June 17, 2010                        HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                  Vol. XLVI  No. 40


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the Chair would like to welcome twenty-four Grade 5 students from Twillingate Island Elementary from the District of the Isles of Notre Dame. The students are accompanied by Principal David Dove; teachers, Dawn Troake, Patti Hicks-Brown, Jody Cooper; student assistance, Patsy Jenkins; as well as their bus driver, Colin Pardy.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would also like to welcome thirty-three Grade 6 students from Helen Tulk Elementary from the District of Exploits. The students are accompanied by their principal, David Alcock; teachers, Danika Hynes, Cathy Rowe, Steve White; and their French monitor, Valerie Castonguay-Boisvert.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would also like to recognize a Mr. John McKinlay-Key, National Director of Operations for the Motorcycle Ride for Dad organization, promoting prostate cancer awareness across Newfoundland and Labrador, and actually right across Canada. I understand that ride is taking place this weekend.

Welcome, Sir, to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today, the following members' statements will be heard: the hon. Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the hon. Member for the District of Exploits; the hon. Member for the District of Port au Port; and the hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand in this hon. House today to congratulate Julie Huntington on receiving the 2010 Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental Award in the individual category.

Mr. Speaker, the award recognizes outstanding efforts and contributions to sustaining, protecting and enhancing the Province's environment, something that Julie Huntington takes very seriously.

Julie is currently executive director of the Atlantic Coastal Action Program, and a board member of the Natural History Society of Newfoundland and Labrador. Julie helped launch the Newfoundland chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, and together with her husband, works with the Whale Release and Strandings Group.

Mr. Speaker, Julie's commitment to the environment extends beyond her daily vocation. As one of her nominators wrote, Julie grows much of her own food, raises three teenagers to be aware and responsible citizens, and values simplicity over material consumerism. She is an educator, mentor, advocate, cheerleader and tireless organizer.

Mr. Speaker, Julie Huntington embodies an attitude of sustainability that should serve as a model for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians so that we are partners with our environment and not just environmental consumers. Julie's passion and initiative to improve the world in which we live, by setting an example, is a lesson we can all learn, Mr. Speaker.

I ask all hon. members of this House of Assembly to join me in congratulating Newfoundland and Labrador's Environmentalist of the Year, Julie Huntington.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House today to recognize a long-time volunteer, Mr. Ron Penney, of Bishop's Falls on being awarded Knight of the Year at the Knights of Columbus State convention held in Gander in May.

Mr. Speaker, Ron is a dedicated family man and a long-time member of the Knights of Columbus Monsignor Finn Council 5904. Ron is presently serving as Grand Knight and is very active in the church.

Mr. Speaker, Ron organizes the Knights of Columbus annual turkey dinner and raffle, leads the Keep Christ in Christmas march, and was instrumental in the restoration of the Sacred Heart Parish cemetery.

Mr. Speaker, Ron will be the first to admit that his countless hours of volunteering could not be possible without the support of his wife, Marjorie. As a matter of fact, both Ron and Marjorie are devoted to their church and community.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating an outstanding individual, Ron Penney, on being awarded Knight of the Year for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: Mr.Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to congratulate Rosemary Ryan of Kippens for receiving the Recreation Newfoundland and Labrador's Pitcher Plant Award on June 12 in recognition for her many years of volunteer work.

Mr. Speaker, during the past twenty-four years Rosemary has given many hours of her time promoting physical activities for youth. Rosemary's commitment and dedication to the well-being and development of children is more than evident. She coaches an average of ten teams annually in such sports as volleyball, basketball, cross-country skiing, badminton, and track and field. She has been involved in the development of the Special Olympics in Stephenville, conducted badge work for Girl Guides, and has been a leader with the Duke of Edinburgh program, worked with senior groups, volunteered with the Kippens Winter Carnival and Canada Day Celebrations, and has organized and supervised the Kippens Summer Recreation program for children up to twelve years of age.

Rosemary has enriched the lives of many children over the years and I am proud that her dedication has been recognized with the Recreation Newfoundland and Labrador Pitcher Plant Award.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of the hon. House of Assembly to join with me in congratulating Rosemary Ryan on receiving the Pitcher Plant Award this year and to thank her for her contribution and commitment to our youth.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the success of the breakfast program at Lewisporte Academy.

Lewisporte Academy is a school with a population of 352 students and thirty-three staff. The school, located in Lewisporte, serves students from Laurenceton, Brown's Arm, Stanhope, Porterville, Little Burnt Bay and Embree.

Three days each week, students are given the opportunity to avail of a healthy snack for their breakfast once they arrive at school. A wide variety of foods, carefully selected from the four food groups on the Canada Food Guide, are served. This includes a good selection of fresh fruit, milk, whole grain toast, and yogurt.

Staff members at the school say that the faces of the children light up as they eagerly access the food items each morning. They also say it is a pleasure to see the children excitedly interact with the many breakfast program volunteers. This is a very worthwhile program that helps prepare students for a day of learning.

Members of the House of Assembly, please join me in recognition of all the volunteers that make the breakfast program at Lewisporte Academy a resounding success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Minister Responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, I rise in this hon. House today, to advise members and the public of very positive news in the area of social housing. I have the pleasure of announcing today a new and progressive pilot project to better meet the increased demand for smaller social housing units, a trend we are seeing throughout the Province.

This pilot project has been made possible through a $1 million research and development investment by the provincial government to assess and identify potential solutions for social housing needs.

At present, 86 per cent of applicants for housing are in need of one and two-bedroom homes. However, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing's portfolio, originally designed to meet the demographic needs of the 1960s and the 1970s, consists primarily of three, four and five-bedroom units. This current reality is that our homes are no longer suitable for the majority of the applicants on our waiting list.

Pine Martin Adventures Inc. of Corner Brook has been awarded a $300,000 contract to reconfigure two three-bedroom units on Wheeler's Road into three smaller homes this summer. The reconfiguration will include one fully-accessible two-bedroom apartment on the main floor and two one-bedroom apartments on the upper level. A second reconfiguration project in St. John's is expected to be awarded later this summer.

Mr. Speaker, the focus of reconfiguration is to be able to use existing housing more effectively to address changing demographic needs. We see this pilot project as an opportunity to evaluate the future economic feasibility of such projects. Such projects also move our social housing portfolio into position to meet the needs of future generations. I cannot express how thankful we are that the Cities of Corner Brook and St. John's are supporting reconfiguration as they too plan for the future housing needs of their citizens.

This reconfiguration work is also in keeping with the goals of the provincial government's Social Housing Plan for Newfoundland and Labrador - Secure Foundations, which outlines a new long-term vision for social housing aimed at improving the housing circumstances of lower-income households and helping to create healthier communities.

Mr. Speaker, as this project indicates, our government is very open to exploring new options that will further assist us in addressing the need for social housing throughout our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement, and to say yes, we agree that this is a tremendous announcement. To know that there is going to be an initiative now as families throughout our Province require smaller-sized units as compared in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I guess each and every area of the Province, there is no exception to this. It is good to see that this initiative is going to start in Corner Brook and another one coming up in St. John's. I know in our area that we represent, we probably do not have the housing units, the apartment units like they have in those cities but even in those areas, a single unit, most of them are three and four bedroom, and the same need is there, Mr. Speaker. I know since April 2009 to April 2010, the vacancy rate has fallen from 2.1 per cent to 1.1 per cent in the Province and the availability rate over the same time has declined from 2.7 per cent to 1.7 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, we know the tremendous turnover in our Province today and the rising cost. So people are staying in those units. It is not as big a turnover as there used to be, Mr. Speaker. This past year 1,100 applicants were in the pool and I think 840 were accepted. It was only recently we saw an article in the paper, where a gentleman is living in a van. I think Newfoundland and Labrador Housing confirmed that he is on a wait-list with 370 people.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is good news. Hopefully, more can be done. This is a great start, but, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that there is more that has to be done and sooner rather than later.

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

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

I thank the minister for the advance copy his statement.

I am very happy to see this initiative being started in Corner Brook. I do believe that some of the work that was done around the Froude Avenue reconfigurations involved a similar type of work with regard to the large bedroom houses and resulting in some extra accessible units because of the reconfiguration to the Froude Avenue buildings here in St. John's.

I guess I see this as a direction in which Newfoundland and Labrador Housing has already decided to move more than a pilot project, but I am glad to see it is happening outside of St. John's and not just in St. John's, especially in Corner Brook where they have a 0.4 per cent vacancy rate in rental units.

As I have said to the minister, and he knows, we have a major problem with regard to housing. On the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing list, for example, we have 1,000 people now on the waiting list. We have quite a bit to do. This is a good initiative, but it is one of much more that needs to be done around housing.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, please!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize an exceptional individual and an amazing spokesperson and advocate for the Canadian Sealing Industry – Skipper Mark Small.

On June 12, 2010, I was pleased to present Mark with an Award of Recognition on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador for his leadership and commitment to the Canadian Sealing Industry for over thirty years.

Mark was also recently honoured with the Fur Institute of Canada's Bernard Cahill Memorial Award, recognizing his significant contributions in promoting respect for people, animals and the environment at the community level and with a global perspective.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador continues to be a strong supporter of the Province's sealing industry. We have dedicated $500,000 in the last five provincial Budgets to communications and advocacy work. This work is in support of this sustainable, humane and economically important industry. Mark has been a partner with us in this work.

As a resident of Wild Cove, Mark was one of the founders of the Canadian Sealers Association, or the CSA. He was president of this organization for over fifteen years. Under his leadership, the association played a major role in revitalizing the industry to one of the most successful stories in the Newfoundland and Labrador fishing industry. Mark is a true pioneer of the sealing industry and speaks with conviction on the importance of this renewable and sustainable natural resource.

Mark is currently active in representing sealers on the Fur Institute of Canada's Seals and Sealing Committee. He is president of the Northeast Coast Sealer's Co-operative and he remains an active professional fish harvester, Mr. Speaker, and I believe at the age of seventy. Mark is highly respected leader and his relentless dedication and passion to the sealing industry is unparalleled.

Mark has travelled to many countries as a sealing expert and an advocate for the sealing industry. His passion and his vision for the industry are well respected. We look forward to receiving his advice and guidance on important sealing issues for many years to come.

Our government will continue to work with the sealing industry in this Province, across the country and throughout the world in addressing the promotion and development of this industry that is so important to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We look forward to working with Mark and his colleagues into the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

It is an absolute privilege, Mr. Speaker, to stand in the House of Assembly today and to recognize the work of Mark Small. Mark Small has been a strong advocate of the fishing industry, but most importantly of the sealing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Over the many decades, Mr. Speaker, as a sealer, of going to the front in this Province and pioneering an industry in the seal hunt for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, he did so always with conservation in mind and with the best humane practices of the day. It certainly speaks volumes of this particular gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate him, and join with the minister in doing so, on receiving the Award of Recognition in Newfoundland and Labrador and also on the award that was granted to him by the Fur Institute of Canada, the Bernard Cahill Memorial Award. It certainly speaks volumes to the fact that Mark Small's work has not been in vain in Newfoundland and Labrador and has been recognized across Canada and around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I wish him every success and great strength in carrying forward the messages of the sealing industry and the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the minister announced recently a study on grey seals and whether they eat cod or not. I bet you Mr. Mark Small could probably tell you today, Minister, that grey seals eat cod. I am sure he has been around the industry long enough that his advice and his contribution on that particular research will be very helpful to the department and, hopefully, in helping us in being able to curb the populations of seals that we have out there in Newfoundland and Labrador, help us to continue to promote it as a humane industry in this Province, and to build viable markets for the tremendous product that we can derive from the sealing industry.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

I, too, join in congratulating Captain Mark Small and his efforts in promoting the sealing industry, both as a harvester and as an advocate. It is certainly because of people like Captain Small, and particularly because of him, that we have the industry that we still have today. It is an industry that has struggled because of the negative media campaigns. It has had poor markets. The misinformation that has been put out there about the industry and put out for decades by high-profile people has not helped, but somebody like Mark Small has continued advocating and working in the industry and fighting for the industry and the right for harvesters to be in that industry.

So it is wonderful that his efforts have been formally recognized, Mr. Speaker. It is remarkable that the industry is still doing so well, and it will continue to do so as long as people like Mark Small and other harvesters who are out there working in this industry continue to do their work, and with the help and the support of government and all of us here in this House of Assembly.

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, last year, our office carried out a survey of municipalities around the Province on a number of issues. One of those issues was the Provincial Waste Management Strategy. A majority of the respondents stated that they were not satisfied with government's plan and that they were concerned with the cost that was associated with it. A year later, many of these concerns are still being expressed.

I ask the minister: What process does the government have in place to address the serious concerns that are being raised by municipalities, especially on issues around increased cost?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her question.

We have in place fifteen regional committees and subcommittees that are working together right now. We have spent up to this date $62 million in implementing that strategy. As the previous Administration had brought in that strategy with no funding or no plans to implement that, we have also budgeted $26 million. With regard to the cost, we are working through that. The committees are looking at options with regard to the cost. So, in fact, all across the Province – I am actually meeting tomorrow morning with the Eastern Waste Management Committee.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly thank the minister for her response.

Mr. Speaker, many of the municipalities do support the intentions of the waste management program. However, there are concerns with regard to the level of taxation that will have to be imposed in order to be able to carry it out. One of those groups that have recently been expressing concerns is the Exploits Joint Council.

I ask the minister: If government has considered providing any assistance to these municipalities who do not have the ability to pay in implementing the program, or will they automatically have to download the expenses on to the residents of those communities?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the concerns people are raising about what it is going to cost to discard our waste. Right now, we looked at, in some cases it is less than $200 a year. In some cases it is the price of a cup of coffee. I think it is a new way of distributing our waste and getting rid of our waste. It is going to take an education for people to understand what we are trying to do here as a Province. We are far behind the times when it comes to getting rid of our waste. It is not acceptable any more. We need to protect our environment. We cannot be taking our waste and throwing it out into the barrens in rural Newfoundland. Just look at Robin Hood Bay, what has happened down there. We have put a tremendous amount of money in Robin Hood Bay and it is a first-class facility. Out in Norris Arm, they also have a facility.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are indeed concerned about the cost. We are going to explore all options and make it as sustainable as we can for our communities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, last year the federal government announced that it would be requiring municipalities across Canada to treat their waste water. These regulations have since been publicized and it has caused a great deal of concern for municipalities in the Province, as the implementation of the proposed regulations will hit smaller rural and urban communities especially hard, both financially and in their capacity to deliver on the necessary infrastructure.

