who have benefitted from these grants in the past and will for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, we are increasing capital grants for recreation and sports facilities to a total of $1.3 million, and I thank my hon. colleague, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation for the foresight and the vision on wellness for our seniors and our communities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: There are municipalities, Mr. Speaker, and groups in my district, such as Three Rock Cove of Port au Port East, Lourdes, and Stephenville who have received grants from this program.

Mr. Speaker, we are investing $8.9 million so we can increase the home support hourly rate by seventy-five cents in July of 2010.

Mr. Speaker, another great initiative of this government was the insulin pump therapy for our children up to eighteen years of age. In Budget 2010, the Budget allocated another investment of $797,700 to expand the insulin pump therapy so that young adults ages eighteen to twenty-five can also avail of this program, depending on the eligibility. This is in addition to the $1.4 million already there for people up to eighteen years of age. When the Budget was brought down, Mr. Speaker, I received an e-mail from a constituent, a parent in my district who had lobbied for this and who had presented a discussion at the pre-Budget consultation in Stephenville. She e-mailed thanking our government and remarking on how we had delivered on a very important and necessary piece of life-giving equipment.

Mr. Speaker, Budget 2010 also allows for investment in mental illness and addictions with the construction of a treatment centre for the people in Grand Falls-Windsor and for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, although we are forecasting a $194.3 million deficit, we are doing this so that we can continue to stimulate the economy, to expand and develop new programs and to continue to hire and retain, to continue services and to continue to invest in our people.

Mr. Speaker, the investments we continue to make will certainly make the bright future and prosperous future full of opportunity and hope, full of renewed energy and excitement, full of growth and diversification, but most of all, Mr. Speaker, it will have the people of Newfoundland and Labrador feeling proud, strong and determined.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad today to have a chance to get up and speak about Budget 2010-2011, but I also want to mention some other initiatives in previous Budgets.

Before I get into my Budget remarks, I think I would be a bit remiss if I did not congratulate our most recently elected MHA, the Member for Topsail, seeing I am his closest city neighbour. He may be getting sick of hearing this stuff, but congratulations and best wishes. I am sure your previous experiences in municipal politics and with the RNC will be valuable in your work with your constituents in the future.

I also want to congratulate yourself and our Member for Terra Nova for very good maiden speeches. Your first speeches in the House of Assembly were great. Actually, when you were up speaking, I was thinking about the time I had to get up. Not knowing that it was a maiden speech I had to give, I got up and spoke on the Budget. I did not thank anybody. I was not near as wise as our new Member for Terra Nova, who got up and first of all thanked his wife sincerely. I did not mention mine and I have two couches worn out ever since. I guess there is more wisdom in youth than in age sometimes. Anyway, it is great to see young men and women being a part of this government and being Members of the House of Assembly.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank, or to congratulate, our new Chief of Police, Bob Johnston. Also, I want to thank retiring Chief Joe Browne for the great co-operation I received from him in the past when I was a St. John's city councillor. When I was a city councillor I had to deal with many, many cases of vandalism, home break-ins, speeding, et cetera, in the Goulds and Kilbride. Even several years - I think it was about 2002 - Kilbride was rampaged with home break-ins and robberies. People lost barbeques and everything you could imagine out of their sheds and out of their backyards. I called a public meeting together at the time, got 300 people at that, and had great co-operation from the RNC. We ended up having some seminars, Neighbourhood Watch seminars, and some meetings, and we set up neighbourhood watches on a number of the streets in Kilbride, which resulted in us curbing all of the vandalism and all of the robberies and that. I have Chief Joe Browne to thank for this, because he was instrumental at that time. He was not chief at the time; I think he was Deputy Chief, if I am not mistaken, but he did great work with us.

Prior to 2003, because of my dealings at the time with the RNC, I found out that they were experiencing serious organizational difficulties due to budgetary shortfalls and a lack of adequate funding from the Liberal government at the time. The RNC membership was aging, and there was no plan in place at the time to replace retiring officers. The guys who were on duty were being asked to cover off too many overtime hours. I even heard stories of RNC people not even having reliable vehicles to respond to calls that they were getting. I also remember at the time, being at a pre-Budget consultation in St. John's, and I listened to a brief presented by the RNC Association outlining their concerns and the impact their concerns and their lack of funding was having on the safety of the public.

When the Premier and his government took control of this Province in 2003, I think one of the first things they addressed were the concerns of the RNC. Several batches of new officers were trained. I do not know if I should be calling them batches - it sounds like some cooking material or something – but, I think 141 new recruits were added to the force here in this Province. Now, they were trained in this Province, too, which is a good thing to know. New equipment was purchased. Today, the RNC is much better equipped manpower-wise and equipment-wise to protect the public.

I was also glad to hear, when the new chief was installed there recently, that the funding to the RNC has increased by 75 per cent for the last five or six years. If there is anything that people want from their governments, it is protection. People put public safety above all else, even snow clearing or whatever else you can do.

Mr. Speaker, the concerns of the RNC prior to 2003, were just one example of the problems that were embedded in the whole economic fabric of Newfoundland at that time. Operating government budgets were gravely in deficit, reaching close to $1 billion. In 2002, I think the operating deficit for the Liberal government was close to $1 billion, which meant that they were spending $1 billion more than they were taking in. The public debt was close to $12 billion, and steadily growing. The debt was costing nearly $1 billion in annual interest costs. Taxes were high, jobs were scarce, and infrastructure was crumbling. Public buildings like schools and hospitals were not being maintained properly. Municipal Capital Works at the time had slowed to a trickle; that was those Municipal Capital Works that depended on provincial cost-sharing. I can remember at the time, if I am not mistaken, in 2002 the provincial roads money, or maybe it might have been all the capital works, I think, was about $20 million, which is nothing compared to what this government is spending in the last number of years. Roads were deplorable.

Back in 2003 the Premier and his government took control of a Province that had all the elements of recession. The Premier and his team put a financial plan in place and stuck to it. In two years, things began to turn around. For four successive years, 2005-2008, there were operational surpluses rather than deficits. The capital debt was paid down from $12 billion to below $8 billion. Interest payments on this debt were reduced by over $250 million a year; money that was now being used to pay for other services. An aggressive infrastructure program was put in place. Millions of dollars was spent on roads, schools, hospitals and equipment. Many schools that had leaky roofs, windows and doors were fixed. Many schools received equipment needed to offer quality programming, such as gym equipment, lab equipment and computer equipment.

I have been the MHA for the District of Kilbride for a little over three years. During this time I have seen nearly every facet, every sector of government responsibility get major budget investments. We have built or committed to build schools, not only in PC districts but also in Liberal districts, as was mentioned in Question Period today. We have built or committed to build hospitals, care homes, transition houses, treatment facilities, roads and bridges, ferries. We have supplied equipment for schools and hospitals. All government service agencies got new equipment. I can remember highway depots back in 2002 not having proper ploughs, or reliable ploughs and sanders to do the highways. Today, a lot of these depots have new equipment that is able to go out and look after the roads in the wintertime.

We have brought in a free textbook program for high schools, and a Prescription Drug Program that is pretty well available to everybody except with a few financial qualifications. We have brought in needs-based grants for post-secondary students, and we have brought in an improved Home Heat Rebate Program. First when this Home Heat Rebate Program came in it was only $100 a year, if I am not mistaken; today it is much better than that.

We are providing the funding necessary to accelerate the Provincial Home Repair Program. By 2012 and 2013, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation are hoping to be dealing only with current applications, which means that, rather than having applications five or six years old, they are going to be dealing with the ones that are passed in on that given year. Right now, some district offices are already dealing with recent applications. It is only another year or so and they will be after catching up on everything. I think by this year all the applications in for 2009 will be dealt with.

We have increased benefits to seniors. We have invested in several healthy living programs for adults and children. This year's Budget will continue this investment with increased funding for after school programs for school children. Also, we have added new programs for seniors. I am very glad to see that this government is recognizing the need to provide funding to help with after school programs because I think we had a recent report card on the physical abilities or the physical status of our children and I do not think it was a passing grade at all. Now, I think, by investing here, we will be taking some steps to correct this.

This government has, in successive Budgets, cut taxes. Provincial income tax has been cut on three occasions since I came here. The insurance tax has been eliminated. The payroll tax has been reduced. One that is very close to my heart, one that I had a lot of calls on, not near as many now, that we have eliminated the interest on the provincial portion of student loans. Now, I do not know how significant that might mean to some people, but it is very, very important for past students who owe a lot of money and now they see that their interest rates or payments could be cut or they could be out of debt faster than they had before. One young lady that I was dealing with, I think she is going to pay her debt off in a couple of years faster now because the interest rates have been eliminated by the Province. It would be nice now if the federal government would do the same thing, reduce the interest on the federal portions and students would have an awful lot better chance of getting along.

There was $40 dropped from the vehicle registration costs. We have spent millions on maintenance and repairs. We have increased wages for public sector workers and home care workers. Back in 2003, I think, the wages for home care workers were $6. Today, home care workers get $11 an hour with an increase approved in this Budget for July 1, which will bring it well over $11. We have added teachers, nurses, social workers, doctors, care workers, wardens, and health and safety officers, environmental protection officers. The list goes on and on.

We have listened to the people and responded accordingly, but we realize that there are still lots to do. This government does not rest on its laurels and think that we have everything finished, by no means; we know there are still lots more to do and we will continue doing lots.

Today our government continues to follow a sound financial plan, one that is helping us navigate the current worldwide economic downturn. In 2008-2009, the entire industrial world was hit by a terrible economic slowdown. Countries like the USA were left crippled. Many people lost their jobs, their houses and their savings. World economic experts laid plans for governments around the globe to follow. This plan told governments to cut taxes, pay down debt and invest in infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, this plan sounds very familiar. It is the plan that this government has been following since 2003. I guess the world can learn from us.

We all know that this Province did not escape untouched by the worldwide recession. Our resource industry took a hit when commodity prices went down. Consequently, our revenues were lower in 2009-2010. We were faced with a dilemma: Will we continue on the economic path we had chosen in 2003 or cut spending so that we could balance the Budget? The Premier and our government decided to continue the plan that we were on. I think this was a very, very wise decision, especially when you consider that this economy that we are in now depends so much on government spending. If we had cut spending, jobs would have been lost and the economy, I think, would have slipped back into something like they are having in the States. I think it was very, very smart thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, Budget 2010-2011 continues to benefit my district like the previous years' Budgets. One of the most significant initiatives in this year's Budget was $500,000 allowed, or allotted, to commence planning for a new high school for the West End of St. John's. This high school will accommodate the students of Kilbride. This has been a hot topic in my district ever since 1999 when the Liberal government at the time decided, in their lack of wisdom, to close, or to take Beaconsfield out the high school system. They would not listen to the advice of the planners, the parents, and the people who knew a lot at the time. I think it was all political actually because Kilbride was a very PC district at the time, so they did close the school, not allowing that Kilbride was going to grow and that this whole West End area of St. John's was going to grow considerably at the time.

If you look today and you go in through Kilbride you can see what we are talking about, that these people who predicted the growth in Kilbride were really right. There are several subdivisions after going up and several more started in Kilbride. Actually, one started off Griffin's Lane last fall and a month ago there were twenty-five housing starts there. Today, there are probably forty, so Kilbride is growing. The decision that was made in 1999 was a bad decision. A lot of people in the Kilbride district are happy that this government is now committed to putting a high school in the West End.

Budget 2010-2011 continues to invest in infrastructure projects in my district. Several projects have been funded under the present three-year multi-year capital works program, and work has been completed or will be completed on upgrading part of Bay Bulls Road, upgrading part of Brookfield Road. We are going to get a new soccer field in Goulds, which is started and should be finished in the next few months. Mr. Speaker, $75 million has been provided for water treatment projects at Petty Harbour Long Pond and Bay Bulls Big Pond, Dooling's Line has been upgraded and widened, and a sanitary sewer for Kieley Drive and Everard Avenue have been completed.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of money has been invested in Kilbride district, there are still lots of work to do, and we know it. We need a community centre in Southlands. We need a community centre for Kilbride, a better community centre for Goulds, we need water and sewer services extended in parts of Kilbride and Goulds that do not have water and sewer, and the main road through Goulds and Kilbride needs to be upgraded to urban standards with sidewalks. Another issue that is prominent that we will be working on, and we have already expressed our concerns, are the issues around affordable housing.

Before I finish, Mr. Speaker, I have to take – I have three minutes left. I think I would like to take a couple of minutes to comment on the Abitibi situation. Now I have been listening intently for the last few weeks about what is going on out in the Grand Falls and Central Newfoundland area. Now, I go to Grand Falls or the Central Newfoundland area fairly often, probably a few times a year, to go hunting. I have been over vast areas of that over the years, and I think one of the proudest moments I had, one of the times I said I was tickled to death, back in 2008, when this government decided to expropriate the assets, or the land, the water, the power rights, the timber rights from Abitibi. I think this was one of the smartest moves that could ever be made.

We can only imagine what would happen if we had not done it. You imagine if we did not have to do this. All of this land, all these water rights and all this timber would be out of our control, and someone else could have come in, Abitibi could have sold those off to someone else.

Now, the reason I like the idea of expropriating these assets is that now we have a land base that someday we can use, probably when the oil is gone. We know that this Province is self-sufficient in eggs and milk and – what is the other one? – eggs, milk and chicken. We are importing fruits and vegetables and a lot of meats, and I think the day is coming when you are going to see vast parts of Central Newfoundland being a food producing area.

Abitibi came here – and here is the key point I will make – Abitibi came here probably 100 years ago to produce paper. When they came here a lot of concessions were made and they were given water rights and timber rights and land rights. Today, they are not producing paper so they do not deserve to have these assets. So I am glad that they do not have them any more and that we took it on them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Before I finish up, I have to mention Labrador. Now, I am on this earth a good while, probably longer than most of you here, and I do not think ever in my lifetime have I seen such investments that have been put into Labrador. Never! We are after investing in highways and hospitals and all kinds of schools in Labrador. We have responded to the problems that are unique to Labrador. Never before did I see this happen in past governments, never, and I think this government has made a strong commitment to Labrador. We have two excellent ministers representing Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: We also have a great MHA representing another part of Labrador. These people work tirelessly for Labrador.

So, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I will have to say this, I fully support the financial direction the Premier and our government is taking in this Province and I fully support Budget 2010-2011.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a great opportunity for me to stand in this House again today and speak about the Budget. You will recall – or some who are diligent watchers and vigilant watchers will recall that I did speak on the amendment earlier and I am always happy to get up and have some comments around Budget 2010, particularly around the good initiatives that that Budget has enabled us to either continue on with or the new initiatives of this Budget.

Before I get into what the intent of my talk today was going to be, which was to deal with the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, I did want to pick up where my colleague left off when he mentioned Grand Falls-Windsor and the area of Central Newfoundland. He is certainly exactly right. I am ever so happy that if the mill had to go down in Grand Falls-Windsor that it was this government that was in control; that it was this government that was in power and that it was this Premier who had the leadership to take us through that most difficult time in our history, and it was this Premier who had the courage to say those are our resources and we are having them back. That will probably be the proudest day in my life in this House. I am hoping to be here for some time yet to come but I have no doubt that that will probably be the proudest day.

Though, Mr. Speaker, we have come through some difficult times in Grand Falls-Windsor-Exploits, the surrounding area, the whole of Central Newfoundland and we are not all the way through those difficult times, I have to say that because of the leadership, the initiatives of this government and the work that has been done, not just by Cabinet but by all my colleagues who have been supportive, by the ministerial taskforce that has been put in place and the local CDC, the local Community Development Committee, as well as the partnerships that we have forged with the business community out in the area, as well as the partnerships that we have forged with the labour community in the area, I believe we have come a long ways. When I spoke about two weeks ago I outlined all of the major investments that have been made in the area, and though I am tempted to go there again, I am fully cognizant of the fact that I only have twenty minutes and I would like to speak to the work of my department as well.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not at least acknowledge this press release that I received just moments ago. Even though I had been aware that it was coming, it is so nice to see it on paper. The press release starts with, "New retail development for Grand Falls-Windsor." I do not know if the camera can pick this up or not but it is so happy to be able to see a press release like this coming out of Grand Falls-Windsor that talks about major new retail development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: The president of Econo-Malls was in Grand Falls-Windsor just yesterday to make that announcement. What a boost for the community to see the Queensway open up, to hear that the mall itself is now full and that Econo-Malls already has offers of new vendors, new retail development that wants to go into Grand Falls-Windsor and set up.

Mr. Speaker, we know that people told us that once the mill was gone, the town was gone. Anything but that is true, Mr. Speaker, anything but that. Instead, we have seen all sorts of positive investment in the town because investors believe in Grand Falls-Windsor, because they know that this government is supporting Grand Falls-Windsor, the Exploits Valley and all of Central Newfoundland through all of its investments. To see this announcement this morning was certainly a boost to everybody out there I am sure in the region, but it was certainly a boost to me and I was so happy to have received that particular announcement.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do today though is focus on the many positive initiatives of the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment. When I tried to do that the last time I spoke, I sort of ran out of time, did not get opportunity to talk about all the highlights of this department but I think it is important to know that the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment is perhaps one of the busiest departments and it is one of the best good news departments that we have within government. There are so many positive programs that happen within the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment. Our gross annual budget, Mr. Speaker, is about $492.6 million; lots of investment that is able to happen through there.

When we talk about Human Resources, Labour and Employment, one of the important challenges that we face in that department has to do with our labour market challenges. We meet those challenges head-on through our department with our approaches and opportunities and partnerships with clients, with business, with labour, with community agencies and other government departments. That includes specific measures, Mr. Speaker, such as strategies to attract and retain youth and immigrants, and strategies to improve labour market participation of current and potential workers, especially under-represented groups.

Mr. Speaker, we provide, through HRLE, supports to employers in accessing the employees that they need as well. It is not simply about trying to help employees find opportunities to work in this Province, but we provide supports as well to employers. It is probably a little-known aspect of some of the work we do over there, and that is why I wanted to take this opportunity to speak to it.

We have seen some major investments. I think of the HR Toolkit, the Human Resources Toolkit that we have put in place for small and medium-sized businesses. The support that has received, the accolades that that particular toolkit has received from our small and medium-sized businesses that sometimes do not have the HR capacity required to be able to deal with all of the ins and outs of keeping and sustaining a workforce. That toolkit provides them with many resources. It provides them with templates, for example, that are helpful in attracting and retaining a labour market.

I could talk at length about the toolkit and about many of the other investments that we have made for our employees. Particularly, if I were to mention JobsinNL.ca, perhaps one of the best known Web sites in Newfoundland and Labrador now by people who are looking for employment or by employers who are looking to advertise for the positions that they have not yet filled. The Web site was launched just a few short months ago but the response has been phenomenal, both from the business community who have told me time and time again that they have found that particular Web site to be invaluable; but also by young people and people of all ages who are using the site to look for job opportunities. They can actually put their resumes up on-line at that particular Web site, JobsinNL.ca, and the can apply for jobs on-line through that particular Web site. Employers are using the site to manage resumes that are coming to them as well. It is an incredible Web site.

Mr. Speaker, we have made investments in the targeted initiatives for older workers programs as well. Most recently, HRLE supported job creation through the Bridging the Gap model. Last Friday, I had the pleasure of being in Clarenville with my colleague, the Minister of Business, in his District of Trinity North, to announce $1.38 million in funding to the Random North Development Association to deliver six projects, Mr. Speaker, under the Bridging the Gap program. That program will employ seventy-seven individuals throughout the Province. Community-based programs like Bridging the Gap are instrumental in helping us grow the economy and grow the communities within Newfoundland and Labrador. Many people have spoken positively - and I see my colleague to the left, the MHA for Baie Verte-Springdale who is nodding in accordance with that because, of course, in his area one of the community groups and one of the employer's businesses who have benefited and can attest first-hand to the value of the Bridging the Gap initiative is Newfoundland and Labrador Vegetation who, in fact, took many of our displaced Abitibi employees and then trained them - it is an education to employment program - trained them in the area of vegetation control and will be able to supply them with employment at the end of the program. It is a fabulous program, Mr. Speaker, and I was so happy to be in Clarenville last week to make those announcements.

My colleague, as well, the Minister of Education joined us via the technology, which is a wonderful thing to see. He, too, was pleased and happy to see that his area of Grand Bank also would have benefited and will continue to benefit from the program known as Bridging the Gap. Again, some very good work.

Another important initiative that I would like to highlight and that I am really proud to say that I was part of is a brand new program that we have initiated and just launched a little while ago, a couple of Thursdays ago, I believe, at the Home Show here in St. John's, Newfoundland, which is Try the Trades. It is a really unique venture, Mr. Speaker. Try the Trades is an initiative that we undertook in partnership with the Canadian Home Builders' Association of Newfoundland and Labrador. They actually came to us recognizing that particularly in the residential trades area there are difficulties and there are labour shortages, there are difficulties in finding people to do the work. So, they asked us if we would be interested in partnering with them and, of course, we were.

The program is a really nice concept that involves giving people opportunity to try a particular residential trade for two weeks or four weeks, depending on the time that somebody has available. It involves two or three days of an in-classroom setting where they would actually go in and study things about workplace health and safety, occupational risks, and so on, but then be mentored by a particular person in a trade and go on the jobsite to have opportunity to try that trade without having to invest a whole lot of money as opposed to others who would have to go and spend a year or eighteen months or two years in a particular school to learn about that trade. They are actually on site learning and after two weeks or four weeks, whatever they choose then they have opportunity to say: This is an area where I would like to work; this is an area now that I want to pursue or I do not want to pursue. That is just as valuable, Mr. Speaker, in knowing what you do not want to pursue.

The beauty of this program is that you have the opportunity to be mentored by somebody in the trade and you have not had to invest any money in the training yourself. You have just had this opportunity to have a look-see. It is a great program. It is one that we are really happy to be partnering with the Canadian Home Builders' Association on, and it is a program that I think will really take off and show great promise for the future.

Mr. Speaker, there are so many programs that I could talk about within HRLE that we could we could use of the rest of the Budget Debate doing that, and so I am going to have to be a little bit strategic in terms of areas that I do look at.

Mr. Speaker, our historical challenge of too many people and not enough work is now giving away to the new reality of emerging labour market shortages. Many small and medium-sized employers across the Province now require support to find and keep the skilled workers that they will need to compete. For this reason, in Budget 2010, the Department of HRLE will undertake a comprehensive labour market review. We have many, many programs within HRLE, within the Department of Education, within the Department of INTRD, so along with my two colleagues in those departments, we have struck a committee to look at the labour market itself, to look at the programs that are there, to look at the needs of employers, to look at the needs of employees, and to see how to best streamline the process so that we have efficient, effective programs that people can access easily so that we can streamline applications for people to access those programs and so that we can have a suite of labour market programs that will better reach out to the needs of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

It is a massive undertaking, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the fact that we have recently devolved the Labour Market Development Agreement from the federal government to the tune of about $133 million, when you look at the fact that through the stimulus infrastructure investments there will be another $14 million, and when you look at the fact that through our other pre-existing programs within HRLE, INTRD and Education, we probably have $250 million worth of labour market programs that we utilize and can utilize now here in this Province. So the task of that review will be to see how can we best use that money, how we ensure that it is getting into the right hands, and that we have created, for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, programs that are suiting their needs, that are tailored specifically to their needs; because having taken over that amount of money, the $133 million from the federal government, we have discovered that some of the programs did not really fit the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It will be our task now to ensure that the programs do, in fact, meet our needs.

So that devolution has certainly been a very positive thing for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It was a seamless devolution in my opinion, very few people were aware that that transfer of some seventy-seven individuals and $133 million had happened because there were absolutely no blips, nothing on the radar that would have caused people any great concern. We are continuing to offer the programs, Mr. Speaker, as they have been over the last few years, but we will be looking toward tailoring and streamlining them as best we can. JCPs are a very good example of that – the Job Creation Partnership programs, and many, many announcements have been coming up from my department about the huge amounts of investments that we are making now in Newfoundland and Labrador, not only to provide employment, Mr. Speaker, but to ensure that organizations, to ensure that municipalities, fraternal groups, whatever, have opportunities now to have infrastructure brought into their communities in a way that they could not before. So we are very, very happy with how things are working with regard to that.