I ask the Minister of the Environment: How is it that government is preparing to assist these municipalities sector with the implementation of the new water waste regulations being put forward by the federal government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her question. It is a very good question and it has very valid points. It is the exact reason, Mr. Speaker, why I did not, and why this Province did not sign on to the strategy back in Whitehorse in 2009, Mr. Speaker, because of the cost that it would incur to the municipalities in this Province. We have over 700 outfalls in the Province, Mr. Speaker, and we expect that this will cost the Province anywhere upwards of $2.9 billion over thirty years. So at that CCME meeting I put forward to the Minister of Environment federally, that unless there was something in there to assist provinces with the cost, we were not going to sign, we did not sign. Now we see other provinces who did sign and we see all the uproar that is being caused there.

Mr. Speaker, it is one that we are working on but we did not sign it for those very reasons, and it is a valid question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my understanding that just because the Province has not signed on as a government it does not mean that our residents are going to be exempt from this policy. What I am understanding from the Federation of Municipalities, Mr. Speaker, is that they will have to comply with these federal regulations, and in doing so, Mr. Speaker, it will cost approximately $67 million per year just to dedicate to the capital project. This is money that they do not have in funding arrangements and they feel that there is an inability to be able to raise that money as taxes in many of their municipalities.

So I ask the minister: Whether we sign on as a Province or whether we do not, how do we relieve the financial stress and pressures that are going to be encountered by these municipalities who are forced to comply with federal regulations?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, very valid questions. I just got back from Fredericton, New Brunswick, where we met with the Atlantic ministers, and this is one of the items that were on the agenda. We agreed, as Atlantic ministers, to write the federal minister in terms of the cost and to ask for assistance to provide municipalities throughout Canada with assistance for this cost, Mr. Speaker.

There was also an opportunity to comment to the federal minister by May 19 of this year, and I know the Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador wrote. I also provided a nine page letter to the federal minister, which I would be more than happy to share with the member opposite, outlining all of our concerns, but again, on numerous occasions I have raised this with the federal minister how cost is very important and we are looking for assistance from the federal government.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I would appreciate the minister giving me a copy of that presentation.

Mr. Speaker, municipalities are already overburdened with a great many services, waste management being one and waste water treatment programs that will cripple them as well. The government committed to a new fiscal arrangement with municipalities now for a number of years but so far they fail to deliver on this arrangement.

I ask the minister: Given the enhanced fiscal ability of the government, when can municipalities expect to have a finalized fiscal sharing arrangement to address some of these concerns?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, we are working closely with the Federation of Municipalities for new fiscal framework for the municipalities. We have contributed to all of the municipalities millions of dollars; we work with municipalities in projects that they put forward. There is a ninety-ten that we brought in – the ratios.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to trying to complete a piece of work that is involved with the fiscal framework that I will be putting forward to our government to look at to help municipalities with their downloading, as you put it, Opposition Leader.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The Premier commissioned Mr. Bill Marshall to complete a review of the Inland Fish and Wildlife Program in 2005. A draft copy of the report was submitted to the Premier in 2006 with a final report said to be imminent. However, various ministers have stated in this House over the past two years that the report has not been completed yet.

I ask the Premier: We have been waiting four years now for this report to be released; where is it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, we do not have Mr. Marshall's final report as of yet, but having said that, the Inland Fish Program is working exceedingly well. It is not broke, so there is no need to fix it at this point in time. The results from inland fish have been very good and we are quite pleased with the efforts that they are making.

When Mr. Marshall was solicited to do this report, Mr. Speaker, there were some human resource problems with that program, but they have since been worked out and the program is functioning very well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

We have spoken with employees of the Inland Fish and Wildlife Program who were promised this report some four years ago. We received portions of a 100 page preliminary report that Mr. Marshall submitted under the Access to Information request that we filed some four years ago. Of course, most of that was blacked out as well, which is standard government policy, it seems.

I ask the minister: When do you expect to receive the report and finally be in a position to release it to the public? It is just not good enough to say we asked him and he has not complied. Is he doing the job or not doing the job and when do you expect to hear from him?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the policy that the hon. member referred to is the ATIPP policy and one that this government abides by. So the hon. member should understand that.

Mr. Speaker, when we get Justice Marshall's report and recommendations, and we will look forward to receiving them, if they can be implemented and can improve the system, we will certainly consider that. As for now, Mr. Speaker, the system is working very well, and when we get Judge Marshall's report, we will consider it then.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, it is important for the people of the Province that they see Mr. Marshall's final report. In his preliminary findings he stated, and I quote, that he had a "troubling image of an area of the public service with the potential of imploding on itself."

I ask the minister: With such strong statements being made, why are you still sitting back, doing nothing, and continue to do nothing after four years? Is this just another case, Mr. Speaker, that you did not like the findings and recommendations that were made in the preliminary report and you have therefore buried it within government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, Justice Marshall did make some preliminary recommendations, which this government considered, and in fact, the system did not implode. As a matter of fact, quite the reverse happened. If it had imploded, Mr. Speaker, then we would have, I think, different results. The results we are getting today shows that the system is working very well, and there is no sign anywhere, in my estimation, of any implosion in that service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Well maybe the minister should read the report, because I quoted exactly from the piece that we did manage to siphon out of the government under the freedom of access to information.

Mr. Speaker, you can get a university degree in four years. Mr. Marshall was also contracted four years ago to conduct a review of the Crown Prosecutor's office, as a result of a recommendation of the Lamer Inquiry - four years ago.

I ask the minister: Has this report on the Crown Prosecutor's Office been completed and submitted to the government, and if not, why do you feel it is acceptable to have two very important reports, of such importance to this Province in fact, being delayed for four years by the same person?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, in the interim, this government has also commissioned another report on prosecutions, which made some sweeping recommendations and changes to the prosecutorial service, which has served this Province very well.

Again, we have not received Justice Marshall's report. If he can add anything in his recommendations to what we have, we will certainly consider it when we get it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, the Stephenville Theatre Festival begins on June 30. This is one of the largest and most anticipated events of the year for this community and those in the surrounding area. The festival relies on their signs to attract tourists. Therefore, they purchased and installed new signs to promote this event. However, government recently removed their brand new signs without notice.

I ask the minister: Why were these signs removed and what is the rationale behind taking down signs during tourist season when we know that the TODS program will not be fully implemented for years down the road?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the TODS system, one of the most recognized and most effective signage programs in the world, I say that the hon. member must know something that I do not know in that it is going to take years and years to implement it. We are in the process of implementing that and certainly we have done a lot of work to the TODS system.

In regard to your question to the Stephenville festival, I gave an interview on Radio Noon today. We are there to work with those particular groups around the Province and certainly we see the need in regard to promoting their festivals as a tourist destination. It is important to the region. In turn, I have to say that the proper permitting was not in place in regard to those signs and that is the reason why they were taken down last fall.

As well, I have an official in the area at this very moment meeting with the festival committee, to work with them, get the proper permits in place and the applications in place. Certainly, we will work with them in regard to any cost (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, in two recent newspaper articles relating to the TODS program there was a notable discrepancy coming from the Department of Government Services. On the one hand the department is saying they are not at this point of removing signs, yet on the other hand, the minister has explained that sign removal has been taking place in preparation for the implementation of the TODS program.

I ask the minister: Can you explain to us today why your department is claiming that signs have not been taken down when clearly they are?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, back about June last year, in 2009, we implemented a process, we gave proper notice in regard to removal of illegal signs, or signs that just do not have any permits in place. We started that process in probably about August or September of last year. The signs in question that the hon. member mentioned in his past question were removed last fall. Any signage that has been removed any time after that date is being in an illegal category and we will continue that process.

We are not absolutely 100 per cent in everything we do. We have missed certain signs that are not meeting the regulations surrounding the TODS system, the current regulations that are in place for that signage policy, but we are continuing the process in regard encouraging each and every one of those organizations to enter into the TODS system.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: With all due respect to the minister, Mr. Speaker, legal signs have been removed in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, after a recent meeting with the municipalities in the Bay St. George area, the Minister of Government Services stated that he will take into consideration the concerns that have been brought forward to him regarding the new TODS program.

I ask the minister: If you are willing to address these concerns, why are you still removing signs before those issues can be rectified?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member listens very well, because I have already indicated that the only signs that are being removed with regard to our provincial highways and our Trans-Canada Highway are signs that have not been permitted in the correct manner or are illegal. Those are the ones that have been removed.

Also, as well, if we have removed any signs that are in the legal category and properly permitted, we have worked with the organizations in question - as a matter of fact, a couple in regard to the West Coast - and we have redeveloped those signs to the proper way that they had them developed and they have been placed. We will work with each and every one. If we have removed any signs that are legal and have been properly permitted, we will work with those particular people in regard to redeveloping…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, in one minute the minister is saying we have not removed any legal signs but now he is saying if we have, we will probably deal with those people.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the minister many times that they are not removing legal signs. However, there is obvious confusion in the industry as to what is expected of them when putting up their business signs and signs are still coming down. As I stated earlier, the minister met with the people on the West Coast and he stated that he would consider the concerns in that area during the development of the new policy and regulations for the TODS program.

I ask the minister: When will the new policies and regulations be in place that will give clear direction to the business operators?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, we are currently in - the hon. member is getting confused, because there is currently a signage policy in this Province. In order to put up a sign you have to apply for a permit and put up a sign. If you are given permission and it is appropriate, you are allowed to put up the sign in the place that is designated. However, Mr. Speaker, this has nothing to do with the TODS system whatsoever.

The TODS system is a new program that we are developing. We are currently in the early stages of development. We are consulting with municipalities throughout the Province, Mr. Speaker. We are consulting with Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador and, Mr. Speaker, somewhere down within the next twenty-four months, Mr Speaker, we will have a provincial signage policy called TODS.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Eastern School Board put forward their preference for the new west end high school last night which has been submitted to the Minister of Education for approval. Parents appear to be happy with the choice of a vacant piece of land next to the School for the Deaf.

I ask the minister: Are you prepared to accept that recommendation from the school board?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the member opposite for her question. To get right to the point, I have not received that request from the school board yet. I have only heard the reports through the media. The minister is well aware of the process, that the board will send in any number of sites for consideration by me, as the Minister of Education, and I will do the same with that recommendation, as I do with all others, will give it due consideration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can the minister confirm for me, what time frame is government working with for construction of this facility and when the school would be expected to open?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: I thank the member for her question, Mr. Speaker.

The first step in the process, as has been alluded to, is the site selection. When that recommendation is brought forward we will expedite the process and move it forward. From that, the full process of the school building kicks in, everything from site preparation to the full tender for building of the facility.

I cannot nail down a timeline for that, Mr. Speaker, except to say we have allocated, I think, about $500,000 in this particular budget year alone to get the process started. Up to this point in time and up until now, we have not received a recommendation from the school board. So the project has been very much sitting in their hands. Until I do receive it, I really am not in a position to nail down a timeline.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Back in 2007, the Teacher Allocation Commission released its report entitled Education and our Future: A Roadmap to Innovation and Excellence. Recommendation 20 of this report recommended that guidance counsellors be allocated at a ratio of 1 to 333 students for kindergarten to Grade 12.

I ask the minister: If he can provide for me any reasons today why the department has not acted upon and accepted that recommendation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the member for the question. She has a great line of questioning today. That is a very important topic.

I guess the answer is that we do not accept all recommendations that come forward. We work with a very limited resource of teachers. It is often hard to determine what recommendations you support and you do not support, but I think there are a couple of key pieces to remember about the guidance allocation. First of all, we did reduce it from the initial allocation about six or seven years ago. Secondly, I think it is also important to remember that it is not about the allocation of guidance counsellors as much as the role and support they perform in the school system. We did allocate, over the last two years, ten additional career counsellor positions that are throughout the Province to help schools with the career counselling piece of the school guidance counsellor's role.

As well, we have engaged in more in-depth partnerships with Child, Youth and Family Services and the Department of Health to provide supports, such as drug and alcohol addictions counselling. All of those things, Mr. Speaker, that would have been made a part - or expectation that guidance counsellors would have performed. We provide those supports in other ways.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since the government took office in 2003, the number of guidance counsellors in the system has remained stagnant, between 160 and 170 in any given year. The Teacher Allocation Commission report tells us that this is not enough and the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association has agreed to that. Through discussions with the Federation of School Councils, they have told us that the Department of Education advised them last year that seventy-one new guidance counsellors would be needed to fulfill the recommendations in the report.

I ask the minister: Is there anything being done to actively recruit and increase the number of guidance counsellors in the Province to fulfill these particular recommendations?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, to the first part of the question; the way the question was stated, it is actually pretty good news for the Province because the member has said clearly that the positions have remained fairly constant. The reality in Newfoundland and Labrador is student enrolment has not; it has declined significantly. It is our government that has maintained the positions in the system in spite of a formula prior to our coming into office that would have been based totally on numbers.

The second piece to the member's question, Mr. Speaker, I think is important is, even if we were to increase the number of guidance counsellor positions in the Province, the reality is – and I do not know if the school council federation would know this, but the NLTA knows this and school boards know this – is that we do not have enough qualified individuals to fill the positions. To that end, we have provided support and enticements to get people to study to be guidance counsellors, including educational leave packages offering semesters off to attend university, and we have provided further support to the Faculty of Education at Memorial University.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is currently a pilot project using an inclusion model being tested in some schools across the Province. Special education teachers are concerned that by moving to this method of teaching there will be fewer resources for individualized instruction in the classroom.

I ask the minister: Can you provide the details or clarification as to whether this inclusion model will result in fewer resources for individualized instruction?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, what I can say to the member opposite is that if there is a second area, besides teacher allocations - or a third area, I should say, outside of teacher allocations and maintenance and capital in this Province that we have invested in education, it is the support of students who have special needs through the ISSP/Pathways process. Millions upon millions of dollars have been provided, and my short answer to the member opposite is, absolutely not. There will not be reduced resources.

In actual fact, the feedback that we get from teachers participating in the pilot project is contrary to what the member has just said. It is very positive. We are being told that the students, who once would have been supported through segregation on an individual basis, are now being included in with their classmates and their peers, and exposed to better learning opportunities and learning environments because they are amongst a class of peers with more than just one teacher.