There are several other initiatives of my department that I think, besides the labour market, are deserving and merit some comment here. The Office of Immigration and Multiculturalism, Mr. Speaker, is doing some wonderful work here in this Province. Since we launched the official strategy in the year 2007, we have seen a marked improvement in the number of immigrants who have come to this Province and have declared this to be a premiere destination, a destination of choice in Canada. We have invested about $6 million in our provincial strategy. It is known as Diversity ~ Opportunity and Growth. We are seeing great results from that strategy - some 400 immigrants that we are attracting on average. Other jurisdictions have seen some success but not the degree of success, in terms of increases, that we are seeing here.

Our Provincial Nominee Program is just growing in just leaps and bounds, Mr. Speaker, and we are certainly very happy with that. Through our Provincial Nominee Program, we are able to attract highly skilled individuals to come to this Province to fill jobs that otherwise have been very difficult to fill. Most of the people who are nominated through the Provincial Nominee Program are less than forty-nine years of age, they have degrees, they are working in - I think it is 51 per cent off the Avalon, 49 per cent on the Avalon. They are working in areas of health science, particularly, and engineering. Highly ‘degreed', highly successful people in this Province and we are very happy to have them. Recognizing not only the value of the work that they are able to perform for us here in this Province, but also what they add to the cultural fabric of who we are as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker.

In terms of work that is happening through the Office of Immigration and Multiculturalism, we are all so extremely happy. YRAS, our Youth Retention and Attraction Strategy is another area that I must make reference to, if I am to speak to Budget and talk about the great investment that we have made in the young people of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote something that Premier Williams said at the launch of the Youth Retention and Attraction Strategy back in November when he said, "This strategy marks the beginning of a new era of partnership with the young people of this province, and reflects our shared commitment to ensuring that Newfoundland and Labrador continues to navigate its way toward prosperity and self-reliance." Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree more. Attracting young people to this Province, keeping the young people that we have already in this Province certainly lays the foundation for – it is the very cornerstone for that future success in this Province. We need our young people, we need their strength, we need their energy, we need their ideas and we want them. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, through the rounds of consultations that we had in the development of this particular strategy we certainly learned from our young people that they need and want us. They want to stay here, they need to stay here, it is part of their fabric, it is part of who they are and they certainly do want to be here.

Mr. Speaker, the strategy itself is a $15 million commitment to our young people to find ways and opportunities to ensure that they have the ability to stay here or to come back if they have already left. We have forty-one action items within that strategy. I am happy to say that we have had great movement throughout the strategy in a very short period of time. We have seen parts, or if not all, of some of those initiatives already implemented and about thirty-one of those particular initiatives we have been able to either start or we are working our way through those initiatives.

Some very good strategies there, Mr. Speaker, in terms of providing opportunities at the job entry level point because that is what our young people told us. They told us very clearly that they needed entry level jobs in order to be able to stay in this Province. They are not saying that they want to start at the top but they are saying that they needed entry level jobs.

Mr. Speaker, through our wage subsidy programs, through our new apprenticeship programs, which I think we should speak to here this afternoon as well because we have done a fair bit of work in the last few months at enhancing our apprenticeship program. Again, the Minister of Education, the Minister of INTRD, and myself within the chair of the Human Resources, Labour and Employment are looking at what we can do to improve that but certainly within our own provincial infrastructure we have increased the number of apprenticeships.

In fact, we have doubled the number of apprenticeships that are available through the Department of Transportation and Works, through our health care authorities, through our school boards and wherever we can within government and Government Services. We have done everything that we can to improve the apprenticeship opportunities for our young people. Having said that, we realize that we have not yet accomplished the task at hand, which is to be able to provide opportunities for all of our young people there and so we are continuing to work. When we mentioned the labour market review earlier, that is part of what we will review within that strategy, but it is certainly part of another study that the Minister of Education and I have undertaken in the last little while.

Those are some of the examples, Mr. Speaker, but when we encounter issues, when we encounter problems we are extremely open to finding ways - and just this session, in the winter semester we had opportunity to find a way to help out about thirty extra -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her time for speaking has expired.

MS SULLIVAN: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has asked for leave. Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, go ahead.

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

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, Mr. Speaker, when we learned that there was a second cohort of engineering students who were going through at Memorial University School of Engineering who had difficulty finding opportunities for placement this term; then we got involved. We helped out. We put forward the subsidies that were needed for employers, for businesses and so on to take in those students, and we are happy to report that all of those students were in fact placed.

Mr. Speaker, though I have many more things that I can talk about in the good work of HRLE, I will thank you for the leave and I will take my seat and hope that there will be another opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With that, Mr. Speaker, for this afternoon we will adjourn debate on Motion 1.

Mr. Speaker, we would like to return to the second reading of Bill 4, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is thrilling to rise in this House once again to take part in debating yet another important bill, another important piece of legislation that this government has presented in this session of the House. In recent days in this hon. Legislature, Mr. Speaker, I have had a chance to speak to important pieces of legislation, relevant and pertinent pieces of legislation related to consumer protection, related to private security.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to another bill that truly does impact people's lives in this great Province of ours. I am speaking to Bill 4, which is related to An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991. Yesterday, we had a couple of hours of lively and informed debate on this bill. It is really a bill about judicial independence, accountability, and the Provincial Court system is certainly something that impacts thousands of citizens in this Province on an annual basis.

In the minister's opening remarks he made reference to a great new development in the beautiful City of Corner Brook, the opening of the new courthouse in recent weeks, and the hon. the Member for Lewisporte also had some great remarks related to the Provincial Court system.

The Opposition however, Mr. Speaker, you want to talk about relevance, it was amazing to see how forty minutes of valuable time in this Legislature was chewed up yesterday during this debate. The Opposition House Leader rose and he did speak about the importance of the tribunal process, which is actually what this piece of legislation addresses, but he went on to talk about judicial independence. Then he suggested that government should be directing and controlling the Child and Youth Advocate, Mr. Speaker, an officer of this House, which I found quite ironic.

This bill that we are debating today is about ensuring decisions are made without political interference. Yet, yesterday during Question Period and during this very debate on this very bill, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition suggested that we should in fact interfere with the work of an officer of this House. So, the Opposition talks about how we should all be respectful of judges and the judiciary – that is a tough word I just discovered – and their roles, Mr. Speaker, and that the Opposition was quick to point out that there are processes that should certainly be followed when we are dealing with courts and with judges.

Yet, during Question Period yesterday, and during the remarks from the hon. Opposition House Leader, we saw the Opposition attack the Child and Youth Advocate, interestingly enough, who is a former judge, because he would not meet with the Leader of the Opposition. The nerve of them to suggest that the Advocate is not doing his job, Mr. Speaker, that he is not answerable to the people simply because he will not meet with politicians.

It is interesting that during the debate on this particular bill we are actually talking about the importance of judicial independence, the importance of accountability and, really, the importance of transparency within the court system - interesting and ironic, Mr. Speaker.

This amendment to the Provincial Court Act is a necessary one. There has been a delay in the tribunal process that this legislation addresses, and an extension of about three months has been sought. That is really what we are trying to address in this particular bill.

While we have had a couple of hours of debate already on this particular bill, we are really talking about a bill that is two sentences. It relates to subsection 28.2 of the Provincial Court Act, 1991. We are repealing that particular subsection and substituting one simple sentence, Mr. Speaker, that allows for the report to be presented by September 30 as opposed to the April 30 date that is spelled out in the current piece of legislation.

Our government certainly believes, Mr. Speaker, that this amendment is an appropriate one. It is important to permit the tribunal the additional time it needs to complete its work, because the work of that tribunal is important. The minister, as he quite eloquently articulated during his remarks, is confident that the final report of this tribunal will be submitted on time, in accordance with this new deadline, and we look forward to receiving that report once it is ready, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in preparing to take part in this important debate in this House, I had an opportunity to do a little bit of research on the Provincial Court system. I had an opportunity to review the Annual Report of the Provincial Court, which is available on the Provincial Court's Web site. For those who are interested in learning more about our justice system, it is certainly a document that is well worth having a look through.

I was interested to learn that the Provincial Court in this Province of ours consists of twenty-three judges, which includes the chief judge and the co-ordinating judge, and there are over seventy administrative and support staff. What is even more interesting than that, though, Mr. Speaker, is that there are forty-one sites in Newfoundland and Labrador where the Provincial Court carries out its business – forty-one sites in every corner of this great Province, virtually. There are eleven permanent court centres and thirty sites which the court visits on circuit.

The Provincial Court touches the lives of thousands of citizens in this Province each and every year. The court sits every day of the week. With the assistance of modern technology, there are appearances taking place in the Provincial Court via video technology, via teleconferencing, and that is becoming more and more of a regular occurrence, as the annual report points out. There is always a duty judge on call in this Province twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. A backup judge is available if needed. So it is interesting to see what kind of coverage exists in this Province in terms of the justice system.

The court is always evolving. I think of the court system as being somewhat traditional and somewhat historic; yet, our court system is always looking to the future for ways of improving how they deliver their services, and the annual report certainly describes the level of activity we see in the court and there is a reassessment of the court operations that takes place as part of its ongoing operational planning.

I was interested to learn, Mr. Speaker, that the court even has outreach programs, including a Lunch with the Judge program. So it is interesting to see the kind of progressive work that is taking place within the court system.

Mr. Speaker, why am I providing this hon. House with background on our Provincial Court system? I am doing so, Mr. Speaker, because it matters to people. It matters to people because the Provincial Court in Newfoundland and Labrador is really the people's court, and I say that because it touches adults; it touches youth. The Small Claims Court is part of the Provincial Court. The traffic court, which I suspect there are members of this House who have reason to encounter traffic court – maybe the odd parking ticket in this great City of St. John's, which I have experienced on occasion.

AN HON. MEMBER: No one pays them.

MR. KENT: There are a lot of people who pay those tickets. I am proud to say that I have paid all of my tickets, the parking tickets that I have not contested.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KENT: Yes, all.

Nonetheless, my point is that, as the people's court in this Province, it is a court that really does affect people's lives and touch people's lives in a tangible and real way.

I think it is fair to say, Mr. Speaker, as well, that the Provincial Court is more accessible than other courts. It is more accessible than the Supreme Court. With forty-one sites in Newfoundland and Labrador, it certainly is accessible to the people of this Province. Provincially speaking, looking at things through the provincial lens, I think it is fair to say that the Provincial Court is the heart of the court system: the heart of the court system for families and for criminal matters in this Province. There are more courts operating within the Provincial Court system as opposed to the Supreme Court system. The judges that preside over cases in Provincial Court have a very important role, and a role that should be respected. All judges, both current and former, are deserving of respect for the great service that they provide to the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the court system is also guided by a series of strong values. It is governed, of course, by the Constitution of this country and the rule of law, and it is important to note that our court system is independent, it is impartial, and it is accessible, and I think these are important principles. The court system is very committed to providing the people of this Province with quality service, and I certainly think that the annual report of our court system reflects that level of service.

I know that our Provincial Court is committed to the integrity and ethical conduct and timely performance of its duties, and I think we can be quite proud of the progress that has been made in recent years, and in just a moment, Mr. Speaker, I would like to touch on some of the improvements that have been made.

Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador exists to uphold and to preserve fundamental values of society. It judges legal disputes, conducts inquiries, and it provides some great service to the people of this Province. The court system also has a real responsibility to the people of this Province, to ensure that we have highly qualified personnel, to provide access to justice to everyone, and to be sensitive also to social and cultural diversity; and, I am proud to say that our court system is encouraging the use of dispute resolution alternatives that respond to some of the changing needs that we see in our society. I am also pleased to see that our court is emphasizing the effective use of technology and decentralized administrative decision making.

Mr. Speaker, for anybody who would like to learn more about our court system, I encourage them to check out the annual report. They would be interested to note the increase in the caseload within our Provincial Court system. In the 2008-2009 report, the most recent that has been published, the caseload increased by 4 per cent in that year over the previous year, and there was an overall increase of 4 per cent in the previous year as well.

Just to show how effectively technology is being utilized within our court system, Mr. Speaker, there was a 443 per cent increase in the number of video conference sessions in the last year. It shows the willingness of the court system to adapt to the changing times and to embrace this new technology.

Mr. Speaker, many people, unless they have direct involvement with the legal system in a professional capacity, do not necessarily understand the difference between the various court systems. There is the Provincial Court, the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal in Newfoundland and Labrador, and they all serve the people of this great Province, albeit in different capacities. So, Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Court, which we are talking about here today, extends to criminal matters, which include all summary conviction offences under federal and provincial statutes, indictable offences. It extends to youth. The Provincial Court hears all criminal matters involving young offenders in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The traffic court, all highway traffic matters are dealt with through the Provincial Court, and indeed the Family Court as well. Outside the St. John's area, it is the Provincial Court that has jurisdiction over custody, support maintenance, child welfare, legitimacy, paternity, adoption and inter-spousal Criminal Code offences. It does not deal with divorce or division of property under the Family Law Act but all these other legal matters related to family law are dealt with in the Provincial Court outside of the St. John's area. So, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Provincial Court really does impact the lives of people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The permanent sites in this Province, I will list them for you: Clarenville, Corner Brook, Gander, Grand Bank, Grand Falls-Windsor, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Harbour Grace, Placentia, Stephenville, St. John's, and Wabush - great representation around the Province and that is not to mention the dozens of temporary sites that the court reaches as well. The total number of cases in the 2008-2009 year, total caseload, 28,644 cases in our provincial court in one year alone. In terms of five-year trends, we have seen an increase in adult criminal appearances. We have seen a significant increase of 19 per cent in just five years which I think is worthy of note.

Mr. Speaker, this government has recognized the need to deal with criminal activity. This increase in crime is a societal reality that this government is very serious about addressing. In doing so, Mr. Speaker, this government over the last six or so years has made record investments in the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. We have made record investments in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. All in an effort to address the increase in crime and to ensure that citizens of this great Province have a sense of safety and a sense of security in their homes and in their neighbourhoods and in their communities. I think it is important to highlight the important role that the court system plays in addressing these matters as well.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of courtroom appearances, the numbers are quite staggering as well. In the 2008-2009 year, in this Province, in our Provincial Court there were approximately 130,000 appearances, courtroom appearances, in our Provincial Court. Mr. Speaker, I point that out to members of this Legislature and to the people of this Province because I, for one, certainly did not realize the extent to which the Provincial Court is active in our Province, and I think these statistics are worth noting.

I talked a moment ago about the increase in criminal activity. The number of arrests in St. John's over the last few years, there has been an increase. The number of arrests outside of St. John's, there has been a slight increase as well. These statistics are well documented in the annual report from the Provincial Court, and I encourage members to check that out.

Mr. Speaker, this government, over the last number of years, has introduced some really progressive initiatives to modernize and to strengthen the court system. I congratulate our government on supporting those initiatives. I congratulate the court on pursuing them.

There is a Mental Health Court that has been operating in St. John's since 2005. It sits every second Wednesday at 2:00 o'clock in courtroom 8 downtown. This court is designed to provide an increased level of support, both medical and community-based, to accused persons that appear before it. This Mental Health Court is based on the recognition that certain offenders may commit offences as a consequence of their illness or due to lifestyle issues related to their mental illness. There are health care professionals and corrections personnel that are involved in providing support to these individuals that are accepted into the court. I think this is a progressive initiative that reaches out to some of societies most vulnerable, Mr. Speaker.

I am also pleased to see the Family Violence Intervention Court as a pilot project that has been continued over the last couple of years. The ultimate goal of this Family Violence Intervention Court is to break the cycle of family violence.

It was just last week, Mr. Speaker, that this House passed an important private member's resolution related to family violence and the prevention of violence. Victim safety and offender accountability are paramount. This Family Violence Intervention Court initiative certainly recognizes that reality and that challenge in society. This court is a criminal court; however, it differs from traditional court. It is a pilot project. It is one that this government is committed to investing in. There is counselling that is part of this program. Participation is voluntary. Victims may avail of counselling and have safety concerns addressed through a multi-disciplinary team that involves Victims Services, probation, defence, Crown, and Child, Youth and Family Services. This is project, I am pleased to say, is continuing for another year. We are currently reviewing the first year of the pilot project. There are numerous possibilities for the future, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that participation rates in this important program will continue to increase.

I think it is important to continue this project. Family violence, as we heard last week in debate in this House, Mr. Speaker, can have a long lasting effect upon those involved and it is incumbent upon us as members of this House to do whatever we can –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having some difficulty in hearing the member recognized to speak.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, this is an important issue and a serious one.

As I was saying, family violence can have a lasting effect on families and on society. We have to do whatever we can to break the cycle and to do whatever we can to prevent family violence from occurring.

Mr. Speaker, in the limited amount of time I have left I want to talk specifically about this tribunal that this legislation addresses. There is no question that the role of this Provincial Court is an important one. Equally as important is the compensation for our Provincial Court judges and this tribunal process which ensures accountability, transparency and objectivity.

The Supreme Court of Canada actually requires each province, each jurisdiction in this country, to follow a similar process. This tribunal in question has actually conducted public hearings over the last number of weeks to ensure that the public has an opportunity to participate in this important matter.

This request to extend the deadline for the tribunal to submit its final report is necessary for a variety of reasons. Due to personnel issues and issues that were outside of anyone's control, the tribunal needs more time to fulfill its commitment. I was pleased to see the Opposition House Leader, in his remarks, recognize that is valid and that is legitimate. I sense that there will be support from the Opposition for this important bill.

We need to ensure that the role of the tribunal is held in the highest regard, that their report is submitted confidently and that it is complete when, in fact, it is submitted. In the interest of independence, the best choice we can make is to provide the tribunal the time it needs and we need to approve the extension as requested.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, because of the seriousness of this task, the importance of this tribunal and its need to be fully intact in order to complete this task, I have no problem supporting this request and this bill to amend this deadline.

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had more time to talk more about the impact of the Provincial Court system on people's lives. I thank you for the opportunity to participate in this important debate and I thank my colleagues for their interest and attention.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to, first of all, congratulate the hon. Member for Mount Pearl North on his remarks. I think it is great that other Members in the House of Assembly are now taking more time to speak on matters relating to the justice system in this Province.

I know, during the years that I was Minister of Justice, sometimes there is a tendency when we bring legislation into the House that government, of course, is always anxious to get its legislation package through. It has a certain number of bills, it wants to get them through before the session ends, and there is a tendency for just the minister to speak and then the Opposition critic on Justice will speak, and the Leader of the Opposition would get a chance to speak, and then the minister would speak again, ending debate without any other member having a chance to participate.

I should not tell you this, but I even remember one time thinking that I wanted to speak on another minister's bill and suggesting to the Government House Leader of the day – and I should emphasize that it was not the current House Leader – and I said well, I would like to speak on that bill, and the House Leader let me speak on the bill. After a few minutes he sidled over to me and told me that I better hurry up and sit down.

I am really delighted that people like the hon. Member for Lewisporte, the hon. Member for Mount Pearl North and other members are taking part and showing an interest in the administration of justice, which is extremely important. It is not just important to me as a former Minister of Justice or to the present Attorney General and Minister of Justice, but it is an important issue for all of us. Under the constitution of this country it is the Province that has the responsibility for the administration of justice in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, not the judges. The judges have an extremely important role in our system. They are a separate branch of government – and I will get to that in a minute.

First of all, I just want to comment on the fact that we are talking about Provincial Court and an amendment to the Provincial Court Act. We are dealing with a bill which is a very simple amendment that is changing a date. There is an institution called the Salaries and Benefits Tribunal, and it has to submit a report to the minister and it must do so by a certain date. The tribunal needs some more time, and this amendment is merely changing the date to give the tribunal until September 30 of this year in which to present its report.

Before I talk about the tribunal, I should say that just a very short time ago we had the privilege of opening, in the City of Corner Brook, a beautiful new courthouse which will contain not only a Provincial Court – a number of Provincial Courts, I should say. On one side of the building is the Provincial Court, on the other side is the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, and up on the top floor is the Family Court, the Family Division of the Supreme Court. It is certainly a beautiful building; we had a formal opening ceremony. Many of the judges of both the Supreme Court and the Provincial Court were in attendance.

Mr. Thomas Cromwell, a Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, honoured us with his presence, and Mr. Justice Marc Rosenberg of the Ontario Court of Appeals was also present. There were many members of the community invited. It was a very exciting day, not only for the judiciary and those who work in the courts, but indeed, for the people of Western Newfoundland, because that courthouse - and it is a beautiful building - will stand as a tribute and as a symbol of the rule of law. It will stand as a symbol of democracy, and it will also, for the people of Western Newfoundland, for the City of Corner Brook and surrounding communities, as being a symbol of civic pride. We are delighted to see that building announced. I paid tribute at the time to our Premier, the head of the Williams' government, because it was through his efforts and because of his commitment to the people of Western Newfoundland, the people of Corner Brook, of his dedication to the rule of law and the administration of justice, and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that put that facility there.

We have some beautiful courthouses throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. In Grand Bank, we have a modern facility. It is named after Chief Justice Alex Hickman, who also served as Attorney General and Minister of Justice in this House. I think the Government House Leader was the Minister of Justice of the day who named that facility in Grand Bank after Mr. Chief Justice Hickman. We have very nice facilities as well in Gander and in Grand Falls. When I became Minister of Justice initially, I visited those facilities to see what was available. I had the honour and the privilege on behalf of the government of opening the new Supreme Court building in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

The next Capital Works project for the department was the courthouse for Corner Brook. I remember asking at the time, when officials came to me and asked for a new project. I asked them to check with Chief Judge Reid, Milton Reg Reid of the Provincial Court, and he advised me that his choice, his priority was Corner Brook. It surprised me afterwards because I was in Stephenville and I saw the courthouse there. When I saw that courthouse, I called Judge Reid and asked him: Are you sure Corner Brook is your priority? If it was going to be a combined courthouse, Corner Brook was his priority, and Chief Justice Green of the Trial Division, Corner Brook was his priority as well. In addition to the new Supreme Court building up in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, we now have this beautiful building in the City of Corner Brook which will serve the judiciary and serve the people of Western Newfoundland for many, many years.

Somebody said to me: When you build a courthouse, you better do a good job of it because you only build a courthouse about once every 100 years. So we are delighted now. I think the first courthouse out there was built on – I think it is called Sprucy Point. It is where the war memorial in Curling is now situated. That building, I think it was built in 1878. There was a Magistrate Howorth, who was the first stipendiary magistrate - that means he got paid. The previous magistrates did not get paid. The Supreme Court used to serve there as well, and then it moved into Corner Brook when the mill was built. It moved from Curling into Corner Brook, served in the building that is now the museum. It also served in the White House and then moved to the Sir Richard Squires Building, but now it has a beautiful courthouse. Corner Brook has what Gander, Grand Bank and Grand Falls have as well. It is about time, Mr. Speaker.

This particular bill talks about the Salaries and Benefits Tribunal. As it has been said here, there are three branches of government: there is the Executive Branch which is the Cabinet - when people think of the government they are really thinking of the Cabinet; there is a Legislature, which is this Assembly, in which we pass laws; and the third branch of government is the judiciary, those are the judges. Judges have to be independent. One of the situations is we have to make sure that it does not appear that government is interfering with the independence of the judiciary because in the courts, government is the largest litigator. Our government is in the courts probably more than any other person.

When it comes to picking judges, or when it comes to determining who is qualified to be a judge, and when it comes to what pay and what benefits – whether paid benefits or pension benefits should go to judges – it would be unseemly for the government to be negotiating with the judges. You would not want a situation where it could be said that if a judge ruled against a government in a case, the government could seek retribution or punishment through withholding what would be a fair and reasonable salary.