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, in the 2009 provincial Budget, the government announced two new initiatives to address the problems of homelessness and affordable housing in our Province. The $1.2 million Supportive Living Community Partnership Program, and the $1 million Provincial Homelessness Fund to offset the costs of various services. In the 2010 Budget, the Supportive Living Program was doubled to $2.4 million, while there was no increase in the Provincial Homelessness Fund.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Given the growing need for an expanded Provincial Homelessness Fund and the benefits it provides to our communities, will the government increase the 2011 Budget for this program?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, homelessness is a very complex issue and it is one that if it could have been solved, I am sure other jurisdictions around the country, around the globe, would have solved it and it would not be something that we are looking at here today. It is not an issue that can be solved just by bricks and mortar. It is not an issue that can be solved just by putting money into budgets and so on. I know that the member opposite understands that, we have had the conversation around that.

We are certainly committed to trying to find ways to move forward in solving and reducing the incidence of homelessness in this Province. We have committed, in many ways, and in many different directions, money, whether it is through the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation or through initiatives in my department, in HRLE. In fact, the member opposite has just outlined several of those initiatives. It is a work in progress, Mr. Speaker, and as I said at the outset of the answer, it is not something that is going to be solved very quickly.

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.

In response to the persistent issue of affordable housing in rural and urban areas throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and Homelessness Network believe that provincial action to end homelessness and ensure housing stability must be central pillars in the Poverty Reduction Strategy. This action must include clear targets and timetables to deliver on the various commitments made by the government.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: If the government will work with the network and other stakeholders to set targets and commit to them?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we are particularly proud of as we work through our Poverty Reduction Strategy is the fact that we do work very closely with all of our stakeholders, with all of the people who are involved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr Speaker, we will certainly commit to continuing that partnership and that consultation process. In fact, the next phase of our Poverty Reduction Strategy is in fact another consultation process and we absolutely commit to meeting with all of these people, to hearing their points of view and to trying to solve the issues together.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, what I asked was: Will she work with them to set targets and commit to them? It is not just consultation, it is setting the targets.

In response to comments made by the Minister Responsible for NLHC on Monday, that there are very few provinces today that have actual rental control legislation in place, I suggest that he could check with other provincial ministries to learn that Ontario, British Columbia, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and Quebec all have some capacity of legislative rent control.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Will government commit to reforming our Province's Residential Tenancies Act in order to bring us up to the current legislative standards in several other provinces?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, to clarify what I said in my last answer a couple of days ago, is that there are very few jurisdictions across Canada that actually has legislation in place with regard to rent control.

As a matter of fact, in my dialogue with the other jurisdictions that have, which she mentioned - that a number of them are actually in the process of repealing that piece of legislation. It is a very complex issue in regard to rental control because you are dealing with the private sector, Mr. Speaker, and they have to have certain profits in place. If not, they are not going to invest.

We have to be very, very careful in regard to anywhere that we would go with rent control because we might very well depress the market and have less units available to the public as we have now. So we have to be very, very careful in that regard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

By leave, I would like to go back to Notices of Motion, I have a notice of motion that I would like to do.

MR. SPEAKER: Is leave granted for the hon. the Government House Leader to return to Notices of Motion?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Leave.

Notices of Motion

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

MS BURKE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that, under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 22, 2010.

Further, I give notice, under Standing Order 11, I shall move that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 22, 2010.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Government Services, that Bill 27, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 27, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 27)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 27 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 27)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Government Services, that Bill 28, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 3 be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 28, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 3, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 3. (Bill 28)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 28 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 3", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 28)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Government Services, that Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act. (Bill 29)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 29 has now been read a third time, and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 29)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 30, An Act Respecting The Health and Protection Of Animals, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 30, An Act Respecting The Health And Protection Of Animals, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Health And Protection Of Animals. (Bill 30)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 30 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Health And Protection Of Animals", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 30).

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I will call from the Order Paper, Order 8, second reading of Bill 31, An Act Respecting Human Rights.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 31, An Act Respecting Human Rights, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that Bill 31, An Act Respecting Human Rights, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Human Rights". (Bill 31)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise to introduce Bill 31 for second reading, An Act Respecting Human Rights, to be known as the Human Rights Act, 2010. Bill 31 will replace and repeal the current Human Rights Code.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador passed its first Human Rights Code in 1969, and which act came into force on September 1, 1971. The Human Rights Code, Mr. Speaker, prohibits discrimination in the areas of employment, accommodation, services and publications. The enumerated grounds of discrimination of the Human Rights Code include race, religion, creed, political opinion, national or social origin, sex, sexual orientation, martial status, family status, age and disability.

One of the key features, Mr. Speaker, of the Human Rights Code is the creation of a simplified system that allows for the mediation, adjudication and resolution of complaints through an administrative procedure without the need to go to court. This administrative process is run by the Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Commission.

The Human Rights Commission reports administratively to the Minister of Justice and its mandate is the promotion and understanding, acceptance of and compliance with the Human Rights Code. The legislation requires that the commission have a complement of three or more members. However, the government usually appoints six commissioners, one of whom serves as chairperson and another who serves as vice-chairperson. The commission also appoints or consists of an executive director, legal counsel, investigative staff, and administrative staff.

Now, Mr. Speaker, while the Human Rights Code has been amended several times since its adoption, basically to improve administrative procedures and enhance human rights procedures that are offered to individuals in the Province, there have only been two comprehensive reviews of the code since 1971.

In 1988, a Human Rights Code Review Committee recommended procedural and substantive amendments to the Human Rights Code. These procedural amendments, Mr. Speaker, were necessary to comply with the new Charter of Rights and Freedoms which came in 1982 and also to comply with certain federal court decisions which related procedural provisions in the Canadian Human Rights Code, which was similar to this Province's legislation at the time. As a result, the Human Rights Code was consolidated and a new procedure for the adjudication of complaints, particularly the board of inquiry system, was introduced at that time.

That was a review, Mr. Speaker, in 1988, basically in response to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in certain federal court decisions that were improving and revising the Canadian Human Rights Code. It was from that review that the board of inquiry system was introduced.

In December 1996, the Human Rights Commission conducted public consultations to determine whether more amendments to the Human Rights Code were necessary. The commission presented a report to government on December 10, 1997 in which a number of amendments to the Human Rights Code were recommended.

A number of these amendments, Mr. Speaker, were adopted by government since 1997. They include the elimination of the age restriction of sixty-five in employment. It added sexual orientation as prohibited grounds of discrimination. It also added family status and age as prohibited grounds of discrimination, and it extended the limitation period for filing a complaint from six months to twelve months. So we have two major revisions, 1988 and 1996, to the code since it was brought in, in 1969.

On December 10, 2008, on the occasion of the sixtieth anniversary of the International Human Rights Day, my colleague, the current Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, who was then Minister of Justice and Attorney General, launched a review of the Human Rights Code by the Department of Justice and announced that public consultations would take place with a view to modernizing the Human Rights Code.

Mr. Speaker, the Human Rights Code is one of the most important pieces of legislation we have in this Province. Given that it is forty years old, it is felt that the time is right to ensure that this legislation adequately reflects the society we live in and the ideas that we hold.

Mr. Speaker, society is constantly evolving and changing and legislation has to be updated periodically to reflect those changes. That is especially true in human rights because in a lot of cases, Mr. Speaker, attitudes towards human rights have changed and are changing over the years towards aging, for example. We have a different approach to same-sex marriages and relationships. As a result of all of that, periodically, you have to review legislation to make sure we keep it up with the times.

Mr. Speaker, as part of the consultation process the Department of Justice prepared a discussion document and an on-line questionnaire which was posted on its Web site from December 10 to May 2008 to May 2009 and it conducted province-wide public consultation sessions. There were four areas, Mr. Speaker, where the Department of Justice consulted with a view to obtaining input to change the code. They were, number one, they wanted the expansion of human rights protection for individuals, in other words increase the prohibited grounds of discrimination. Number two, the accessibility of the current human rights system, procedural issues in other words. Three, we wanted to look at the mandate, the role, the responsibilities and the structure of the Human Rights Commission. Fourthly, Mr. Speaker, we wanted to look at the Human Rights Commission's autonomy and independence and view its reporting structure to see if it needed any changes.

There were ten public consultation sessions held, Mr. Speaker, they conducted between January 27 and March 31, 2009. One in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Labrador City, Stephenville, Corner Brook, Grand Falls-Windsor, Gander, Marystown, Clarenville and St. John's. The Department of Justice received over forty written submissions from individuals, organizations and stakeholders involved in the promotion and protection of human rights in this Province during the consultation process.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of the legislative review by the Department of Justice and invaluable input that was received from both the public consultation process, I want to highlight the significant amendments that are proposed in Bill 31.

Now, in addition to the input from the consultation session, the Department of Justice did a widespread jurisdictional scan across this Province, and indeed the Commonwealth, to get the input of best practices of the systems in other areas, and we have tailored all of that to fit, what we think to fit, our situation here in this Province.

The first change, then, Mr. Speaker, we have changed the name of the legislation from a code to an act. The use of the word code creates somewhat of a misunderstanding, and it leads some members of the public to believe that it has a lesser connotation; it has a connotation of being somewhat lesser than an act, lesser than a law, and has a somewhat lesser legal effect than our other legislation. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the Human Rights Code is paramount to all other legislation in the Province. So this is a public education change in the sense that it confirms that the human rights protection is now law.

As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, in my comments to the media today, there was a perception among the public, in the consultation sessions, there was a finding, that people were unaware, did not have a great deal of information or awareness or knowledge of the Human Rights Commission, what its role was, what its function was, and what services it gave. So this is part of the education piece that was needed as a result of that input.

We also included a preamble. Now, Mr. Speaker, there was a preamble in the act initially, but it was taken out when the statutes were consolidated in 1990. The stakeholders sent a very strong message to us that the restatement of the preamble was a desirable change. The insertion of the preamble, Mr. Speaker, is an important gesture to the public and to the human rights stakeholders, and it recognizes the legislation's quasi-constitutional status. Now, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador will no longer be the only jurisdiction without a preamble in its legislation. I am going to read the preamble, Mr. Speaker, because it sets the whole tone and tenor of the human rights legislation:

WHEREAS recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world and is in accord with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as proclaimed by the United Nations;

AND WHEREAS it is recognized in the province that every individual is free and equal in dignity and rights without regard to his or her race, colour, nationality, ethnic origin, social origin, religious creed, religion, age, disability, disfigurement, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, source of income and political opinion;

AND WHEREAS it is public policy in the province to recognize the dignity and worth of every person to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination that is contrary to law, and having as its aim the creation of a climate of understanding and mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each person so that each person feels a part of the community and able to contribute fully to the development and well-being of the community and the province;

AND WHEREAS it is recognized that every person, having duties to others and to the community to which he or she belongs, is responsible to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in this Act.

Mr. Speaker, that preamble now sets the focus and the tone for the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, under section 9 of the new act, we expand the prohibitive grounds of discrimination to include source of income and disfigurement. We also have a new definition of disability. The modernized definition of disability was drafted in consultation with the Disability Policy Office. The term disfigurement was removed from the definition of disability and is more aptly included now as a prohibitive ground of discrimination in its own right.

We removed inappropriate and outdated terminology from the definition, and no longer does a claimant have to indicate the cause of the disability. We removed such termination, Mr. Speaker, as retardation, malformation and infirmity – words that the Disability Policy Office and we felt were distasteful. We cleaned up the language and we established a separate prohibitive ground of discrimination to include source of income and disfigurement.

Source of income is no longer limited to tenancy situations. In the old act, in landlord tenant situations, you could not discriminate, Mr. Speaker, with a tenant on the basis of that person's source of income, but that was the only place that prohibitive ground applied. Now that prohibitive grounds, source of income, is expanded to apply in other areas: areas of employment, areas of services and publications. The rights offered to citizens of Newfoundland under this particular prohibitive ground lags behind the other provinces – or did lag behind the other provinces, Mr. Speaker. Now it is up to date and in line with the other provinces in our country.

As I mentioned, we expanded the prohibitive ground of discrimination to include disfigurement. That was previously included in the definition of disability, and no longer falls under that definition. This is a progressive move by government because it ensures that, while such an individual may not have a disability – may have some kind of disfigurement but need not necessarily have a disability - there is certainly a need to recognize and protect those rights of these people and remove the possibility of discrimination, whether it is intentional or unintentional.

We have also expanded the prohibitive grounds of discrimination to include discrimination based on an association with a person or persons identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination. In other words, if there is a group of people who cannot be discriminated against under a prohibitive ground and you happen to associate with that group then you cannot be discriminated against either. It is a proactive step and sends a strong message re anti-discrimination.

Discrimination is now prohibited against an individual who associates with a person or persons, for example, who might identify with a certain religion. The individual might not necessarily practice or follow that religion, but if he associates with that group then he cannot be discriminated against either.

Mr. Speaker, we have adopted a merit-based appointment process for commissioners and adjudicators which generally include experience, knowledge or training in human rights issues. With regard to commissioners, we appoint commissioners who have an interest or a keen interest or some experience in human rights issues, and with respect to adjudicators we are looking for people who have some training and expertise in human rights issues. That would enhance the transparency of appointments and increase the perception of independence. The current practice of this government, Mr. Speaker, is to appoint individuals from various communities within the Province who have an appreciation for, and an interest in, human rights issues.

We have entered a prohibition on discrimination in the making of a contract or agreement of purchase and sale offered or held out to the public generally or to a section of the public. An example of this would be an agreement of purchase and sale that is offered or held out to the public generally. Only four jurisdictions explicitly deal with discrimination in the making of contracts, but this offers protection to those who were historically discriminated against because of their visible ethnicity. It is not really a big problem here in this Province but certainly it is a problem in some others.