Under the Provincial Court Act, you now have a Salaries and Benefits Tribunal se -up where the judges pick one representative, the government picks another representative and appoints a chair. The arguments are made in front of that tribunal as opposed to being made directly between government and the judges themselves. When the report is finished it is presented, and the last report government accepted. This is done every four years. In the meantime, there can be a reference at any time under the act to the tribunal.

In terms of maintaining the independence of the judiciary, which is basic and important, it is interesting what government cannot do. I know there are people out there who think that it is governments – if we need to appoint a judge we call up a friend and appoint one of our fellow party members or a friend of the minister. In reality, that does not happen, because to be a judge in this Province you have to apply to, not to the minister and not to the government, you apply to another group called the Judicial Council. The Judicial Council is set up by statute under the Provincial Court Act and it consists of five people. One is the chief judge of the Provincial Court; another one is the head of the judges' association; the third member is an appointee of the Law Society of Newfoundland, that is the group that regulates lawyers in the Province; and there are two appointees by the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, if you want to be a judge you apply to that group and that group determines whether the applicant is qualified and capable of being a judge. So the government does not do that. The Judicial Council does it and the Judicial Council then prepares a letter and they send the letter to the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General of the day, of a list of qualified people who that Judicial Council, not the government, has determined to be qualified for appointment when the opportunity arises.

Now when the opportunity does arise, when there is a vacancy, a call is made. The chief judge will call the Minister of Justice or write the minister and advise that there is a vacancy, and then the minister goes to the list that the Judicial Council has provided and presents to Cabinet, to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, recommendations as to appointment.

So that is the only role the Minister of Justice has, is to pick a name from a list provided by the Judicial Council. In terms of paying, it is the salaries and benefits tribunal that determines the pay. The minister cannot fire a judge, only the Judicial Council can fire a judge. The minister cannot transfer a judge, only the chief judge can transfer a judge. So the only role now that the Attorney General has, in relation to Provincial Court judges, is to pick a name from a list provided by the Judicial Council.

It is important for people to note that the minister cannot appoint, as a Provincial Court judge, any person who has not been ruled as acceptable or recommended by the Judicial Council. That is very, very important because you know what happens when the Minister of Justice does announce a name, well God forbid if that person may have played Bridge with the minister's wife, or if that person may have attended a dance or a winter carnival event put on by a political association because someone in the media or someone in the Opposition is going to say: Oh, you are appointing - it is patronage, you are appointing a political hack, you are appointing someone who is a friend of the minister. That cannot happen any more because the minister can only appoint as a Provincial Court judge someone who has been ruled as acceptable by the Judicial Council. That is important for everyone out there to remember.

I heard the Opposition House Leader talk about the old system of appointing judges. At one point, the earliest magistrates were the first guy, the first captain of the boat to make it to a harbour, and they were the magistrate. Then the system changed over the years. I remember, I think Alex Hickman was the Minister of Justice of the day, and I remember we got calls, those of us who were students at law school, asking us if we were prepared to become, agree to be magistrates then the government would pay the rest of our tuition for our remaining years at law school. Some friends of mine did that. I know a couple of people who served as judges for many years, who did that. That did not work because many of them wanted to go into private practice, and did not want to be magistrates at the time. So then a new system came in place where existing magistrates were sent to law school. I think the first one was His Honour Judge Clement Scott who was a classmate of mine at Dalhousie Law School many years ago. He was a magistrate, and he was later a Provincial Court Judge, and he was trained along with me and with others at Dalhousie Law School.

We have come a long way since then. We have come an awful long way. We now have a Provincial Court, and the qualifications to be a judge of that court, I think are just as high, and are the same as to be a judge of the Trial Division, or even the Supreme Court of Canada. So, we are very fortunate in this Province to have an outstanding group of people to make up the judiciary here today.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there were some comments made here today about the pre-trial detention centre up in Labrador. I think it is important for everyone to remember that government was banking on help from the federal government in terms of joint cost-sharing a penitentiary here in St. John's. I know when I first became Minister of Justice, that was a very, very important issue. It was a very, very important issue, and it was a priority. I went to Ottawa at the time and I met with the hon. Stockwell Day, who was the Minister of Public Safety for the Government of Canada, and he agreed with me that we would explore options, and we were very optimistic that the federal government would join with us with the building of a new facility here. We had to do that first because if we could get that done then all of the other pieces could fall into place, and we can complete a total review of the penitentiary and prison system here in the Province.

Unfortunately, the government, after many years, has indicated to us – the federal government has indicated to us that they are not prepared to do that, which puts a lot of pressure on the system here in view of the fact that the tough on crime legislation from the federal government, with mandatory sentencing, is going to mean more people in the prison system. It is going to mean more trials, we are going to need more prosecutors, we are going to need more police officers, and it is going to mean more costs for the people of this Province.

Now, we have to do a different review. Prior to that, over some incidents that happened in Labrador involving an Aboriginal woman who I think was kept naked in a facility, that there is a need for a different facility in Labrador, a pre-trial detention facility. It was anticipated that this could be done at the cost of about $2 million. When the numbers finally came in, the cost turned out to be about $14 million or $15 million. In view of the fact that the federal government were not going to join with us with a new penitentiary here in St. John's, then we have to look at other things. We have to look at the facility in Stephenville. One option would be to put another wing on in Stephenville or another floor on in Stephenville for our federal prisoners. Another concern in Labrador is with the men's prison in Labrador. There is a facility there, it is crowded and there is need for another wing.

In terms of the number of Aboriginal women that are incarcerated in our facilities, I think the average is at the most, in Clarenville there have been two at any one particular time. So, in light of that, when we have a crowded men's facility there that is a challenge that we have to face. In addition to that, we have the youth facility in Whitbourne, which has a capacity for sixty, and I understand there are no more than ten, fourteen or a very small number. So, we can see that facility and possibly do something there.

We made a commitment in the Budget to expand, to add some renovations and add some room on the women's prison in Clarenville. So, a total review has to be done and it is being done. We are going to make the decisions that are not only cost-effective but in the best interest of the people of this Province.

There was also some mention of the Norris Report. Now, Mr. Speaker, when I became the Minister of Justice initially, I met with the judges of the three courts and we agreed to form a group called the courts management advisory board so that we would meet from time to time. I think it was every quarter that we would get together and we would discuss matters of mutual concern to ensure that we advanced in a meaningful way the administration of justice in this Province, recognizing, of course, that under the constitution of this country, under the supreme law of this country, it is the Province that has the responsibility for the administration of justice. We did meet from time to time. Obviously, the various courts made representations to me as minister, and I am sure to my successor as minister. Mr. Speaker, I believe that was you. The present Minister of Health was the Minister of Justice, and we now have a very capable Minister of Justice and Attorney General in the hon. Member for Placentia.

Those reports - The Norris Reports – there were two of them. The Government House Leader may not have realized that, but there were two Norris Reports: one dealing with the Supreme Court, commissioned by the Supreme Court, and one dealing with the Provincial Court, commissioned by the Supreme Court. These were not reports commissioned by government; these were advocacy pieces prepared on behalf of the courts and sent to government. We have adopted – government has adopted - many of the recommendations of those reports, but not all. There is a difference opinion as to who is responsible for the administration of justice. The judges, we all know, they are supreme with what goes on in the courtroom, but in terms of providing the facilities, in terms of providing and paying for the court staff, the sheriff's officers, the clerks, the security officers and so on, that is the responsibility of the Minister of Justice. The Norris Report was not buried, it was not – no need for anyone to put it in a brown envelope and send it to the media. It was an advocacy piece for the courts. It was considered. Government made its determination in accordance with its responsibility under the Constitution of Canada, and government will continue to make further reforms in the future.

Now, before I conclude, when it came to the appointment of judges, I heard the Government House Leader say from time to time: Maybe we should not do it. Maybe we should have some other committee make those decisions.

I have never agreed with that. I have never agreed with some committee who are elected by no one, who are accountable to no one, and who are responsible to no one, choosing the judges in this particular jurisdiction. As I said, our only role is not to choose who is qualified; the Judicial Council does that. Our role is merely to pick a name. We do not transfer judges, we do not fire judges, and we do not determined what judges' remuneration is. The only role we have is to choose the judge –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MARSHALL: May I have leave to wrap up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has asked for leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that when it comes to something as important as choosing judges, and selecting people to choose judges, that it is government who should do it. It should be the elected representatives of the people who will then stand in this court and be responsible and accountable to the people of Newfoundland, not some committee.

Also, I have heard the Opposition say, in addition to wanting some other committee to appoint judges, when it comes to dealing with doctors, they want binding arbitration. Once again, they do not want the government to deal with doctors. They want some arbitrator, again, someone accountable to no one, someone not elected by the people of this Province, and we have rejected that because that is a decision that we have been elected to do. We have been elected to govern, not to pass it off to an arbitrator, not to pass it off to some committee, but to govern as we have been elected to do and to be accountable to the people and stand here in this House, and stand before the media when we are questioned, to be accountable to the people of Newfoundland for the decisions we have made.

Again, we saw that with respect to the comments made by the Opposition House Leader with respect to the Child and Youth Advocate. The Child and Youth Advocate is chosen by this House. The Child Advocate is an officer of the House of Assembly. The Child and Youth Advocate is not an employee of government, but an officer of the House of Assembly chosen by the House of Assembly, dismissed by the House of Assembly. Now, who runs the House of Assembly? Well I looked it up, Mr. Speaker, and what did I find? That the House of Assembly is managed by a Management Commission; and, to use the words I have heard, lo and behold, who are the members of this Management Commission? Well, the Leader of the Opposition is on the Management Commission; yet, she stands in this House and she has a problem with the Child and Youth Advocate and she wants the government to do something about it. The Opposition House Leader, he is a member of the Management Commission. The Leader of the NDP is a member of the Management Commission; yet, they do not manage. So I would say to the Management Commission: Do what you have been chosen to do and manage. Do not come to the government because they have a problem with the Child and Youth Advocate. Manage.

They are here in the House every day; they are questioning us every day. They are holding our feet to the fire because of what we are responsible for, and if we do anything wrong they give it to us; yet, when they have a role to play - no, Sir, it is come to the government. I say: Manage. You have a responsibility; carry it out.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, in cluing up debate on Bill 4, I want to extend my appreciation to all those who took part in the debate. My colleague alongside of me here, the Minister of Finance, my colleague from Mount Pearl North, my colleague from Lewisporte, and, of course, I welcome the comments from the Opposition and the NDP.

I want to share comments recently made by my colleague sitting next to me here about the members of the House getting involved in debates on other people's bills. I think that is great to see, and I appreciate the fact that the hon. Member for Mount Pearl North, for example, who is not a lawyer, neither is the Member for Lewisporte, would take the time to do research and get information on these bills so that they can speak with some authority and some experience in the House. I certainly appreciate that.

We are seeing more of it in this House, and I think that is what this House is all about, because I do not think any of us can sit back and give responsibility to other people in the House for different bills. We are all part of this House; we all have to vote on this legislation, so we all should be part of it.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Finance dealt with some of the issues that I was going to deal with in my closing remarks, but there are a few things I have say in response to comments made by the hon. Opposition House Leader yesterday. One of the things the process allows, of course, when a minister introduces a bill, is that the critic on the other side has an hour to respond. Yesterday, the Opposition House Leader stood on his soapbox for just about an hour and waxed eloquently on matters far and wide, little relevance, but that is the leeway we gave him. As the Opposition, that is what he has to do.

Some of the things, though, I would be remiss if I did not respond to. One of the remarks he made was to talk about the independence of the judiciary, and the right to respect the judiciary and respect their independence, and that people should not make comments that are derogatory about the judiciary. He castigated the Premier for remarks he made about a Quebec court judge a few days ago in this House. He did not think it was proper for the Premier, who is a lawyer as well, to make such comments of disrespect, as were alluded to by the Opposition House Leader, to that judge.