We also have protection against discrimination, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of a criminal conviction unrelated to employment. This is a significant provision, a significant change to the old code. Mr. Speaker, this protection will be limited to discrimination in relation to employment only. By adding this protection, the Province will recognize a historically stigmatized segment of society and acknowledge that people with criminal convictions have already been penalized based on a past action and should not be further sanctioned through the exclusion from human rights protection. Mr. Speaker, this is a provision, I am sure, which will get considerable debate and considerable discussion, and there is a fair amount of employer discretion. Employers will have the discretion to hire people in their business with criminal convictions, as long as the criminal conviction is not related to the employment. For example, Mr. Speaker, if you are running a daycare business, then you probably will not want to hire someone who has been convicted of crimes against children. That will evolve with case law over time, so that this provision will be fleshed out. There is a significant amount of case law across the country dealing with that particular provision, and there is a test, as a matter of fact, that is used by the courts in connection with complaints under this particular provision.

This act also, Mr. Speaker, will provide the executive director with the power to dismiss a complaint which he or she considers frivolous, vexatious or without merit, and that amendment expands the powers of the executive director for dismissal of a complaint. A situation where she feels, or he feels, that the complaint does not fall under the jurisdiction of the commission, or is frivolous or vexatious, or otherwise dealt with, it could be possibly dealt with in another forum, through a labour disagreement or a court.

Now, Mr. Speaker, every claim that is brought to the commission must be investigated. That creates a backlog and considerable administrative problems for the commission. The decision of the executive director now can dismiss some of these claims after preliminary investigations, and that decision of the executive director is subject to a judicial review by the Trial Division of the Supreme Court. So this will help expedite the files, Mr. Speaker, and streamline the operation.

The new act also permits the executive director to defer further action on a complaint if it can be dealt with more appropriate by an alternative method of resolution under any other act, or if the grievance or other review procedures have not been exhausted. For example, if it has been already the subject of a labour grievance, if it has already been the subject of a disciplinary procedure, if it is already in a court case, or some other forum, Mr. Speaker, then the executive director can defer the action until that procedure has been exhausted. Otherwise, employers often have to defend the same type of complaint in multiple administrative forums, and multiplicity of actions result so that the same issue has been heard in a number of forums at the same time. That calls for duplicate litigation, undue cost, and inconsistent findings of fact, and it also includes the potential for venue shopping – all of which should be avoided. So should the other proceeding appropriately be dealing with the substance of that complaint, then the executive director can defer the complaint until that procedure is exhausted.

This act will enable government to make regulations, Mr. Speaker, to codified timelines for filing and other actions by complainants and respondents. That will be instructive to the public; it will be educational to the public. It will keep the complaints process moving expeditiously and will promote the objectives of the whole administrative process. These objectives of the human rights process, Mr. Speaker, are simplicity, efficiency, and effectiveness. So by filing timelines in dealing with the files and procedures that would keep these files moving expeditiously.

This act also codifies the commission's ability to rely upon alternate dispute resolution processes to facilitate timely settlement and reduce caseloads. Now, this is already a current practice, Mr. Speaker, of the Human Rights Commission, so it is really codifying what is already in practice, we are putting that explicitly in the act. This will also be instructive to the public and promote the objectives of the administrative process again.

Mr. Speaker, we have expanded the definition of personal services. The current code uses the term domestic services and is limited to those living in the home. The new definition of personal services will be expanded to include the work of a domestic, custodial, companionship, personal care, child care, or educational nature. This amendment removes the requirement that the personal service worker live in the residence.

Mr. Speaker, a little expansion on that. As of the current act, you can hire a person you wish to work in your own home even though it conflicts with the prohibitive grounds in the act as long as that person lives in the home. For example, if it is a home care worker or a child care worker or some kind of a domestic worker in the house who stays in the house, lives in the house, then the employer had the right to choose that person regardless of the Human Rights Code. The definition of personal service has now been extended and it removes the requirement that the personal service worker live in the residence.

What it basically means, Mr. Speaker, it is a right to choice within a private residence to choose a worker you wish. So, if you are of a particular religious persuasion and you want a person of that particular religious persuasion to work with your children, then you have the right to do that within a private residence. You cannot advertise as such, but you have the right to do that within a private residence.

We also have clarification in the new act that discrimination based on pregnancy or pregnancy related conditions is now prohibited. For clarity purposes, the prohibited ground of sex has been defined to ensure that the public is aware that it includes pregnancy or pregnancy related conditions. This means that women who are now pregnant or may become pregnant will be afforded the protections under this act. This has already been read into the act by the court, Mr. Speaker, but now we have codified it explicitly.

We have now redefined martial status. That is undefined in the current legislation, but the new legislation, Mr. Speaker, will be consistent with the new definition of spouse in our other provincial legislations to include same-sex and common-law relationships.

We have also codified that a complainant may withdraw a complaint at any stage of the process prior to the beginning of a hearing. The current legislation is silent on that with respect to a complainant withdrawing his or her complaint, but there is however a practice which allows a complainant to tacitly withdraw a complaint once it has been processed through to the commission, but now they can withdraw the complaint at any stage.

Mr. Speaker, overall, the public consultations contributed significantly to our review of the Human Rights Code. With that said, it is not surprising that a number of the submissions that were raised, raised issues that could not be addressed in the legislation, or they were capable of being addressed pursuant to the current wording of the legislation. Some of the submissions were of an administrative nature, a policy nature, and they are capable of being addressed by the Human Rights Commission itself, did not need to be put in legislation.

Some practical examples of these kinds of suggestions, submissions, would be, for example, to make the Human Rights Code available to the public in alternate languages and formats, French, Inuktitut, Innu-aimun, Mi'kmaq and auditory versions. That is within the purview of the commission itself. We did not need that in legislation. Making available a manual of guidelines to the public; redesigning the Human Rights Commission Web site to be a more appropriate educational tool; completion of an annotated Human Rights Code to accommodate the reading levels of a greater segment of the population. These could be recommendations and submissions that could be done by the commission and no need to be codified in the legislation.

Another recommendation submitted by some stakeholder groups - a lot of them, as a matter of fact - was that the government ensures that the Human Rights Commission has the resources to carry out a comprehensive human rights education and advocacy program.

Mr. Speaker, in Budget 2009-2010 over $500,000 was provided to the Human Rights Commission. A portion of this funding was used to engage two additional lawyers and an additional Human Rights Specialist, which has greatly helped address the concerns of the backlogs that have been building up at the commission.

As well, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, we found out in the consultations that there was an overall lack of understanding or information been available to the work of the Human Rights Commission. So, as a result of that, we recognized the importance of the public education function of the Human Rights Commission. We provided an additional $100,000 investment over the last fiscal year for the education component of the commission's mandate. One which we now know is vital to the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, the budget of the commission now stands at over $1 million, a little over $1.2 million, thanks to the investment of this government.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is also not surprising that not all of the recommendations brought forward will be reflected in the new Human Rights Act, 2010. I mentioned earlier that some of the recommendations could be addressed by the Human Rights Commission itself. Others, for example, have already been addressed in the context of the interpretation of the legislation by the tribunals and the courts. For example, political opinion was a suggestion that should be in there, systemic discrimination, sexual harassment. These submissions are already covered within other provisions in the act as result of the interpretation of the legislation by the courts and by the tribunals.

Then, Mr. Speaker, there are other submissions that were not accepted by this government for policy reasons. There are three of these, primarily. One, amending the reporting structure of the Human Rights Commission, such that the commission reports to the House of Assembly. Now with respect to the reporting structure, during the consultation process the Department of Justice specifically asked members of the general public and the stakeholders to comment upon the reporting structure of the Department of Justice, as the current department responsible for provincial human rights system and the Human Rights Commission.

Now, no member of the general public expressed any concerns about the current reporting structure but some stakeholders in their written submissions did suggest that the Human Rights Commission should report to the House of Assembly, like the Citizens' Representative and the Child and Youth Advocate. In support of this submission, those people argued that the current structure is untenable for a number of reasons: lack of adequate resources over the past four years; the Human Rights Commission and the board of inquires should file a joint annual report with the Minister of Justice; the inability of the commission to fulfill its mandate; and the lack of perceived independence, because the Department of Justice prepares the budget for the Human Rights Commission and represents government when named as a respondent in human rights complains.

So while some stakeholders felt that this current reporting structure may bring the commission's independence into question, the reporting structure, Mr. Speaker, is not unique to this government. There has never been a situation where the independence of the commission has been challenged. In fact, many federal and provincial agencies, boards and commissions, report to a government department and yet are seen to be independent and arm's-length from government.

If I could just mention a few, Mr. Speaker, the federal Immigration and Refugee Board, for example, is one such group; the Newfoundland and Labrador Legal Aid Commission; Nalcor; the Liquor Corporation; Workers' Compensation; Public Service Commission. These are all groups and commissions that report to government, but yet are seen to be independent and at arm's-length. The Human Rights Commission of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and New Brunswick all report to a minister who is responsible for the administration of the act.

Mr. Speaker, as well, with respect to this particular argument, the mandate of the Office of the Citizens' Rep and the Child and Youth Advocate – and these officers report to the House of Assembly – but their mandate, Mr. Speaker, differs greatly from the mandate of the Human Rights Commission. The role of the Citizens' Representative and the role of the Child and Youth Advocate is to investigate complaints against government with respect to its decisions, its programs and its services. They are oversight bodies investigating complaints against government. The Human Rights Commission is not such an oversight body, Mr. Speaker, related to government activity. The role of the Human Rights Commission is the protection of human rights in all aspects within the Province, both private and public. The fact that government is at times subject to a complaint does not mean that the government is the primary focus of the Human Rights Commission's responsibility.

As well, there are current legislative safeguards in place to ensure the independence of the Human Rights Commission, such as the appointment of independent commissioners, the appointment of an independent board of inquiry. Both of these groups have a requirement to submit an activity plan to the minister for annual tabling in the House of Assembly. Further, given the quasi-judicial status of the Human Rights Commission, all decisions of the board of inquiry are subject to judicial review.

Now, Mr. Speaker, neither has the Human Rights Commission advocated for this change. We believe strongly that having the support of a minister responsible for the Human Rights Commission enhances the administration of human rights and its mandate in this Province. In addition, this government has increased the budget and human resources of the commission. As mentioned earlier, the budget now stands at over $1.2 million. So the concerns, Mr. Speaker, that were presented in support of that argument of reporting to the House of Assembly, these concerns in our estimation have been alleviated.

There was also a proposal, a submission, Mr. Speaker, to change the structure of the Human Rights Commission from that of a commission model to a direct access model, such as in British Columbia, I think, and Quebec.

In this Province, Mr. Speaker, we follow a commission model. That model is designed to allow any person to pursue a complaint of discrimination at no cost to themselves. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of people who may not be aware of the procedure, a complaint is entered with the intake officers at the Human Rights Commission and it is investigated by a lawyer or a human rights specialist, and at that point in time information is gathered. They can visit the workplace. They can interview witnesses and they prepare the file to move on up the ladder, but at any time that file can be settled. At any time it can be settled. The file then goes to the Human Rights Commission, who meets three or four times a year, and the commission decides whether or not the file will go a tribunal, to an adjudicator.

So, there is a series of levels in the procedure. The commission carries that file from the point at which it is entered. It has the responsibility for carrying the complaints, provides a legal representation. It appears on behalf of the complainants if their cases are referred to a hearing, if they go to the tribunal or if they go to court. The officials and lawyers, legal people from the commission, carries that complaint right through its completion.

In the direct access model, such as in British Columbia and Ontario, that model allows complainants to file all complaints directly with the Human Rights Tribunal. It bypasses all the preliminary steps, and they file their complaint directly with the Human Rights Tribunal. It does not provide for an investigation of complaints by any independent parties and the complainants are left to seek independent legal advice and education from the private Bar or any publicly-funded legal aid support clinic, or represent themselves. In other words, they do it at their own cost. Mr. Speaker, that might cut down a lot of time in getting their complaints directly with the human rights tribunal, but what it means is a backlog of cases then at the tribunal level, which can cause administrative headaches.

Mr. Speaker, this government believes that the commission model is better suited to fulfill the goals of legislation in this Province. The Department of Justice also believes that, given our provincial population and the number of annual complaints, it would be administratively inefficient to divide up the tasks of the commission, as this would do; you would separate the task of public education, adjudication and legal support in three different components, three different areas, three different jurisdictions, as in the case of British Columbia and Ontario. That submission, Mr. Speaker, was not accepted by the department.

The third one, Mr. Speaker, which was not accepted, was to expand the definition of discrimination to include systemic discrimination. Now, it has been suggested that clarity be brought to the act by including the words "systemic discrimination". Mr. Speaker, our jurisdictional scan has revealed that only two jurisdictions in Canada explicitly refer to systemic discrimination: Manitoba and the Yukon. The Supreme Court of Canada has defined systemic discrimination from an employment context, and that definition continues to be the current state of law in this area. It is clear, Mr. Speaker, from a review of our code, that it does not preclude complaints of systemic discrimination, and therefore we felt there was no need to amend the legislation in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, as we embarked on the public consultation process, this government was open to a comprehensive and critical overview of the Human Rights Code, and the proposed amendments reflect the input we received from the consultation, and that extensive jurisdictional analysis that we did.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill 31, An Act Respecting Human Rights, will enhance the current protections for individuals; it will modernize legislation; it will reflect the many current operational practices and policies of the Human Rights Commission; and, it will make our new legislation consistent with national standards and jurisprudence.

This process, Mr. Speaker, has been an important exercise, not only for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador but also for the people of our Province. This act will serve as the guidepost for how we treat each other in our society, and I am confident, Mr. Speaker, it reflects the values of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and will do so for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to introduce Bill 31 today in second reading. I ask the support of all hon. members in passing this bill, and I look forward to the participation of members from both sides in the debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am really pleased this afternoon to have the opportunity to stand and to speak to Bill 31, An Act Respecting Human Rights. We have been looking forward to this act. It is an extremely important act, and it is something that many people in the Province have been awaiting and have been looking forward to.

The act that we have before us is something that has gone through an intensive consultation process, and I was pleased about that consultation process. There were many groups who lobbied for a long time to have the legislation brought up to date.

While not everywhere in the Province was human rights a hot issue for people as the Department of Justice went around holding hearings, it certainly was here in St. John's. If I am not mistaken, I think two sessions had to be held for hearings, and I was very pleased to take part in one of those sessions and to have the opportunity to present to the representatives of the Department of Justice, who were the ones who were sort of in charge of the consultation process and have been involved all the way through in working in the department in writing the new act that we have before us today in the form of Bill 31.