All I can say to that, Mr. Speaker – and the Premier certainly does not need me to defend him - in my experience in this House, anything that the Premier has done or said is always done or said in the best interests of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: There is not a more passionate Newfoundlander and Labradorian, a more passionate leader, a more committed leader, a more visionary leader, than our Premier. When he makes comments such as he did in this House on the CCAA judge in Quebec, they were made out of passion and concern and the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I want to just stay on that for a minute, Mr. Speaker. Anybody who read the decision of that judge in the Quebec court, anybody who has a bit of Newfoundland and Labrador blood in them, or anybody with Newfoundland and Labrador pride, would have reacted in the same way to that decision. The decision, Mr. Speaker, was very much, in layman's terms, off the wall. Anybody reading the decision – you did not have to be a lawyer to come to that conclusion, that the judge's bias very clearly came through, which resulted in numerous errors in law, in fact, which leads us to apply for leave to appeal.

What the decision did, Mr. Speaker, the Quebec judge is acting under a federal statute, which is the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, the CCAA, and that act is designed to give the company breathing room while it negotiates a restructuring with finances and debts. That is what that law is all about. That statute does not give the court of Quebec the power to block provincial law, which it did in this decision.

The Province's decision of the Quebec court was required by the constitution to apply the Province's laws to Abitibi, not to permit Abitibi to avoid the laws, which is what the decision did. The Quebec judge imposed his own view on what he felt was good environmental laws and the views of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, as is evidence in the Newfoundland and Labrador legislation. This decision means that the - what it means now has ramification for all jurisdictions across the country. What this decision means, not just only Newfoundland, but that the environmental legislation in effect can be avoided by a company that has been restructured under CCAA.

All of these things, Mr. Speaker, smacks of the need to appeal. That is what this government has done. We have not appealed it yet; we have applied for leave to appeal to the Quebec appeal court because that decision is just not right and cannot be accepted by Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Premier made some disparaging remarks about that decision, I think his remarks are shared by most people in this Province.

My colleague, the Minister of Finance, dealt with another issue I was going to get to, in effect to the Opposition House Leader's comments, and that is the government's representative on this tribunal, Mr. Norris. He suggests that Mr. Norris is in conflict in some way because he was involved in writing a report that was commissioned by the courts some years ago. We are aware of that report. The member suggested that we might not have been, but we were. We mentioned it in Estimates that we were aware of the report. As a matter of fact, back in - I think it was November, when the concerns were raised of security issues in the Provincial Court downtown in Atlantic Place, The Norris Report hit the media.

The Opposition Leader, as a matter of fact, at that time accused the government of covering this report up and not releasing it and hiding it and trivializing the security concerns of our staff down there. She obviously did not read the whole report, because if she did she would have realized that that report was commissioned by the courts. It was commissioned by the courts, received by the courts, and we had no authority or jurisdiction whatsoever to release it, hide it, conceal it, or anything else.

Now, we did not agree with some of the conditions in that report, because we have an executive system of government and we are responsible for the administration of justice in this Province. We have control of the finances of the Province, and that is the way we want to keep that. There were some differences of opinion with that report and government's position. Mr. Norris, in that position, was advocating for the courts, but there was nothing in that report, Mr. Speaker, that had anything to do whatsoever with how much judges should be paid or anything with regard to salaries, or benefits of judges. It dealt strictly with the organizational issues of the court.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Child and Youth Advocate, I think my colleague summed it up. There is no need for me to beat this to death; it has already been gone over several times in this House. We have said several times that the Child and Youth Advocate is an officer of the House. He reports to the House through the Speaker. He does not report to the Minister of Justice or the Leader of the Opposition or the Premier or anybody else. He is an officer of the House, and we have no jurisdiction to direct him in any way with regard to carrying out his duties. To suggest that because he does not talk to the media means that he does not carry out his duties. This morning on one of the radio stations that was a story: Liberals say that the minister is not advocating for children. They are saying he is not advocating for children because he does not talk to the media. Where they can make that connection, I do not know. As was mentioned earlier in this House, that is rather ludicrous to suggest that.

There are officers of the House and there are politicians and there are lots of people who have a bent for talking to the media. They like being in front of the cameras, they like being in front of the microphones, but some people are not always like that. If Mr. Rorke prefers not to talk to the media, that is his prerogative to do so. He has the jurisdiction to do that because the legislation is not prescriptive about how he does his job.

As I said earlier, we are quite happy with the work that he has done. We asked him to go in and do a very difficult job, under very public scrutiny, in a position that was a subject of much public controversy. There was not exactly a line up of people to do that job, given the background. So we are grateful for the work that he has done, and he is worth every cent he is being paid.

Briefly, on the pre-trial detention centre; that has already been covered as well by my colleague. While the Opposition continues to say that we have scraped that idea and we have given up on the Aboriginal Women in Labrador and all this sort of stuff, Mr. Speaker, that is very much a part of our deliberations and will be as we do our internal review. As a matter of fact, we are going to Labrador to get as much consultation as we can from all the stakeholders in Labrador so they can tell us what kind of options are available to meet the needs that were identified two years ago. It might not necessarily, as I mentioned before, be a concrete wall and barbed wire.

Mr. Speaker, the NDP Leader mentioned the need for more judges and the fact that judges are sometimes on sick leave. In Labrador there is a situation as we speak, where one of the judges is on sick leave. These things happen; we have no control over that. We have a certain number of judges. We just appointed three brand new judges; great people, great additions. The chief judge is extremely pleased with the three additions we have made to the Provincial Court. As other judges retire over the next couple of years we will be appointing more, but judges are human beings. They get sick, need time off, and these things happen. The chief judge in his administrative duties will move judges around to fill those gaps.

So, Mr. Speaker, those are basically the comments I have to make. Again, I thank everybody for their comments and I now move that this bill go to second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): 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 Provincial Court Act, 1991. (Bill 4)

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

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

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 4)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call Order 4, second reading of Bill 7.

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

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by my colleague the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board that Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act, now be read a second time.

Motion second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act". (Bill 7)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity, before I reference this bill, to repeat some comments that were made by my colleague, the Member for Kilbride, earlier today when he referred to the outgoing Chief Joe Browne and incoming Chief Robert Johnston – I have not had the opportunity in this House to address that and I would like to take a minute to thank Chief Joe Browne and express our appreciation for the tremendous contribution that he made to the RNC and to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

It was under his leadership, Mr. Speaker, that the RNC has been revitalized into an elite police force and that is evident more so than ever in the attitude and the pride expressed by the new recruits. Chief Browne was responsible for the new recruit program at Memorial University and it is an eye-opening experience to talk to those recruits and see the pride that they have in the force and the expectation and the ambition that they have as they engage in this police career. We owe that to Joe Browne for the great work that he did and great leadership that he provided.

Mr. Speaker, we are delighted with his replacement, Robert Johnston, who I am sure worked hand in glove with Chief Joe Browne over the years and will be a very, very fitting replacement. He has the complete confidence and support of the whole force. We are going to see that police force develop into an elite police force – it already is – and we are very fortunate in this Province to have two provincial police forces of the calibre of the RCMP and the RNC.

I wanted to take that opportunity to do that because I did not have the opportunity previously to do it. I have done it privately to both of these individuals on a number of occasions and at functions, but not in this House.

Mr. Speaker, the Commissioners for Oaths Act provides a mechanism for the appointment of commissioners who are authorized to administer oaths, take affidavits and review affidavits, declarations and affirmations within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Those of us who practice law perhaps more so – there are other people in the House – would be aware of the fact that there is always a need for official people to witness documents and take documents and affidavits. In my law practice days, especially in the area of wills and estates and in real estate, you were always looking for someone to witness a document. Lots of times, Mr. Speaker, I had to personally go to communities myself to witness documents because of the unavailability of Commissioners for Oaths or notaries public or anybody else in these communities to witness these documents. People doing mortgages, doing real estate transactions, taking affidavits – there are all kinds of opportunities and reasons why that is a very valuable service. The Commissioners for Oaths Act provides for the mechanism to appoint these commissioners. Now, a Commissioners for Oaths Act does a little bit more than that, but for the purpose of this bill suffice to say that is what the act does.

Mr. Speaker, anybody who is appointed a Commissioner for Oaths in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador just simply can witness any document within the Province. He signs it as a Commissioner for Oaths for Newfoundland and Labrador and he stamps it underneath with his stamp, or her stamp, that says when that commission expires.

Unlike notaries public, which we will be speaking to in the bill, the Commissioner for Oaths cannot witness a document that will go outside of the Province. He does not have the authority to do that. That has to be done by a notary public - we will talk about that later – but they can witness documents within the Province. Anybody can apply to be a Commissioner for Oaths. You do not need to be designated but you do have to have some reason for application. A barrister, for example, while practising in the Province is automatically a Commissioner for Oaths, a Member of the House of Assembly, all of us here in this House are Commissioners for Oaths as long as we hold office. When we witness something, as a Member of the House of Assembly, we would write underneath, a Commissioner for Oaths in and for Newfoundland and Labrador being an MHA. A barrister would sign as being a barrister. A mayor, for example, of a community, is automatically a Commissioner for Oaths, and when he signs he signs as a Commissioner for Oaths for the Province being the mayor.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, all employees employed by the government, and designated by a minister can be a Commissioner for Oaths, or employees employed by a board established under the Health and Community Services Act, or the Hospitals Act can be a commissioner if he is designated by the Chief Executive Officer of that board. There are a number of people who can be commissioners and the process is fairly simple. The appointment is for a five-year period and can be renewed, of course, by the minister for a further extension of term.

As I mentioned earlier, the commissioner when he stamps, authorized or witnesses a document he has to put his stamp on it and that stamp says when the commissioner's authority expires.

Mr. Speaker, today, in this bill, Bill 7, this bill will propose an amendment to the Commissioners for Oaths Act because there are number of deficiencies in the act as it stands today and we want to correct. First of all, we want to broaden the category of persons who may be appointed Commissioners for Oaths. Currently, it can only be citizens of Canada. We want to broaden that to include people who have the status of permanent residents of Canada. We also want to amend the act so that the minister can set the fees that a commissioner may charge for his services. We also want to make it an offence to pretend one is a commissioner when really he is not.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier the Department of Justice is responsible for the administration of the Commissioners for Oaths Act. The purpose of the act is to provide a mechanism for the appointment of commissioners who are authorized to administer oaths, take and receive affidavits, declarations and alterations within the Province.

A lot of communities have problems, Mr. Speaker, in having people available in the community to do that. Sometimes a postmistress might be a Commissioner for Oaths; the town clerk might be a Commissioner for Oaths. In some communities, they do not have access to a Commissioner for Oaths and it can create a bit of a problem. As I mentioned, there were times when I was practising law that I had to get in my car and drive to communities to witness documents myself.

Section 2.(1) of the Commissioners for Oaths Act authorizes the Minister of Justice to appoint a person who is a Canadian citizen to administer oaths and take and receive affidavits within the Province. A person who is a permanent resident of Canada but not a citizen currently is unable to apply for that designation. You have to be a citizen.

A permanent resident in Canada is someone who is not necessarily a Canadian citizen but has been granted permission to live and work in Canada without any time limit on his or her stay. He has to be here two out of five years or he risks losing that status. A permanent resident of Canada is someone who is not necessarily a citizen but has been granted permission to live and work here.

A permanent resident has the same rights and responsibilities as a citizen. In other words he has the right to work for any enterprise. He has a right to work for the federal government or the provincial government. He has the same rights and responsibilities as a Canadian citizen. The difference between a Canadian citizen and a permanent resident is that a permanent resident cannot vote in federal, provincial or municipal elections; he cannot run for elected office; he cannot hold a Canadian passport; nor can he or she join Canada's armed forces. That is the difference. They may apply for citizenship after three years but it is not mandatory; they can live here without that.

That is the difference, Mr. Speaker, in a permanent resident and a citizen. We can give a Commissioner for Oaths to a Canadian citizen; we cannot give it to a permanent resident of Canada. Now, the labour mobility provisions of the agreement on internal trade, and labour mobility agreement between the provinces has necessitated a need for our government, Mr. Speaker, to review its legislation to determine whether the requirement to be a Canadian citizen or resident of the Province is fitting in all pieces of legislation.