Back in 2008, just two years ago, the Auditor General's report indicated that there were many problems with the commission, and identified many problems, but what he identified in particular was related to insufficient resources provided to the commission to be able to properly do its job. I have to say that it is really good to know that in this year's Budget – and the minister has made reference to it – the Budget went up from, I think, about $400,000 to $1.2 million for the commission. I certainly commend both the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance on making that happen, because there has been a serious backlog at the commission, as the minister has acknowledged, and there have been other issues, work that the commission has not been able to do because of having inadequate resources. The increase in the budget is certainly going to allow that to happen.

One of the things that will need to happen - and I think that it became obvious as the lawyers from the Department of Justice went around the Province and did not have a lot of people turning out for the hearings, I think that was an indication of the need for education that needs to be done by the commission. Certainly, one of the things that will happen because of an increase in the budget, I hope, and I am looking forward to it, is a greater profile of the Human Rights Commission involved more in educating people in the Province with regard to their human rights, and the human rights of everybody in the Province, because that is part of their responsibility. I think the responsibility of the commission is not just to make sure that people's rights are honoured in the Province, and not just to make sure that the legislation is being followed in the Province, but also to make sure that people know and understand what their rights are, and what is the protection that they have under the legislation. I am very pleased that has happened, that we have an increase in the budget and that kind of work is now going to happen because of the increase in resources to the commission.

When we call for more services and improved services, unfortunately, often - not always, but often - money is attached to that. That is not a call for more money to be spent; it is not to spend more money. It is, if a service has to happen then make the service happen. Educating people to their rights, and educating people more and more to the complexity of our society here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and to the complexity of human rights, is an essential part of the work of the commission. As I have said, I am very pleased that more resources have been given to the commission to do their work.

I would like to do something that the minister did not do, but I think it is important to do it for members of our community out there who are watching this afternoon. There are a lot of people who do watch us. The minister made reference to the fact that we now have a preamble once again for our bill. We had a preamble originally, and then in a rewriting of the act, I think back in 1992, the preamble was dropped. Now we have a preamble again.

When I made my presentation in the hearings that took place here in St. John's, I did recommend that a preamble be put in. One of the reasons for putting the preamble in is for people to understand what the basis of human rights is. Some of the basis for human rights has to do with international agreements that Canada is part of, and international recognition of rights. There are two documents in particular. One is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a UN document - they are both UN documents - the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is sort of the Bible for us in some ways, or the Koran for us, whichever religious book we want to mention, when it comes to recognizing human rights on an international level. That document, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is mentioned in the preamble to the new act.

The other one that would have been nice to have in there, it is not. It would have been nice to have in, again, a UN document. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which are also a basis for our understanding of human rights on an international level. The writers of the document did not choose to put that UN document in the preamble, but certainly the spirit of that document is in the act itself.

What I would like to do, Mr. Speaker, is read the preamble of the bill so that those watching understand the basis –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: You already did it? Okay, I missed that. I am sorry, Mr. Minister. I had to step out and speak to the media when the minister started. So I will not repeat what the minister did because I want to use my time to make other points.

So, just to say that now that we have this preamble, it is very, very important because it gives us a solid grounding for why we have the act that we have and why we believe in human rights. If somebody cannot be convinced after reading this preamble that we need human rights, then we would have to question what kind of thinking is going on in their heads.

Having said that, I would like pick up then – no, first of all, before doing that, I would like to mention some of the things in the act that I am very pleased about. Some of them have been mentioned by the minister, but I would like to point out that I do support them and what it is that I support.

As the minister has said, one of the important things about the document is that it has modernized language. We have language in our current act which is very old language and which is actually based on what would now be considered biases and prejudices even in our act on human rights. So modernizing the language is extremely important. One example of that, for example, is under disabilities in the current act that we are changing. We use the word retardation in our current act. That is just not a word that we use in the present. That was part of the definition of a mental disability. So finally that word has been taken out of our act as we bring this bill in. There were quite a number of phrases like that in the act.

As a matter of fact, when I was preparing last fall to make a presentation about the act, I was surprised at some of the language that was in it. Because what shocked me was the realization that we used to use these terms twenty, twenty-five years ago without even thinking about it, that they seemed quite okay to us. What this act is doing is totally upgrading our thinking.

Some of the other things, of course, that had to be modernized are changes that have been made to our legislation. It is actually legislative change that has dictated the change of language in the new act that we are discussing. One example of that, of course, is our definition of marriage. That has definitely changed in the Province. It has changed legislatively. We now recognize same-sex marriage. So that language change had to be made in the document. I am very pleased that, of course, we are now in the twenty-first century when it comes to the language that we are using in our document.

Another thing that has happened is including more things in prohibited grounds, when it comes to grounds for claiming discrimination. Discrimination based on source of income is one thing. For example, sometimes people who are on Income Support get discriminated against. It is part of their experience and I know that presentations about that were made when the hearings were held. I am really glad to know that we now recognize that legislatively by saying that we cannot have discrimination based on a person's source of income. We cannot make judgements on people because their income comes from Income Support, for example. So this is a real step forward, Mr. Speaker.

Another new prohibited ground has to do with this disfigurement. It is very interesting, because disfigurement very often in the past - for example, somebody could have a really visible and really bad birthmark, bad in the sense that it really stands out. It makes a person look different. I think there used to be a mentality that a birthmark sometimes of that nature, people thought that the person with that birthmark was not very intelligent or they could not contribute to society or whatever. By naming disfigurement as a prohibited ground, what we are doing is acknowledging that nothing like that should ever be a basis for any kind of discrimination against a person. While it is going to take time to change people's attitudes and people's behaviour – because we do know that you still get people mocking somebody who has some kind of a disfigurement – the more we have in legislation and the more that we educate people, it will slowly change society and change people's behaviour when it comes to discriminating against somebody because of a disfigurement.

Another one that has been brought in, which I think is extremely important, is clarifying the issue around, that you cannot discriminate based on pregnancy. Pregnancy used to come under sex in the old act. You could not discriminate on sex, and then part of that was pregnancy. I think it is extremely important that it has been clarified because there are cases out there, and I am sure Labour Relations has had to deal with it, where sometimes women do not get hired because of the potential that the woman can get pregnant. So you have a company or a business place saying: Oh, I do not want another woman here because in a year's time – how old is she? Okay, well, in a year's time she is probably going to get pregnant and we have another maternity leave that we are going to have to deal with.

I know of cases like that, particularly when I was with Women in Resource Development, which was dealing with women's employment. We had women come to us who had that kind of thing happen to them. So now, with pregnancy so well clarified, because in the new act what it says is that it is both, not just a woman who is pregnant being discriminated against but a woman who can become pregnant being discriminated against. So even before and after becoming pregnant, that cannot be used as a ground for discrimination. That is extremely important for women, Mr. Speaker.

Another one of the prohibited grounds – I know the minister went through some of them, but I did want to speak to that one in particular. Another important one is the criminal conviction, where the criminal conviction is not related to employment. Somebody could have had a conviction going back to when they were eighteen years old and it is a conviction that has nothing to do with their life at the moment, has nothing to do - now maybe in their thirties or their forties - with getting employed. So by putting in the legislation that we cannot use criminal conviction when it is not related to employment as a prohibited ground, it frees people up, and if ever they experience discrimination because of a criminal record that did not relate in any way to a current employment, they would be able to come to the commission and claim discrimination. That is extremely important.

We had a briefing on the act and I did ask the lawyers this morning - well, this can happen also if somebody is pardoned of a conviction. What they pointed out, and I think it is important for the public to know it, that being pardoned does not happen automatically. Somebody has to apply to be pardoned of a criminal conviction and they have to pay to have it processed. What this does, the fact that criminal convictions is not related to employment is now a prohibited ground for discrimination, this means that the person does not have to prove it any more, they do not have to go and look for a pardon of that conviction. That takes the onus off the individual to have to be seeking that pardon in order to be free when looking for employment. I am really glad to see that kind of onus being taken off the individual in terms of the individual's responsibility.

I will not go through all of the things that I am pleased about in the document. There are many, but I did want to highlight some of the important ones.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do is talk about some of the areas where I think that the document, the bill, could have gone further. I heard the minister's explanation on some of the issues I am going to speak to and I want to present my position on some of those issues that the minister raised. They are issues that I was going to be speaking to, and having heard him give his explanation, I am really glad to have the opportunity to speak further to some of them.

The first one that I want to speak to is the whole issue of the independence of the commission. I have heard the minister's explanation. I heard the same explanation this morning when we had our briefing, but I have to say that I am still not content with the explanation, and I am not content with the fact that the Human Rights Commission does not stand alone as do statutory offices, but instead reports to the Minister of Justice. I want to give some history around that issue and explain more why I presented in the hearings that it should stand alone and why I still think it should stand alone.

In 1985 there was a report that had been commissioned called the Stevenson report, and it recommended that the Human Rights Commission be accountable to a human rights committee of the House of Assembly rather than to a minister. Now, that was an early thought on this, that it would be accountable to a human rights committee of the House of Assembly rather than to a minister. In 1992, the Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Association recommended to the Wells Administration that the commission needs to be perceived as independent, and thus must answer to the House. There are different ways of answering to the House. One way would be through a human rights committee of the House, another is just directly to the House itself without a committee. Either way, this is an idea that has been generated here in the House of Assembly since 1985. Then there was another recommendation repeated in 1996, again by the Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Association, in a presentation that was made in 1996, that the commission should be governed the same as statutory offices.

Now, I want to explain why I think this is important. I agree with the association that made this representation on a couple of occasions to government. I agree with the Stevenson report. The Human Rights Commission is in the same kind of ballpark as the Child and Youth Advocate, as the Citizens' Representative, in particular, where it is a body that advocates for, that makes judgements about whether or not people are being treated fairly by legislation. With the Child and Youth Advocate, it has to do specifically with how children and youth are being treated under the Child, Youth and Family Services department of government in particular. With the Citizens' Representative, the Citizens' Representative looks at somebody who feels they have been treated unfairly anywhere within the government system. They can go to the Citizens' Representative and the Citizens' Representative looks at the government system that the person is saying is not treating them fairly and makes a judgement on that.

The Human Rights Commission is in the same field. It is in the field of taking personal complaints against the system and making judgements on it. So when we look at it from that perspective, all of those arms of government – the Auditor General is in a similar position. All of those arms of government need to be perceived by the public as there completely for them, as being totally separate from a ministry, because a ministry is part of government. A ministry is part of the government system. A ministry is, I do not what to say dictated to, but how a ministry operates is also dependent on the values, the goals, the vision of the government that is in power, to use our language, of the government that has the majority in a House. Ministries are under a minister of that government and whether or not the ministry is fair and always open and unbiased et cetera is not the point. The point is that people can perceive that a ministry is not that. That if they are going to make a complaint that has to do with a ministry, for example, which is quite possible, they need to feel that the body they are going to is going to be totally unbiased.

That is one of the reasons why so many people have made recommendations to governments in this Province on a number of occasions that the Human Rights Commission should stand alone and the way to do that, of course, is to make it a statutory office and to allow it then to have complete independence, not just in fact but also in perception. So it is something that I hope that the Department of Justice will continue looking at.

Now that we have finally brought in changes to this legislation to the current act after many years of needing it, I hope that the Department of Justice will continue to listen, continue to think about issues that were brought to them during the hearings because I do not think that I was the only person who brought this issue to the hearings when the hearings were held. I would like to think that the information that was given to the department during the hearings that that is living information. It is information that will stand for a long time and can be reviewed and looked at again by the department. That is what I would ask the minister to think about, to think about keeping all that information alive, think about the fact that this information did not come just from people thinking this would be a good thing to say, that they really did think it through.

It really is important that people really feel that even the potential of conflict of interest does not happen, that the commission must be made answerable to the House of Assembly and not to the Minister of Justice, that all the perception of conflict of interest, even the potential of real conflict of interest, be set aside. This is the way to set it aside, Mr. Speaker, by making the Human Rights Commission an independent body, making it a statutory office. As I said a minute ago, I hope that this is an idea that will not be put to rest and not be looked at again. I know that across the country there are many jurisdictions that have not done this, but there are jurisdictions that have, and on a federal level the federal Human Rights Commission is totally independent and answerable to the House of Commons, not to the ministry.

I would like to read what was in the Auditor General's 2008 report where he says, "There could be a perceived conflict of interest when the Commission has to hear cases in which Government is named as a respondent given the current budget and reporting process. The Commission's budget is approved by the Department of Justice and, unlike the Canadian Human Rights Commission which reports directly to Parliament, the Commission has to provide its annual report to the Minister of Justice who is then responsible for tabling it in the House of Assembly".

Systemically, it is not a good way to go, Mr. Speaker. Systemically, we need to have the commission separate, on its own, both in perception and in reality. Once again, I ask the minister to give further thought to maybe down the road, maybe in a year's time, bringing in a new amendment with regard to this, to look a bit more seriously at how the Canadian Human Rights Commission operates. That would be, I think, a really good way to go.

The second issue that I want to speak to, and the minister did pick up on this, too, the minister picked up on the point that I am going to speak to as well, and gave his thinking on it, and the thinking of the Department of Justice on it, but again I would like to speak further to it, Mr. Speaker, because I actually do not agree with the position of the Department of Justice and of the minister on this one. It has to do with systemic discrimination.

Systemic discrimination is something that people do not think about. Very often, people get upset when they are told something they have done is discrimination. They say: Well, I did not mean that as discrimination. I do not discriminate against that group of people, or I do not discriminate against that individual. I did not mean it that way.

What people do not understand is that sometimes certain discrimination is so prevalent in our society, it is so systemic, that we maintain the discrimination without even realizing that is what we are doing. There are different examples one could use, and all of them are sort of difficult, but let's take it from the perspective of a woman. For example, when it comes to language, very often men will use language not understanding that the language they are using, which excludes women in the language, does that; the language actually excludes women.

I actually heard somebody publicly, the other day, use the term men when they meant men and women, and the person indicated - it was a person in the public sphere - the person indicated: Okay, women, I mean men in the general term.

Well, the thing is, there is no such thing as men in the general term. Yes, 100 years ago we used the term man in a genealogical way to mean men and women, but with the changes in our society that have happened over the last 100 years we no longer use the word – or I hope we don't – man, thinking that it means men and women, because it does not anymore in our language.