With respect to the Commissioners for Oaths Act, it has been determined by the Department of Justice that a citizenship requirement is not legally necessary to perform the function of a commissioner in this Province. So it is appropriate, therefore, Mr. Speaker, to broaden the category of persons who may be appointed Commissioner for Oaths to persons who have the status of permanent residents of Canada.

Over the years, the practice of this government has been to remove that legislative requirement that one must be a Canadian citizen to perform certain functions. For example, the RNC Act have eliminated that requirement, the Student Financial Act has eliminated that requirement, the Engineers And Geoscientists Act, the Law Society Act, the Income And Support Act. All of these acts now, Mr. Speaker, as well as others, have eliminated the need to have Canadian citizenship in order to perform certain functions in the Province.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, one of the first amendments we are looking for in this Bill 7 is the ability to be able to give a Commissioner for Oaths to persons who have the status of permanent resident of Canada, and eliminate citizenship as a requirement. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, a review of the Commissioners for Oaths Act reveals there is no provision in there which makes it an offence to pass oneself off as a Commissioner for Oaths.

Now, within the Department of Justice in recent times we have received complaints with respect to persons who, whether knowingly or unknowingly, witnessed documents as a Commissioner for Oaths without the proper designation to do so. Maybe it has expired. Maybe they thought because of the office they hold that they can automatically be Commissioner for Oaths when they are not. In any event, we have situations where people have held themselves out to be Commissioner for Oaths without having the authority to do so. There is nothing in the legislation, Mr. Speaker, to address that type of situation.

The proposed amendment is to make it an offence, Mr. Speaker, to pretend to be a commissioner when one is not. That is found in other provinces. It is found in Alberta, found in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. It prohibits a person from holding themselves out or representing themselves to be a Commissioner for Oaths.

Now, the amount of fines vary in each jurisdiction; $10 in Manitoba, which is pretty cheap, up to $500 in Alberta and Saskatchewan, no more than $2,000 in Ontario. We propose, in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, a fine of not more than $500. So that is our second amendment, Mr. Speaker, to put a provision in there that will penalize people who hold themselves out to be a Commissioner for Oaths when they are not.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the third part of the amendment is to set the application fee charged by the Minister of Justice. That authority now is derived from section 21 of the Executive Council Act. Notwithstanding that the minister has the authority in the Executive Council Act; there is no legislative means in the Commissioners for Oaths Act for addressing the fees receivable by commissioners. We feel that, since this is the mechanism that sets up the ability to set up Commissioners for Oaths, that is the act that should also address the fees receivable by commissioners.

Past practice has been to rely upon the schedule set out in schedule H, set out in the rules of the Supreme Court. That schedule of the Supreme Court outlines the fees that commissioners may receive under section 78 and 79 of the Judicature Act. These fees are set by the Supreme Court Rules Committee. So the proposed amendment would take that authority out of the rules committee, Mr. Speaker, and give the minister responsible for the appointment of the Commissioners for Oaths under the Commissioners for Oaths Act the authority to set the fees receivable for the services a commissioner may provide.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I feel that these changes are practical changes for both residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the legal profession, especially. Permanent residents in Canada will now have the ability to apply for a Commissioner for Oaths designation in this Province, and some administrative procedures associated with the designation of commissioners in the Province would be modernized, the language made more efficient and consistent with other provincial jurisdictions.

Mr. Speaker, that is the bill, those are the amendments, thanks for the opportunity to discuss them. I invite other members of the House to engage in the debate and I look forward to their comments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words about this particular bill, Bill 7, dealing with Commissioners for Oaths Act.

The minister is quite right, of course, there are all kinds of occasions in our system and in our society where we need to have documents witnessed, and there are different classifications of who can witness something. The person, of course, who makes the statement that you are swearing to, they are generally, typically called the deponent, but the deponent must swear certain different documents. It might be a land deed, for example. It might be an affidavit attached to an income tax thing. It might be an affidavit that is going to go outside the Province and you want registered.

Now, if you are signing a document that is going to be registered, for example, in Ontario, the Commissioner for Oaths will not do it, cannot do it, will not cut it, because that is for within the Province, a Commissioner for Oaths. Whereas, if you want to witness a document that is going to be registered, for example, in Ontario, in the registry of deeds, or used in some court or tribunal outside this Province, it has to be a notary public who witnesses it. Now, you often - in Newfoundland, for example, you hear lawyers are referred to as barristers, solicitors and notary publics. That of course - there are three designations. Usually the barrister is the person who typically attends court, whereas the solicitor is generally known in legal circles to confine him or herself normally to office work, as opposed to the courtroom, and then of course, notary public is usually tacked on. You get to be a notary public when you are called to the Bar. That authorizes you to sign documents that would be registerable and useable outside the Province. There are lots of documents that have been signed for use outside the Province.

By the way, we are supportive of this bill. We see no reason why you should have a limitation and have citizenship in order to be a Commissioner for Oaths here in the Province. To make that expansion here is certainly a wise thing to do. In a lot of places, particularly in rural Newfoundland, you do not always have access to a notary public. A lot of communities do not have lawyers, and of course, it is cumbersome and awkward and inconvenient when you have to travel just to get a document witnessed when you ought to be able to do it in your own community.

Now, fortunately, because over the years we have expanded it so much, every citizen, virtually, has access to a Commissioner for Oaths to get this done. All mayors, for example, are commissioners, MHAs are commissioners. In fact, they will even pay for you to get a stamp. Most commissioners, for example, who are commissioners, you can get a stamp that you usually put on over your name or under your name saying a Commissioner for Oaths for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. There is even a place to date it when you sign the document or when your commission expires. You are allowed to pay for it out of your constituency allowance, in fact. That is part of the perk, I guess, of being an MHA. You not only are a commissioner, but they will let you get your stamp out of your constituency allowance, because you are using it for the benefit of your constituents.

Quite often, I know I get called to witness documents, for example, and it could be down the coast somewhere. Well, fortunately, I can sign it as a barrister, or as a notary, or as a commissioner. Of course, that will expire once your time here in the House expires. It is not like a knighthood; you keep it for the rest of your life. Once you leave this Chamber, you have lost that designation as a commissioner.

Of course, when I talk about documents going outside of this Province, we often have lots of cases where you sign documents here that are going to be used outside in other courts or in other tribunals. One example, for example, tomorrow in the Quebec Superior Court, in the Court of Appeal, we are going to have a very momentous occasion take place in a Quebec court tomorrow that could impact this Province substantially; very, very substantially. Of course, I refer to – and lots of affidavits have been filed in that case – I am referring, of course, to the Abitibi case. I saw the documents; I saw the exhibits. A lot of them have been witnessed by commissioners. Some of them have been sworn to by notaries public, lawyers in the Department of Justice, for example, have signed them; and, of course, I am referring to the application seeking leave to appeal the Abitibi ruling that came down recently. That is going to be heard tomorrow, May 12, in a Quebec court.

Now, I pray and hope that the decision is that we get leave to appeal. I hope the Court of Appeal Justices in Quebec agree with the submissions that have been put forward by the solicitors for our Province, because I think it is very, very crucial that we do get leave, and that we subsequently get to go ahead with the appeal on the Abitibi case.

I am referring, of course, to the Abitibi case where the judge who is overseeing the restructuring of Abitibi decided, back in April, that the arguments made by our Province did not hold water. If they stand, we stand to lose a lot of money. If they stand, we potentially are not going to get paid for the environmental liabilities that exist, and we are not going to be able to use any environmental liabilities that exist as a set-off against anything that Abitibi might be seeking under their expropriation, or under their NAFTA arguments.

Now, I happened to get today, from the Quebec Court of Appeal, a copy of the memorandum of argument that was submitted yesterday in the Quebec court on behalf of Abitibi. The Province, of course, filed ours last week, their lawyers. Well, this one was filed yesterday, May 10, by the lawyers for Abitibi, and their lawyers are Stikeman Elliott - very well known, we have used them, in fact, from time to time for various issues that we have dealt with as a Department of Justice - and their brief has been filed.

I have a copy of it here. It is twenty-odd pages long, and I can say without hesitation that in the thirty years that I have been involved in the practice of law, and having filed many memorandums myself with the courts in this Province – Provincial, Trial Division and Court of Appeal – I have never seen a document filed that is so – what are the words I can use? – forceful, but yet simply written, to say that our Province does not have a case to get leave to appeal tomorrow.

MR. F. COLLINS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice, on a point of order.

MR. F. COLLINS: Two things, Mr. Speaker. First of all, relevance, to start with, but secondly, Mr. Speaker, the hearing is in the Quebec court tomorrow, and here we are, someone is standing in the House of Assembly in Newfoundland and Labrador praising the position put forth by the other side, by Abitibi. I have difficulty with that.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, no point of order, and I would like, just for the sake of clarification for the Minister of Justice, he just made a statement that is absolutely contrary to what I just said.

I made a statement –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Read the transcript, I say to anybody over there. I made a statement here that I pray that the decision that comes out of the Court of Appeal tomorrow is in favour of this Province. Now, that is pretty unequivocal. I dare anybody to suggest that I said what the Minister of Justice said, and I challenge him to look at the tapes or look at the transcript of what I said.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: The hon. Opposition House Leader is making comments about the presentation that will be made in a court tomorrow in Quebec by the lawyers for Abitibi, and saying how strong and forceful an argument it is. That is what you are saying.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I remind the hon. member to keep his comments relevant to Bill 7, the Explanatory Notes and the sections that are outlined in the said bill.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I have no problems, Mr. Speaker, about my patriotism and support for anything that is in the benefit of the citizens of this Province, and I do not think anybody who knows me has ever had to question that. For anybody to suggest otherwise is absolute nonsense. Let's get that on the record, for starters. Unlike some people who might automatically - because you use your expression of free speech in this House, that one would suggest that you are unpatriotic, I use my opportunities in this House to challenge the government, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: I respectfully ask the hon. member to continue, but to refer your comments to Bill 7, please.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I made my comments in the context of the Commissioner for Oaths, which we are dealing with here, and I showed and demonstrated, as you can see, if you consult the documentation that has been filed in the court, there are all kinds of exhibits that have been filed, sworn to.

Some have been sworn to by Commissioners for Oaths; some have been sword to by notaries. Now, there is a difference. It seems like, the minute you try to bring an issue to the floor that might expound upon how that would fit into the bigger picture, all of a sudden, Mr. Speaker, you get muzzled.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind all hon. members that the hon. Opposition House Leader does have the floor, and I respectfully ask for everyone's co-operation.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection.

It is quite obvious, Mr. Speaker, that when you touch the bone and you start to get the commentary back that you do from the members opposite, it is pretty obvious sometimes that you touch a sore spot. You touch a sore spot, Mr. Speaker. I was simply alluding to this case to demonstrate, Mr. Speaker, that we do have different documents in different courts, and to use this as an example to show that some of the documentation that has been signed –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I hope it is true. I hope it is true, in the sense that some of it that has been filed is in our benefit, and to our benefit. I read the memorandum that has been filed, both by the lawyers for our Province and for the lawyers, Stikeman Elliott, that has been filed here.

Now, the stuff that is here is pretty strong. I have never, ever seen the words that have been used here. In fact, I have never, ever seen – I put this out here – I have never, ever seen a memorandum filed by a lawyer before that took a shot at a Premier. I never saw it. Now, that is what has happened here, Mr. Speaker. That is what has happened here. A law firm representing a party in Quebec, Abitibi, took a shot out our Premier, and basically has called for an apology. That is worrisome. That is worrisome. When we start to mix, in a courtroom in Quebec, when we start to mix what is a legal issue between a province and a company with making challenges and attacks upon something that our Premier said, we should all be concerned; and that is exactly what happened here, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again I remind the hon. member to contain his comments to the bill that is under debate in the House of Assembly at the time, and I make note that this is my second time that I have asked the hon. member for his co-operation.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I conclude my comments with regard to that matter by simply asking the members to get a copy and read paragraph 62. That is all I say, I say nothing further. This will all be in the media tomorrow as to what happened but I invite the members opposite, go on-line and get a copy of it. It is easy to get. You should read it. Anyway that is the tenure of what is going to unfold.