So if somebody continues to use that language because they are still in a context where they hear it used that way, then we need to point out to them: that is systemic discrimination. That is something that is there in our society, it is systemic, and we have to name that the systemic discrimination is wrong. When an individual discriminates coming out of an attitude that is in our society, they are not doing it deliberately but they still are discriminating.

In the new act there is a clause that talks about discrimination that is intentional and discrimination that is not intentional. So, in actual fact, somebody who is discriminating based on one of the grounds for discrimination in the new act and really did not mean it that way, but it was discriminatory because - it just was discriminatory, then that is going to be able to be declared and a complaint can be made. My concern is that, that phrase, intentional and unintentional, does not cover some of the aspects of systemic discrimination that we need to cover. I will use an example of that which will probably make it very clear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker is having difficulty hearing the hon. member speak.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am having a problem trying to speak over the noise, so I appreciate that.

I use an example from the workplace, and this again was something that I experienced when I was the Executive Director of Women in Resource Development. A company continually, over a period of time, case after case after case, discriminating against the hiring of women, especially a company where the majority of workers there were male workers in what would have been seen in other times as men's jobs - even using the terms men's jobs; there is no such thing as a man's job, a woman's job, but it would have been seen as work that only men did. Well, that is discriminatory.

What has happened in the past with the commission is that somebody goes to the commission with, say, her own case of discrimination with a company, and the commission looks at her case all by itself; but, when that woman points out that this company has a history of doing this in the company, it is their culture, it is their attitude, the commission in the past, for various reasons, and one of them may have been because of having inadequate resources - and that was said to me today by the Department of Justice people who briefed us, it may have been because of inadequate resources - but the commission saying, no, it does not matter what other examples you are going to give us from that company, we have to look at your case all by itself - Mr. Speaker, that, in my books, is wrong.

Today, when we met with the people from the Department of Justice, they said, well, now that the department has more resources, now that the department has another specialist, now that they have more people to work in the department, I can be assured that will not happen again; that only looking at a case all by itself and not looking at the case in the context of a workplace, for example, or in the context of whatever the discrimination is, will not happen again. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not have that confidence that the members of the Department of Justice had when they said that to me this morning – probably because of the systemic nature of discrimination. Unless we do continual bringing up of this issue, and continually calling upon the Human Rights Commission, I do not have great confidence that the commission will stop looking at cases on a case-by-case basis and automatically start looking at them in the context of the broader systemic discrimination.

While I appreciate that the members of the Department of Justice did not find what they said to me were good examples of definitions of systemic discrimination in human rights codes across Canada, I would suggest to them that within research in universities, within the feminist research communities, both in Canada and internationally, there are many definitions of systemic discrimination. In actual fact, I think if they had done a little bit more searching they could have come up with a definition of systemic discrimination that would have fit well within our Human Rights Act.

So, I am very disappointed that more work was not done with regard to systemic information. For example, people with disabilities, Aboriginal people, gay people, lesbians, bisexual people. They are continually facing barriers because of systemic discrimination; people who carry attitudes in society, because we still have prevalent attitudes in society. They get language used against them, they get behaviour used against them, all of which is because of the systemic nature of discrimination.

I think one of the examples of that, I think, is what we still experience in schools here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and not just in Newfoundland and Labrador, right across the country. For example, one of the terms that young people use against each other – it is particularly used with boys. It is an insult to boys. That is how it is meant, as an insult to them. That is the continual use of the word fag. It upsets me when I hear that is used as an insult. That, of course, was a term that was used, and is still used, as a very serious discriminatory term with regard to gay men in particular. Yet, it is so systemic in our society still. It is the ultimate insult that they can use in high school these days. One of the ultimate insults I suppose, but it really is against a young man, if he gets called a fag. That is, for me, a really clear example of systemic discrimination. It does not have anything to do, or it can sometimes, but while sometimes it is used intentionally and the person using it is deliberately maybe saying it to a young man who is gay, and deliberately using it to discriminate, the way in which young people in high school are using it these days I think is unintentional very, very often because of the systemic nature of that particular discrimination. So I am very, very sorry that the Department of Justice and those working on the act did not work harder on coming up with language and actions, behaviour that come out of systemic discrimination.

This is one of the other areas that I would ask the minister, in his role as Minister of Justice, to keep alive in the Department of Justice, to do more research on where systemic discrimination is defined and where that can be put into our act. That is my second request of the Minister of Justice. I know that I was not the only one who presented in the hearings with regard to systemic discrimination. I have to say, with my background, with the work that I have done in particular with regard to women getting into employment where it is in male dominated areas, and also the work I have done with regard to violence against women, I guess this is something I feel extremely passionate about, because the discrimination in both of those cases is so systemic. The same way with discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender peoples; if you are different at all, people discriminate.

It is really interesting, because the word discriminate has a positive and negative meaning. To discriminate differences when you are analyzing is actually a positive thing. You need to see the differences in an argument. You need to be able to discriminate between what is valid, what is not valid. Discriminate in those areas is positive, but when you are discriminating in order to act against somebody, when you are discriminating in order to exclude, and I think that is the thing. When discrimination is used for exclusion then discrimination is wrong, or where discrimination is used in order to actually bring to bear something very negative on people, then discrimination is wrong. This is the kind of discrimination we are talking about.

I am sorry that the government and the Department of Justice did not work harder at coming up with a term for systemic discrimination and put it in the new act. Every act is a living document. Any act can have amendments made to it at any time. So I repeat my request to the minister, both with regard to having the Human Rights Commission stand independently as a statutory office and also when it comes to including systemic discrimination in our act, that these be living discussions that do not end.

There is a third thing I would like to speak to, Mr. Speaker, and it has to do with the definition of disability. Now, the act has modernized the definition. There is no doubt about that, but I think the definition that we have in the act could have gone further. One of the things that I brought up, again, when I made the recommendation to the department in the hearings was that we look at the definition of disability that the United Nations has adopted. Let's put ourselves in the ball field with what has been worked out on the level of the United Nations. What the United Nations has done in its definition is to totally get away from a definition of disability which is sort of a medical model. It is almost based on medical definitions. Unfortunately, that is still in the code.

What the United Nations has done is to try to see disability more in the context of the social model. Seeing disability as the impairment as being in society through various physical and attitudinal barriers. In other words, if I have a disability with vision, or I have a disability with hearing, or I have a disability with walking, for me as a person with that situation - and you hear this lots of times with people who have impairments, they do not define it as a disability. They say they are visually impaired, or they may be impaired, but it does not stop them from being abled, they are just differently abled. That is how you hear them put it very, very often; I am differently abled.

For example, somebody who has no arms - and it was only the other night I was hearing a great story on the radio about somebody with no arms - they develop tremendous ability to use their feet in the same way they would use their hands. So, they do not consider themselves disabled. A person like that will say: Well, I am differently abled. I am using my feet to do what you use your hands to do.

This is what the United Nations definition tries to get at. It recognizes that a disability is not something that resides in the individual as the result of impairment, but it is a result of an interaction between that person and the person's environment with other people. So, it is other people who make the definition that the person is disabled.

I really had hoped that the Department of Justice would take the recommendation that we adopt the UN definition in our new code, but what we have in our code is still based on language which is the old medical model. It says, for those who want to check it out if you are listening - people outside the House I mean. Section 2.(c) under definitions says, "‘disability' means one or more of the following conditions…" - you see, and that is the thing, the conditions - "(i) a degree of physical disability, (ii) a condition of mental impairment or a developmental disability, (iii) a learning disability, or a dysfunction in one or more of the processes involved in understanding or using symbols or language, and (iv) a mental disorder."

We have continued to see the disability in terms of the person and the condition of the person rather than the attitude of society to a person who has impairment. It has a different meaning to say impairment than it does to say disabled; disabled means not able to perform, not able to do.

When we look at somebody like Steven Hawkins, there is absolutely no doubt that Steven Hawkins, on the world stage, certainly has impairment. There is no doubt about it, but is Steven Hawkins disabled? There is no way. He is a leading scientist in our world today. He is not disabled. He has impairments to ability, but that does not make him disabled. That is why I was hoping that the Department of Justice, in the hearings, would hear what I had to say about that. Again, the department was upgrading the language and using a modern, up-to-date language in the act, and the most modern up-to-date definition probably of disability is a definition that looks at the person in relationship to his or her environment. I am so sorry that the government did not see the need, on this level, to be up there with the latest language that is being used by the United Nations. So that is a disappointment for me, Mr. Speaker.

Once again, if we see an act as a living document, this is something I hope will continue to be discussed in the Department of Justice, and I do ask the minister to give leadership in that so that this language too will continue to be discussed in the Department of Justice.

So I have one more point, Mr. Speaker, that I presented in the hearings that, again, I was sorry did not happen. It had to do with the board of inquiry, and there is a board of inquiry in the act. The board of inquiry has meanings that can be misunderstood. What we asked for in the presentation that was made in the hearings by the Department of Justice was that we rename the board of inquiry to the human rights tribunal, especially because this is a term that is used in the other Canadian jurisdictions. It keeps us using the same language so that there is not confusion, so that when you talk about the human rights tribunal, it is very clear what a tribunal means and that is sort of different from a board of inquiry. A board of inquiry does not have the same notion as this is the place where I go to have a judgment made, and that is what the human rights tribunal is about.

This would have been a really simple change. It is not something that I think would have been problematic. I just think it is clearer with regard to understanding of what the board of inquiry does. It is a tribunal. It is a tribunal that makes a final decision. It is not that it inquires, it makes judgments. It takes information that is brought to it and makes judgments and makes a final decision in situations where there is confusion, where somebody feels that they have not really been heard. So a human rights tribunal just says things more clearly and more to the point.

So, Mr. Speaker, I have really been appreciative of having the time here this afternoon to put forward the points that have been extremely important for me, as I have followed the life, the life of the bill that is in front of us. As I said, right from the beginning, I was really interested in the process. I did make a presentation, as I said, to the Department of Justice as they held their hearings, and I was waiting for this bill, and was very happy that this bill finally has come to the floor.

As I have said, I do not see this as a closed document now - okay, we have it done, we do not have to do it any more. That is not what it is about. We have made amendments. We are going to be passing amendments here today, and I am going to be very happy to vote for this bill, even though it is lacking some things that I think need to be there, but the actions of those does not take away from the new definitions that are here, the new prohibited grounds with regard to discrimination, the new definitions of discrimination.

There is so much in it that is good, and I am very glad about that, but the things that I have put out there, I think are really important things. That is the commission standing alone, the definitions around systemic discrimination, and the definition of disability. I know the minister has been listening. I really trust that, as I have said already, that everything we have said, both here that will be said this afternoon and that was said in the hearings, and things that were written, will continue to be alive and continue to be considered inside of the Department of Justice.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to speak to Bill 31. I listened attentively to the minister in introducing this bill today and giving an overview of it, as I have listened to my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

Mr. Speaker, obviously, this is a very important bill. I guess it is important because it is designed to uphold the rights that are laid out to us as Canadians under the Charter and also under the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Mr. Speaker, wherever possible, or in cases, the provinces do have jurisdiction over certain issues, and usually it is limited to employment and provisions of services. That is mostly where our human rights legislation comes from.

So, Mr. Speaker, Bill 31, An Act Respecting Human Rights, is a bill that was brought in, in Newfoundland and Labrador, back forty years ago. It was updated in 1996, or there were some revisions made. Today, what the minister has introduced to the House is basically some major overhauls within the legislation that really brings it in line with the modern day language and thinking around human rights, Mr. Speaker, and it certainly allows for some new additions in terms of defining discriminatory practices and what is prohibited.

The Human Rights Commission is outlined in the legislation as well, and it has two basic purposes. The Human Rights Commission themselves, they serve as an active body promoting human rights and concepts of equality but they also act as an investigative body when complaints are laid. You often hear of cases, Mr. Speaker, where people feel that their human rights have been violated or discriminated against and it is to this commission that they would take their complaint to be investigated. The process will have some small changes, as the minister outlined in his remarks, in terms of how the complaints are dealt with, how the investigations are done and what the pattern of referral or dismissal is in each of those particular cases.

Mr. Speaker, if the Human Rights Commission deems that there is sufficient merit for a complaint they will then refer that complaint to a board of inquiry and they may register certain injunctions, like has been outlined, as I said. They have the option then to stop that, to prevent it further, a violation of rights. That is what the whole concept of the entire bill is about. Not only upholding the rights of individuals but ensuring that there is not a further violation of those rights, whether it be in the workplace or in some other form of society.

Mr. Speaker, people whose complaints come forward and are heard, they may be awarded compensation and have generally broader powers then was in the last bill. In the last bill, Mr. Speaker, it basically said that you could have a compensation for individuals. This bill says that there will be in cases where it is warranted, the compensation will be outlined.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of changes in the bill, and I think I will get into discussing some of them in just a minute. Mr. Speaker, it is important to have the Human Rights Code in the Province - or the act, which it will now be referred to – constantly updated and reflecting what the current situations are in society and the modernization of the society that we live in. Human rights is about dignity, it is about a person's worth and it is about having equality to all people, and that is why we make this into law.

There are different things that can be considered violations under the Human Rights Act, when an individual is discriminated against because of a number of prohibited grounds of discrimination. Such things as their race, their religion, their religious creed, their political opinion, their colour or ethnic origin, their national or social origin, their sex, their sexual orientation, their marital status, family status, age, physical disability or mental disability.

Mr. Speaker, the act prohibits discrimination both federally and provincially under many circumstances, in terms of when you provide accommodations or services to individuals or to the public; in the areas of employment. For example, refusing to hire people based on their sexual orientation; in things like publications, specifying in publications information such as male only or female only in terms of employment and so on. The act also prohibits the harassment of individuals. There are a number of grounds for that within the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the Human Rights Act or codes also protects equal pay for the same work performed by both women and men in our society. It prohibits individuals who are in a position to grant or deny a benefit to another because of unwelcome sexual solicitation. It speaks to protecting individuals who have made complaints under this code who have assisted with the complaint process. I will get into that a little bit further as well, Mr. Speaker.

In this particular bill today, there are a number of amendments that have been put forward to the legislation that certainly makes it a lot stronger. Mr. Speaker, we all need to ensure that our human rights are protected in society. That we are protected in the workforce and we are not discriminated against for reasons that have to do with our disabilities, or age, or our sex, or our sexual orientation. Those things in this day and age are definitely not acceptable in any society. Therefore, there needs to be rights or laws that protect people.

Mr. Speaker, in this legislation it talked about modernizing the language. I think when the minister spoke he gave a couple of examples of things like – I think he used the words mental retardation that was being omitted from the bill, along with malformation. I think he even used infirmed as one of the other terms that was being omitted from the bill. I think that in today's society people do not want that kind of language being used. It is fifty year old language, Mr. Speaker, and it needs to be removed from the bill. We do not refer to people in our society in that terminology in this day and age. We refer to people in a much more respectable manner, Mr. Speaker. So, it will remove some of those particular things.

The other thing that it does is it reflects the relationship and sexual relationships of same-sex marriages, or same-sex couples as being defined as spouses. It also includes common law relationships. That was other changes that are being brought about in the bill.

One of the things that it does as well is it removes, I guess, a casual link to the word disability. The Leader of the NDP spoke to this because, obviously, she feels that the bill does not go far enough in removing the terminology that is used and the referencing. Mr. Speaker, it does make some improvements in defining that and it also has disfigurement removed and incorporated as a new prohibitive ground. I think that is what a lot of people wanted to see. From my understanding in the consultation process, people were very vocal about this particular aspect of the bill and they did want to see it removed and they wanted to see it as prohibitive grounds, Mr. Speaker, and certainly that has been done here under this bill.

In fact, when we had the briefing with the Department of Justice they outlined that there was five major prohibited grounds that were being introduced in this bill. Disfigurement was one of them, but also it would talk about source of income, criminal conviction unrelated to employment, clarification that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is prohibited, and I understand from them that this again was a huge concern in all the consultations that they held, and the removal of the age requirement.

Mr. Speaker, when they talk about the source of income as being a prohibited measure, what they refer to is that the source of income in the old legislation was really limited to tenancy situations. So, when a person was going in to rent an apartment, or say you had a house up for rent or a property up for rent and I was inquiring about it, you could not discriminate from renting to me because I was a low income individual, low income earner, or a single parent income, or I lived on social assistance programs. So the Human Rights Code in the old act actually spoke to that and protected people based on their income from being discriminated against when it come to tenancy in terms of renting properties or renting houses.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is expanded to apply in the areas of employment, services and publications. So what that means is that if I am advertising for an individual to do something, say it is to sit on a board or a commission, I cannot say that I do not want to take someone who is in a low income bracket, or I do not want to take someone who is on social assistance, or someone who is on an employment insurance program or something like this, or workers' compensation, so you cannot discriminate on those particular basis in terms of taking someone.

It talks about in applying services, and it is the same thing. You cannot say: Well, we are not going to have you serving in this charitable organization and we are not going to have you doing this because you are not at a certain status when it comes to income. So that is a new prohibition that has been put in there, so therefore those restrictions are there. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in most of the current acts now across the country in every other jurisdiction that is basically the standard of how things are done.

The other thing, as I said it looks at, is disfigurement, and I spoke to that a little while ago in that it no longer falls under the definition of disability. It ensures that while an individual may not have a disability, there is a need to recognize and protect their rights, and remove the possibility of discrimination. That is there because if an individual has a birthmark of some kind that is very visible, if they have other disfigurations, they cannot be discriminated because of that. They cannot be asked to leave a place, they cannot be denied for a job or any of these things based on any disfigurement that they may have. I am sure that we all know individuals who have birthmarks that they really have no control over some of this disfiguration, and it is not to be a discriminatory factor. That is written in the legislation.

The other thing is under criminal convictions, Mr. Speaker. Conviction for an offence that is unrelated to the employment. This is an important one because in the past – and I think there was a real stereotype developed around this as well, that individuals who were ex-convicts or so on had a lot of stigmatism in society in terms of obtaining employment and making their way back into the workforce. What this act now is doing, Mr. Speaker, is saying that a conviction for an offence that is unrelated to the –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: What it is saying, Mr. Speaker, is that if you are convicted of an offence and you serve time, imprisonment, or whatever the case may be, you cannot have that held against you if it is not related to the job that you are applying for.

When the minister was making his comments, he used the example if an individual is charged with child abuse or child sexual assault, obviously that person is not going to be allowed or able to work around children. I mean, that is an automatic given, but it does not mean that the individual cannot be a truck driver. It does not mean that the individual cannot ever work in any other occupational area or be discriminated against in those other employment fields because of that. I think we have seen that happen before. I know I have dealt with cases in my own political career of situations where people had a criminal record or were convicted and charged in one way, shape or form, and because of it they were not able to obtain employment as a result of it.

So there are going to be all kinds of situations, Mr. Speaker, and what this new Human Rights Act does is it says that you cannot discriminate against people who have been convicted if it is not related to the job that they are applying for. If they are applying for a position and they are qualified, they are supposed to be given consideration, as long as it is not related to the crime that they have committed.

Again, Mr. Speaker, from what we were told, there is a lot of case law already around this in the country, and there have been a lot of different rulings that have been made around it. So what the act does is basically takes it out of the courts and allows individuals to go through the human rights complaint division if it becomes an issue. So, it does not necessarily have to go through the courts any more and it does not have to be handled in that manner. We may always find cases where that does happen, but apparently, there is a lot of case law around it and there are precedent setting circumstances, Mr. Speaker.

One of the other changes in the bill has to do with the clarification that discrimination on the basis of sex includes pregnancy. Mr. Speaker, again, this one is not new, I am sure, to anyone in the Legislature. There have often been times where women have not gained employment because they were pregnant or they had just had a child, or even the intention of having a child would be a discouragement to employers hiring women. Now, the amendments to the Human Rights Act will say that would be discrimination. It would be discrimination now for any employer to say that they did not, or even whether they intentionally did it, or unintentionally, according to the new legislation that it would be prohibited. It is no different discriminating against women because of their pregnancy than it is to discriminate against individuals because of their disability, or because of disfigurement, or because of their age, or because of their sex, or any of those particular reasons.

Mr. Speaker, those particular things are outlined and added to the new section of the bill. I understood, from the consultations, that this was one of the pieces that were very highly recommended by a lot of the people across the Province who participated in the consultations, and it is good to see that it is included.

One of the other things included here is the removal of the age requirement, and the code restricts employed persons under the age of nineteen from filing a complaint with the Human Rights Commission. Well, Mr. Speaker, that will be changed, of course, because it was inconsistent with labour standards that were passed in the Legislature. So now, Mr. Speaker, if an individual is under the age of nineteen, if they feel that they have a human rights violation against them, and they want to make a complaint, they have the right and the opportunity to do that now under the laws. I think it is important, because it should be consistent with our labour standards legislation.

Under our Labour Standards Act, and I am just trying to remember now, but I think at the age of fourteen you can, with parental consent, go into the workforce, and I think at the age of sixteen you can actually go into the workforce without parental consent. So it would make sense that the Human Rights Act that we are passing has to do with employment situations, that young people who fall under those age groups within the Labour Standards Act would be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to file complaints under the Human Rights Act as well. Again, I think that is consistent, it is fair, and again one of the changes that we certainly would support.

The act also speaks to discrimination, Mr. Speaker, in terms of, discriminating against an individual based on their association with a person or a group of persons is also prohibited. Mr. Speaker, again it is something that we commonly hear in society: that if I hang around with people who are of one sexual persuasion then I have to be that. Those kinds of aspersions are cast all the time: because this person is a criminal and you have some association with them, then all of a sudden you are a criminal. That is not appropriate, it is not right, and now it is illegal to be able to make those particular calls. You cannot discriminate against a person, Mr. Speaker, based on who they associate with. So, if a person goes in to a apply for a job, or to look for employment, or to volunteer their services, or to become involved with a group or organization, they are to be considered based on their own merit, not based on who they associate with.

Mr. Speaker, it is really hard to sometimes curb the attitudes of society who cast aspersions in those directions, but it is important that we have laws that protect people who are being violated from a human rights perspective when it comes to these particular issues.

Mr. Speaker, it also says that discrimination may be intentional or unintentional. This is a very important point as well. Sometimes discrimination occurs without a real realization of it, Mr. Speaker, and I think that it is important that would be noted, and that it would be considered as part of the legislation.

As well, Mr. Speaker, as I spoke to earlier, there is a new process for commissioners and for adjudicators within this process. The complaint process is fundamentally the same principles but it is laid out a little differently in terms of the process that you go through, the opportunity to dismiss cases or defer cases at certain levels. As I said, there is the provision of settlement which was not in the old Human Rights Code but is now being added to this particular act as well.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just like to say that we feel they are good amendments that are being made in this particular legislation. It certainly needed to have some changes in terms of the modernization of it, and even in the restrictions around publications and so on, because we are into a different age of technology as well, Mr. Speaker, and you need to ensure that the publication bans do not just apply to the print media or television or radio but apply to all mediums, in terms of computerized technology and blogging systems and so on that are used today in communicating and messaging.

Mr. Speaker, we will be supporting the new revisions in the act. We think that some of them are very important, and I think we all have a responsibility to protect the human rights of individuals in this Province, in those areas where we have jurisdiction, like in areas of employment and so on.

Mr. Speaker, based on those comments, we think they are welcomed amendments and we will be supporting them.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill 31, the Human Rights Act, also known as the Human Rights Act, 2010.

Certainly my own journey toward this place today to talk about human rights, and I guess to a certain extent to feel somewhat competent to talk about human rights, actually began in the 1930s. Now, I probably do not look as old as that might suggest, and there is certainly more to the story.

My father was born about 1925 and he remembers, as a young boy, around the 1930s, every time he went through the door on Sunday morning with his father to go to church, he knew that he was dressed up, and he knew he was going to church, but the one thing he did not know was which church he was going to on that particular day.

My grandfather, even though he was a Roman Catholic, was very much of the idea that everyone has their own set of beliefs, everyone has their own set of living their lives, and he felt it was very important for his children to be exposed to the different ways that people lived, the way that people worshiped, and because of that he made it his mission to make sure that his children were made very aware of that. Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very significant thing, because certainly he grew up in a time when you stayed within your own religion. You went to your schools and you only hung around with the people in your school because they were, at that time, of your own religion.

Mr. Speaker, this sort of attitude is one that you carry with you. The idea that you may have your beliefs, but that does not give you the right to minimize, to ignore or to discriminate against other people, is one that each and every person in an ideal society would have, but reality is that we do not live in that kind of society. People are people; and, while we might wish for an ideal situation, certainly one does not exist. Consequently, we bring forward laws and different –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BUCKINGHAM: We bring forward laws and different instruments through the Parliament to certainly make our society a better place to live.

Mr. Speaker, it was this value system that my grandfather started that my father brought forward, and certainly brought forward through his career. In 1975 my father joined the provincial Department of Justice as a newly-minted solicitor. While he was occasionally frustrated by some of the machinations of bureaucracy, and some of the politics of government, he always said that he truly enjoyed his time with the department, particularly when he worked on files such as the fire department and the police department. The one area where he got his greatest joy out of, was his time spent with the Human Rights Commission. Very early on, as a solicitor, he spent some time with human rights files, eventually coming to a point where he was appointed to the Human Rights Commission. I was actually trying to do a little bit of research on this, but I could not quite get the right date, but I believe it was in the early 1980s when he was named to the commission.

I certainly take a number of memories from this time in terms of the different types of things that came about from his association with the Human Rights Commission, least of which was his time when he was named to the Canadian Delegation to the United Nations Human Rights Convention in Geneva. That was certainly, to my mind, a real testament to his involvement on the national stage with human rights, and certainly a time that he was very proud of.

As a commissioner, though, he was constantly amazed at not only the discrimination that he reviewed but more so at the attitude of a number of people who had, in fact, done the discriminating but yet, even after being told it was wrong, even after being ordered to remedy, they still felt it was their God-given right to have acted in the way they did. Even after all the rulings, these offenders could not be dissuaded that their behaviour was, in fact, wrong. He would often quote, and after having rendered a judgement, and the judgement being enforced, he would often quote and say: A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

This really speaks to the type of education that has to go on in our society as we move toward the whole ideal of human rights as being a basic part of what we do and how we conduct ourselves day to day. My father understood that the transition into this is one that takes generations of change, generations of changes in thinking, and generations, not only in behaviour of the individuals, but people who see these behaviours and realize that is the way that they should move forward with their lives. As a parliament, Mr. Speaker, we cannot legislate attitudes. In fact, we cannot legislate behaviour, but what we can do is put forward laws that show the way for acceptable behaviour and for good measure, through in a few disincentives for going against those norms of behaviour.

A second source of amazement for my father was the willingness for some people to pull out the Human Rights Code as their big stick in a way to get what they wanted. If they felt that they did not get something that they should have been "entitled to" – and I use entitled to in quotation marks – they felt that well, there must be some human rights involved here, this is how I am going to get my way. Mr. Speaker, even though you may have something that someone may discriminate against you for, whether it be a disability, whether it be your race, your religion, your nationality, or God forbid, your political stripe, sometimes the reality is, you just did not get the job because you were not the best person for it.

Therein lies the requirement to have a Human Rights Commission. It is very important that the Human Rights Commission be in place to make sure that people are not discriminated against, but it cannot be seen as a vehicle purely for that. The Human Rights Commission is also a body that protects people when they are unjustly accused of making decisions on the basis of having discriminated. So, in many ways, it is not just strictly an enforcement of any complaint that comes in, but it is a body that makes decisions, weighs the evidence, and in the context of the code, or the legislation that is in place, they render decisions that are in keeping with the spirit and the tenor of any piece of legislation we bring forward in this way.

So with all this as a background, judging from what I have seen, looking at the improvements that have been made, looking at the process that has happened over the last number of years, I honestly believe that my father, as we all here today, should be very proud that this legislation is going through. Not only that the legislation is going through, but the manner in which it is going through. We are taking this stage right now as part of the evolution of the legislation revolving around human rights. In 1969, we brought in a Human Rights Code. Now, a code is not law. It is a statement of how things should be. It provides guidelines for how courts should act, how courts should deal with things, how incidents of discrimination could be dealt with, but it is just that, it is a code. In 1969 it was passed, it came into force in 1971. Now here we are forty years later trying to update it, trying to bring it into the modern age, but it is also very interesting to look at the language that we brought in, in 1971, through a 2010 lens.