Mr. Speaker, back to my commentary on Commissioners for Oaths now - very important beings in our system for the reasons that I said. If you live, for example, in a place like Grand Bruit, it is not easy to contact a lawyer. You might have a document that you need signed. It is not very easy to get a lawyer or a notary down in Grand Bruit. That is why it is important to have as many people as we can in rural Newfoundland to be able to deliver these basic types of services and provisions to our citizens so that they can swear oaths, for example, and swear affidavits for people.

Now, just a couple of points about when you swear an affidavit, a lot of people are under the mistaken impression that because you are a Commissioner for Oaths and John or Jane comes in and swears an affidavit and you sign it as a commissioner, a lot of people think that because they witness it they are attesting to the truth of what is in it, not so. So, for example, if the Member for St. John's North, he is a commissioner because he is a sitting MHA, if some constituent in his district comes and says: Mr. MHA, could you witness this document for me? He does so and he has his seal, some people might be worried because they say: Should I witness this, should I witness that document because I do not know if the person who is asking me to do that is telling the truth or not? Well, rest easy. Rest easy because as MHAs, which makes you commissioners, if you witness a document for someone you are not attesting yourself to the truthfulness of what the person is telling you, you are just witnessing that it was that person. He might say that I am John Doe, age such-and-such, I did such-and-such, I own this car and I did whatever and I own this piece of land, I want to get it registered and I am selling it to my brother, Jack. It is not for you to worry about whether those are true statements or not. If he says that he paid $500 for it that is not for you to worry about.

All you have to worry about as a commissioner was, number one, when Jack signed it, was he in front of you. For example, you cannot have somebody run over to your door and say: Here, we need you to witness this document as a commissioner. Jack, who is over there down the street, Jack signed it that is Jack's signature. That will not cut it. The person who signs the document must actually be in your presence when they sign it.

Now I think that is important information that we all need to know because I can assure you that other than a pamphlet that is mailed out, there is very little, if any, instructions given to anyone who is a commissioner. I am sure we have all here, if you haven't after today, when everybody in the Province knows that you are commissioners, they will be knocking on your doors. You are going to get your door knocked on by somebody wanting to get a paper signed.

It is nice to understand what it is you are doing and what your liabilities are and what your limitations are. Number one, as I say, you do not have to test the truthfulness of what the person is saying, but they must be in your presence. The other thing is you must have some proof of their identity. You just cannot have anybody walk up to you and sign a document if you have not verified who they are.

Most MHAs, if you do not know 100 per cent of the people in your district, you surely know 99.9 per cent of them. There are not too many that you do not know personally and you cannot attest as to their identity. If there is any doubt whatsoever, the onus is on the person who is taking the oath, the commissioner, to verify the identity. You can do that with a lot of things. You can get their driver's licence, for example. Ask them for their driver's licence, and when you do, compare the signatures and see if it is the same person. At least you made an attempt to verify the identity of that person.

We just cannot run off as a commissioner and sign anything that we want to for anybody. There are certain little limitations, and I do not know if the minister got into those. I was absent from the Chamber for a few moments and I am not sure if he got into those.

I think it is very important that we take this opportunity not only to say that we are changing the act to include other people, landed immigrants, and that you do not need citizenship any more. I think it is important to understand as a commissioner what your limitations are and what you should be doing when you witness these documents for people. There is no course they give you on that. They do not send you a little CD with instructions on it. You are told that you are and that is about it.

There is trouble, you see, if you do not do it. If you witness a document and it ends up in a courtroom later on - the Minister of Justice will verify that and that the Minister of Finance - if someone comes to me and asks me to witness a document and I have not followed those basic elements of determining who they were, and that document ends up in courtroom later on, and it gets to be a racket about whether it is Joe's signature or not, and you get called as a witness, and somebody says, do you know Joe, and you did not take the proper steps to ensure that you knew Joe you have a problem. That is why it is serious. You cannot do it with just - oh yes, I will do that because that might be a vote for me or whatever else. You cannot do that. MHAs want to help their constituents but you cannot be careless about it because you could find your butt in a courtroom witness chair later on if that document becomes part of a trial. You have to be careful and make sure that you know who the person is. As I said earlier, if that person lied to you and it ends up in a courtroom you cannot help that, that is not for you to worry about.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I would go a bit further in terms of making Commissioners for Oaths available. I would go even further and recommend to the minister that it is a great thing we are doing here. It is also good to have the penalty piece there for those who act as commissioners who are not, that is a deterrent to keep people from doing that, obviously. I think it would not hurt also - I do not know about local service districts. I have communities in my district, for example, I will give you an example, like the Community of La Poile, and we have 130-odd people in La Poile. It varies, up and down. I do not think we have a commissioner in La Poile. I know we do not have a notary. I know we do not have a lawyer. We do not have a JP, and I do not think we have a commissioner.

I just say that I think the commissioner is something that should be expanded so that every rural community has to have an opportunity to have a commissioner. I do not think it is cumbersome. I think it is so needed that we ought to have one, and I do not think local service districts are included. I know mayors are. Any town that happens to be incorporated the mayor is automatically a commissioner, but I do not think local service districts or the chair of local service districts are. If they are, well that is fine, I am mistaken, but I do not think they are. If they are not, I would suggest that while we are at this why don't we do the sensible thing and at least have some way so that in each community, whether you are a local service district, you might not even be a local service district, but we find some way to have a citizen in that community who is a commissioner; because it is not very practical when someone in La Poile who sells a car to his buddy – well, not a car, because there are no cars in La Poile, but he sells a piece of property to his buddy and he has to turn around and come up to Rose Blanche somewhere or Port aux Basques to see a lawyer or see a commissioner.

If that is there, that is fine, but if it is not there we should make it as broad as possible to make sure that it is included. According to the information I am now getting from the former Minister of Justice, it is there. If that is there, fine and dandy, but the point is we should make sure that somebody in every community is entrusted with this Commissioners for Oaths thing because it is a very efficient, practical, sensible way of ensuring that people can get documents and affidavits signed without incurring unnecessary expense and travel to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am happy to have the opportunity to stand and say a few words in response to Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act. This is a pretty practical piece of legislation, as was pointed out by the Minister of Justice, and an important piece, though. Just because it is practical does not mean that it is not important.

The Commissioners for Oaths are people who are very important in our society to keep good order. There are many things that people have to make oaths about, everything from needing somebody to sign for a passport right through to sometimes for auditors having to actually make an oath with regard to statements for auditors. Some of the things are very practical that one can come across in their life fairly frequently and others are not. Others are things that only happen occasionally, but in any case, it is a need that the ordinary person has off and on, and we have to have people who are in place to make that happen.

I understand the need to make sure that there are adequate numbers of people to witness an oath or an affirmation or a declaration that a person has to make and to have easy access to somebody to administer that oath. We certainly have to have adequate numbers. I am though wondering why the minister is choosing – and I would like him to speak a bit more to it. He spoke to it a bit when he was speaking. I was not in the House, but I was in my office in the building and I was listening – to why we are looking at appointing somebody who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada but not a citizen of Canada. Is this something that is happening across the country?

I have looked at some other jurisdictions that still demand that the person be a citizen. I am wondering if there is a movement in this direction that the minister is following here in Newfoundland and Labrador. I am wondering what brought this about. I would just like when the minister speaks to this again, to give a bit more information because I did not hear quite enough to understand why it is necessary to increase the number – well, not increase. Increase the number I understand, but opening it up to people who are not citizens. I would like more information on that. So I look forward to hearing that from the minister when he next speaks to the bill.

I certainly agree with some of the new things, the second part – no, not the second part. Section 15 of the bill, that "A person whose appointment as a commissioner for oaths has expired or whose appointment has been revoked who after the expiry or revocation uses or exercises a power conferred on a commissioner by this Act is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than $500." Then the second part of that section, "A person who holds himself or herself out as a commissioner for oaths without having been appointed as one is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than $500."

I think having a section in the bill or in the act with regard to recognizing offences and the penalty for offences is extremely important because being a Commissioner for Oaths, somebody is being put in a very serious position of trust. It is a position of trust that the community is recognizing and a position of trust that the judicial system is recognizing. It is very important that, number one, the person in that is certainly known to be trustworthy, known to be somebody who can be trusted by individuals and by the community. Therefore, great care has to go into appointing Commissioners for Oaths.

Then it is really important that people, once the person has been appointed and the person would be appointed by the Minister of Justice, it is a responsibility of the Minister of Justice to make sure that the minister understands the whole background of the person so that people will feel confident that the person they are going to is somebody whom they can trust. Because sometimes the document that they may require the Commissioner for Oath to witness, in whatever way the witnessing is done, may be a document that reveals some personal information about a person. They want to make sure that the person who is signing this document, who is witnessing it, who is witnessing what is there is true, is somebody that they can trust, is somebody who is not going to go off in the community and say to somebody else: Oh, I signed so-and-so's affidavit the other day. I witnessed the affidavit and you should see what the affidavit is about.

The person who is going to a Commissioner for Oaths needs to know absolutely, without doubt, that he or she can trust that Commissioner for Oaths. So it is a very serious responsibility for somebody to have. Obviously, if we broaden the position to somebody who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada then we have to make sure that the Minister of Justice can go back far enough in that person's history to make sure that that person is a person who is trustworthy and is a person that we believe will be there for the good of the community.

When a person goes through becoming a Canadian citizen, there are things they go through that are more extensive than just being a permanent resident. So that is one of my concerns that I would like to hear the minister speak to as well, why he feels confident that bringing in people who are just permanent residents and not citizens, that the minister feels that one can really ensure that one has enough information about the person's background to be able to say to the community: yes, I really trust this person and I entrust this person to be there to witness documentation that you need to have witnessed.

Mr. Speaker, it is an important bill. It is a bill that does not require a lot of discussion but the oaths that sometimes people have to make are serious. As I have said before, sometimes it is a written statement that has to be used in court or a written statement that has to do with an estate or land title transactions, especially when there is something that has to go to court. I would say this is where you can get into sensitive information in an affidavit. This is why it is one of the reasons we have to be sure that we can get to know enough about a person's background, that the minister will feel safe with regard to declaring somebody a Commissioner for Oaths.

Right now, every mayor and chairperson of every municipality in the Province is by virtue of office a Commissioner for Oaths for the period that they hold office. I think that is what is important, is that there are positions that attach with them the ability to be a Commissioner for Oaths, but only while the person is in office.

I think that is one of the reasons why the bill has this particular section in it that speaks to a penalty for somebody who continues acting as a Commissioner for Oaths after the person no longer has the recognized power to do so. It can easily happen, especially in a smaller community. If in a smaller community somebody has been a Commissioner for Oaths for a number of years, then all of a sudden no longer has that position, but people in the community think the person is still a Commissioner for Oaths and they come to them casually and say: I need this signed. The person can just sort of think: Well, I am helping them out and sign it. Well, that is not good enough. Because it is such a recognized position and a position of responsibility, it is important that the bill, as I have said earlier, does look at the need to find somebody who would do that.

Mr. Speaker, I think that is all that I want to say about this. I do look forward though to hearing more from the minister because with regard to the person not having to be a Canadian citizen, in Saskatchewan, for example, it is only citizens that can be a Commissioner for Oaths. In other places there is no specification. In Nova Scotia, for example, the minister can make a Commissioner for Oaths of somebody whom the minister thinks is fit to administer oaths. There aren't any fixed rules across the country. So from that perspective, there is sort of not a precedent for us to follow. It is for that reason I am certainly open to the change that the minister is looking for, but I also look forward to hearing from the minister a further explanation of why he thinks we should go the route of saying that a person with a permanent residency is acceptable.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, at this point we will adjourn debate on this particular bill.

I would like to remind the hon. members that the Social Services Committee will review the Estimates of the Department of Municipal Affairs at 6:00 o'clock this evening, and the Social Services Committee will review the Estimates of the Department of Education at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources, that this House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is properly moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

This House now stands adjourned until 2:00 o'clock tomorrow, being Private Members' Day.

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