It is interesting to view the language, and when you look at some of the comments that can be made in maybe 2050, in forty years time, when they look back at what we are doing here today, perhaps they will have the same sort of criticisms that we have of the 1971. That is the nature of legislation; that is the nature of society. We evolve, we change, we refine our definitions, we deal with the new realities as they arise, and we make them part of what we do. This is where the legal system comes in as being quite, quite important, because we, as a Legislature, cannot deal with every little incidence that comes up. We need to have the legal system in place to take the legislation, to interpret the spirit of the legislation, and to interpret the modern-day realities and come up with rulings that will inform those who come after about how things will be. Perhaps in another twenty, thirty, forty years, who knows, maybe there will another Human Rights Act that will, again, codify these changes in societies norms and we will, I guess, our predecessors - no, not our predecessors, our successors down the road will take on that task.

Some of the language that we see, for example, with regard to mental disability, using the term mental retardation and it has been mentioned a few times. As a school boy in the 1970s the use of the word retard was pretty prevalent. We used it against each other, and I am sure there are a few teachers who might have directed it my way at the time and it was not seen as being offensive, it was not seen as being anything more than just a casual comment that indicated what you thought of someone's current situation. However, we have come to a point where that term is very, very stigmatized and the removal of it is quite appropriate.

Also, I found it interesting that learning disabilities were under the category of mental disability. Now, Mr. Speaker, as a teacher of twenty-two years, when I started, the whole idea of a learning disability was not anything that we knew about very much. It was very much on the cutting edges of identifying it and quantifying and identifying what some of the remediations might be, but over my twenty-two years of teaching we came to realize what learning disabilities were, and to categorize it as a mental disability certainly would be an injustice to those people who, for example, have written output deficits or have dyslexia or have dyscalculia or any of the other things that essentially are really just mechanical things, your eyes do not see things in a particular way, your brain is not wired to process certain information in a particular way. It is not retardation as it has been previously suggested it was. It is, in fact, just a mechanical part that, through things like the proper teaching techniques, through adaptive technologies, really allows the person's innate abilities that previously maybe could not have been demonstrated to come forward.

In fact, I was reading an article a little while ago and it talks about ADD and ADHD. Apparently, NASA is now placing a very high value on potential employees who do have ADHD, and this is not to suggest that NASA would take someone who was less than able. In fact, these people are not only able because they have certainly accomplished the prerequisite academic courses that would allow them to get into NASA but they, this group of people, think outside the box. They have different ways of looking at the world. They do not stay within the structures that they have been given. Their patterns of thinking force them outside the box, and in many ways this is what NASA is looking for. Certainly, a recognition that a group who had been marginalized before, in fact, did have quite a bit to contribute, the question was finding where, when and how to take those abilities and channel them in the right way.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak a little bit about the act. I was particularly heartened to read the preamble. We had a briefing on it and I quickly glanced through it. I think that in the last twenty-four hours I probably read that preamble about three or four times. It is really something that is inspirational. If I could make a suggestion, it should be something that should be required reading in every class in this Province from K-12. At least once a year every student should have this read to them, or read this passage to understand the real spirit and intent of what human rights is about and to allow it to give them some instruction as to how they should think, how they should act in society, and how we should treat each other.

The idea of codifying the act is very similar to what we talked about a few weeks ago in terms of the Fatal Accidents Act. There are all kinds of judgements that have been made through the years. They are on the books. They are the accepted practice, but they are not law. There comes a point where you can say this is where we are, this is the expectation, so let's put them into law and take them out of the realm of, I believe it is common law, and put it into legislation.

The idea that unintentional discrimination could take place, everyone knows that just because you do not know a law it does not mean that you can use that as any kind of a defence. I think it is a very good thing that we put this in. I think it is a good thing that we said to people, and it is as much as that if I am with someone who does not know that they have been discriminatory, it puts almost an onus and responsibility on me to say: Look, what you just did, even though you do not know you did it, is wrong. It is now, according to Newfoundland, against the law. I think it is a good thing that this is in there.

I think what you will also find, Mr. Speaker, is that there is some of the language in this piece of legislation that harmonizes with other pieces of legislation. Obviously, the referral to marriage refers directly to the type of things we have passed with the Marriage Act, and the definition of a spouse act. There are some things that will defer themselves, rather than being named specifically in here, are covered under other acts, like the Labour Relations Act. So, we do have a harmonization. We do have all of the judicial bodies really talking off the same page.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the Human Resources Commission is strengthened and it is allowed to become more efficient. One of the complaints that people have about the Human Rights Commission is that sometimes it takes a long time to get a complaint through. It is a little bit bogged down, and because of that people do not feel like their interests are being served.

The board is also strengthened because the powers of the executive director have been strengthened that they may dismiss some claims that they consider to be really nuisance claims. You can put a lot of terms on it, but obviously if you are forced into a situation where you have to deal with everything in the fullest extent of the process, that takes up valuable resources. Particularly, it takes valuable resources away from more valid complaints. So, the strengthening of the executive director's power I think will result in efficiency.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if it does come to a point where it is concluded that the executive director's powers have perhaps been overstepped, then we have the ability to roll it back. Legislation is, as the Leader of the NDP indicated, a living document. If it does come to a point where things have to be changed we have capacity in here to do that, and that is certainly one of the qualities of this legislation.

The expectations that all of the people involved in the Human Rights Commissions and Boards of Tribunal or boards of inquiry will have certain areas of expertise I think is a very positive one. It speaks to the seriousness to which we deal with human rights. It speaks to the fact that we want the best people in to do the best job, to move things through quickly, expeditiously and in the best way possible. I think this can only be seen as an improvement.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to conclude by indicating that this government has certainly provided some serious support to the ideas of human rights. Legislation is, for the most part, just words, words on paper. The real test comes when the people, when the government who has to put these things into action, make these things enforce, and they indicate this by the resources that they put through the organization, the resources that they put to the Human Resources Commission and I think this government when measured will be found to have done a good job.

We have, in Budget of 2009, put forward a half million dollar increase to the Human Rights Commission for two additional lawyers and a human resources specialist; again, expediting the claims as they go through. We have also put forward $100,000 for an educational component, to educate people not only of the mandate but also creating awareness of what it does and finally through that education, people get a better sense of what constitutes a viable complaint that I can go forward with. The educational component may say to someone: I know what you are thinking, but really when you look at it in the context of what is going on here, it really is fruitless to go forward with this. Currently, Mr. Speaker, we have budgeted $1 million for the Human Rights Commission, and again I think that speaks to our commitment to it.

So, Mr. Speaker, the consultation process is done. All of the information has been analyzed, certainly we have not met everybody's demands or everybody's expectations of what should happen here. This is the nature of government. We do have competing interests. You may find that some people have views that, in fact, conflict. So, as a government we make a decision as to which way to go, perhaps left, perhaps right, and perhaps somewhere in the middle. Again, it is part of what we do.

Mr. Speaker, I would invite everyone who is interested in human rights legislation to pull back, look at the broad picture, to look at what we have introduced here today, and I believe when everything is said and done they will come to the conclusion that although it may not be everything they hoped for, it is certainly a big, big improvement on where we have been and certainly speaks to where we want Newfoundland, as a society, to go.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words with respect to the new Human Rights Act. I feel, as the justice critic and former minister who had lots of dealings with this particular area of the law, I would certainly be remiss if I did not pass on my comments. I will not be long, other than to say that I have had the opportunity of getting the briefing this morning from the minister's officials, and Deputy Minister Mr.Burrage. It was very, very helpful.

Of course, we have been following the progress of the review of the Human Rights Code for quite some months and years now. It is great to see. I had some personal involvement, of course, back in the early 1980s. Besides representing people before the Human Rights Commission, I was an adjudicator with the Human Rights Commission for quite some years. So, I have seen the workings of it from the point of view as a solicitor, defending people whose human rights were violated, but also, of course, from the perspective of being an adjudicator when you had to take the facts and the circumstances into consideration and make decisions with respect to human rights.

I must say, there is no question from this member, will be supportive of this bill. I think it is a very positive piece of legislation, and from many angles. The angle of even taking it from being a code to being an act, I think that in and of itself indicates the seriousness with which we as a Province are going to consider human rights. It is a very positive move.

I guess no matter what you do and what you try, you might get some naysayers who say we have not covered off this, or we have not covered off something else, but I think it is a very good piece of work, and that, with the extensive consultations that we have had, virtually every concern that I have ever heard expressed about the Human Rights Code since its original inception, I believe, in 1969 or so, has been taken into consideration here.

There are a few things that I have heard enunciated by people that are not here. I heard very good explanations this morning from the deputy and the people who were involved in the process as to why the Province did not feel comfortable at this time, shall we say, broaching into certain areas. I think that is a safe approach right now. There are parts of the world, for example, that do have some different spins on certain areas of human rights that we do not have here. I refer, of course, to Australia, but I think this is a very positive move, and like everything, it takes time, it is a good step. We will see over time with the rulings that come out of the commission that deals with the new act and the new law exactly how it has been interpreted. We will get new precedents and if, of course, it requires changes that is the whole purpose of governments again is to make legislative changes to reflect the societal needs. I am sure, as time goes on, there are things that we as a people have not acknowledged or recognized even right now that we might need in the future. Surely, when that time comes if the need is there, again people will press government and bring those concerns forward, and hopefully the government will respond in that case the same as we have seen a response here now in this particular case. There will no doubt in the future be modifications. That is what the law is all about, that is why the Legislature is here.

So in short order, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to add other than I think this is very positive and this member will certainly be supportive of it and applaud the government for bringing it in at this time.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): If the hon. Minister of Justice speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members opposite for their comments and for their support of this bill. I think we all share the same position here that this is a very important piece of legislation, one of the most important pieces of legislation brought before the House this session. One which will be, as we mentioned, a guide post for our values with respect to discrimination issues for a long time to come.

With respect to the Leader of the NDP, I also want to express my appreciation to her because I do realize that she made a lengthy submission in the consultations and I have to say the most, a lot of the things that she presented, submissions she presented, have been adopted and are incorporated into this act. Not all of them are, of course, and she makes reference to the independence of the commission, which we have already explained the reason why we did not accept that submission. Systemic discrimination, we have also mentioned and elaborated on why did not accept that one. These were also expressed, as the hon. Opposition House Leader said a few minutes ago, with regard to the briefing that they received this morning.

They are also absolutely right; this is a living document. I am sure, as we proceed through the years, it will be amended periodically to reflect the values of society at that particular time. I am sure there will be lots of opportunity in the future to flesh this out, amend it, reconfigure it, and do whatever has to be done with it, as we experience any problems or changes in values our society might incur during that time.

Having said that, I will let the House know that we will be making an amendment from this side, during committee; we did discover an oversight in the bill - a technical one - having to do with discrimination with respect to employment in one's own home. We found an oversight with respect to that and we will be making an amendment, Mr. Speaker, to take care of that. The oversight shows us that section 14.(8)(b) could possibly be interpreted to mean an employer in a broader sense of the word than we had intended, so we will change that in an amendment in committee, Mr. Speaker.

Having said that, I thank everybody for their co-operation and I look forward to committee.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Human Rights. (Bill 31)

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

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

Now? Tomorrow? Presently?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Human Rights", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 31)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House to consider Bill 31.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (T. Osborne): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Bill 31, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 31, An Act Respecting Human Rights.

A bill, "An Act Respecting Human Rights". (Bill 31)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 13 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 13 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 13 carried.

CLERK: Clause 14.

CHAIR: Shall clause 14 carry?

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

Mr. Chair, with respect to clause 14, clause 14 deals with discrimination and employment, and one of the provisions of this act is to allow a person in his or her own residence to employ a person in his or her own residence without being caught by this section of the act. If you look at 14.(8) it says, "This section does not apply to an employer…", going to section (b), "…in respect of the employment of a person to provide personal services." Mr. Chair, that could be interpreted in a broader range than we had intended. It could also be interpreted to include an employer who is in the business of employing people in personal services.

It came to our attention today that that was there, so we feel obligated to bring this amendment. The aim of the amendment is to narrow the definition of employer to exclude employers who carry on the business of providing its employees to those who require personal services, the molly maids of the world. The intent is for section 14.(8)(b) to apply only to those persons who are acting as employers of a personal service on their own behalf, or on behalf of members of their family. The whole purpose of this amendment is to clarify the meaning of the term.

So, Mr. Chair, what the amendment does, it adds a definition for this paragraph only. It adds a definition of employer meaning: "…a person who employs a person to provide personal services to him or her or to a member of his or her family". Then it adds a section (b) for personal services, which is unchanged from the act. That is the amendment, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to clause 14, as moved by the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 14 as amended carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 14, as amended, carried.

CLERK: Clauses 15 to 51 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 15 to 51 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 15 through 51 carried.

CLERK: Therefore be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in legislative session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: WHEREAS recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world and is in accord with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as proclaimed by the United Nations;

AND WHEREAS it is recognized in the Province that every individual is free and equal in dignity and rights without regard to his or her race, colour, nationality, ethnic origin, social origin, religious creed, religion, age, disability, disfigurement, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, source of income and political opinion;

AND WHEREAS it is public policy in the Province to recognize the dignity and worth of every person to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination that is contrary to law, and having as its aim the creation of a climate of understanding and mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each person so that each person feels a part of the community and able to contribute fully to the development and well-being of the community and the Province;

AND WHEREAS it is recognized that every person, having duties to others and to the community to which he or she belongs, is responsible to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in this Act.

CHAIR: Shall the preamble carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, preamble carried.

CLERK: An Act Respecting Human Rights.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill with amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: I move, Mr. Chair, that the Committee rise and report Bill 31.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 31, and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 31 with amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and has directed him to report Bill 31 with amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the amendments be read?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General, that the amendments be now read a first time.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: "The Bill is amended by deleting clause 14(10) and substituting the following:

(10) In paragraph (8)(b) and subsection (15)(5),

(a) "employer" means a person who employs a person to provide personal services to him or her or to a member of his or her family; and

(b) "personal services" means work of a domestic, custodial, companionship, personal care, child care, or educational nature, or other work within the private residence that involves frequent contact or communication with persons who live in the residence."

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General, that the amendments be now read a second time.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: Second reading of the amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall Bill 31 be read a third time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, amendments read a first and second time, bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, with the amendments read - and this is what we had hoped to accomplish today, was this bill. With that, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services, that the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: It 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 1:30 of the clock tomorrow, being Tuesday.

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