December 9, 2010                    HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS            Vol. XLVI  No. 47


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the Chair would like to welcome two guests seated in the Speaker's gallery. The Chair would like to welcome the President of the NunatuKavut Community Council, Mr. Chris Montague, and welcome to a long-time member and former Cabinet minister of this Assembly, Mr. Kevin Alyward.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard: the hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte; the hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue; the hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & La Poile; and the hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands.

The hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House to recognize a very talented young man from my district, Mr. Brandon Baker, son of Cynthia and Rick Baker of Birchy Bay.

Brandon graduated from Lewisporte Collegiate in June of 2010. At the age of eighteen he is already a very accomplished young man. He graduated from high school with an overall academic honours average of 96 per cent.

He is the recipient of many scholarships, including the Greenwood Academy Alumni Scholarship, the Lewisporte Area Flight 15 Scholarship, the Clement Williams Memorial Scholarship, the MUN Entrance Scholarship, the EastLink Scholarship, the Electoral District Scholarship, and the Municipal Assessment Agency Scholarship. In fact, Mr. Speaker, he could not accept all the scholarship offers because of certain fairness criteria attached to some of these awards.

Presently, he is studying mechanical engineering at Memorial University of Newfoundland. He is achieving marks ranging anywhere from 96 per cent to 100 per cent, recently writing a physics mid-term getting 100 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, Brandon's accomplishments are a source of pride to his parents and to his community. He is an example of the many talented, spirited and brilliant young people we have in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand in this hon. House today to recognize and congratulate a very accomplished playwright from my district, Mr. Robert Chafe, who was recently awarded the Governor General's Literary Award for Drama for his stage adaptation of Michael Crummy's book, Afterimage. The play had its world premiere in Toronto on April 16, 2009.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time Robert has been shortlisted for the prestigious Governor General's award. In 2004 two of Robert's plays, Tempting Providence and Butler's Marsh were nominated for the same prize. Tempting Providence, Mr. Speaker, is entering its eighth year of national and international touring.

Mr. Speaker, since 1995 Robert has been working with production partner, Jillian Keiley and their company Artistic Fraud of Newfoundland. Their groundbreaking form of theatre has caught the attention of the nation through their creative staging and innovative use of voice and sound called kaleidography which produces a visually stunning theatre experience.

I encourage all hon. members to take in an Artistic Fraud show at some point. They will have a perfect opportunity to do so when Robert Chafe's newest play, Oil and Water, which retells the incredible true story of Lanier Phillips who was shipwrecked aboard the USS Truxton in 1942 in St. Lawrence, will premiere at the LSPU Hall this February.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Robert Chafe and wishing this very talented Newfoundlander and Labradorian all the best in his future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand here in this hon. House today to recognize Truce Sound Day, a special day that was created this year to commemorate the first meeting between the English explorer John Guy, and the Beothuk. They met, Mr. Speaker, in Sunnyside Harbour in 1612. This harbour attracted settlers because of the easy access to Trinity and Placentia Bays.

Truce Sound Day took place in Sunnyside on August 7, 2010. This day will promote the awareness of Sunnyside's history and to pique the interests of the community itself and this great Province. Through the re-enactment of the meeting, and the Beothuk artifacts that have been discovered at Frenchman's Island in Sunnyside, we hope that Sunnyside will be identified in the future as an historic site to visit in upcoming years.

I was pleased to be part of the celebration for the momentous day, and I ask all the members of this House to recognize this wonderful occasion with me, and I also ask all the members of this hon. House to join me in wishing the Heritage Committee of Sunnyside all the success in their future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & La Poile.

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

It gives me great pleasure today to rise and congratulate Mr. George Robert Parsons of Rose Blanche on the recent celebration of his 101st birthday.

Mr. Parsons was born in Rose Blanche on July 22, 1909. He had five brothers, five sisters, and he and two sisters still remain. On April 16, 1936, he married Mary Elizabeth Payne; and they had four daughters and one son, of which their son is now deceased. Mr. and Mrs. Parsons spent their married life at Rose Blanche, where Mr. Parsons was self-employed as a fisherman. Unfortunately, Mary passed away last April, shortly after their seventy-third wedding anniversary. Mr. Parsons is still living in his own home. He spends his time watching TV and strolling down to the local stage, as well as being active in his shed.

Mr. Parsons continues to live in relatively good health. He is currently at the Dr. Charles LeGrow Health Centre, but his daughter tells us he is expected to be released any day, and his doctor informed them that he has the blood pressure of a teenager. He has fourteen grandchildren, twenty-two great-grandchildren, and four great-great-grandchildren. For the past number of years, his birthday is a major celebration in the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou. His family hosts an open house at his home with family, friends, and music. He has all his faculties, he is adored by his community, and he has a very supportive family.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending 101st birthday greetings to Robert George Parsons. All the best, Mr. Parsons, to you and your family.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a much beloved lady in the Town of Meadows.

Born in Ramea, Minnie Vallis left her home at the age of fourteen to start her teaching career. At the age of sixteen, Mrs. Vallis was teaching in Fortune Bay, married and expecting her first child.

Since that time, Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Vallis, with the experience she gained as a teacher, centered her focus on assisting others. She spent her lifetime as a social reformer working beside students, youth, seniors, communities, and people with disabilities and caregivers.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, October 8 of this year, Minnie, as she is affectionately known, was recognized for her lifetime service to the people and communities of Newfoundland and Labrador. Minnie was presented with the Doctor of Laws degree at the fall convocation of Memorial University, Corner Brook campus.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members here today to recognize Minnie Vallis for her past achievements and we look forward to working with her in years to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, just over one year ago, on November 2, 2009, the provincial government assumed responsibility for the design and delivery of EI-funded Employment Benefits and Support Measures through the Labour Market Development Agreement.

In 2010-2011, the Province will deliver over $146 million through these programs that assist EI-eligible individuals to participate in training programs, to start their own business, to find work or to gain valuable work experience.

Through programs like the Job Creation Partnership and the Labour Market Partnership, the LMDA is also supporting community partners and industry in carrying out initiatives to address their human resource challenges or to enhance community infrastructure.

This fiscal year, we have supported over 10,000 individuals in accessing work experience opportunities, participating in training, or in starting their own business.

The Province has approved 264 new Job Creation Partnership projects supporting 1,380 individuals. The total investment for these projects has been $13.6 million this year.

We have been making unprecedented investments in skills development. We have already invested over $97.7 million this fiscal year, compared to $94.8 million for the whole of last year, and there is more to come. We have supported over 9,000 individuals in starting or completing their programs, including 1,382 new apprentices.

At the same time we are continuing to learn a great deal as to how we can better shape the LMDA programs to meet the needs of the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador and our provincial priorities.

Through the remainder of this fiscal year, we will continue to review and make adjustments to the LMDA programs and services with a focus on better streamlining business processes and increasing consistency in policies and practices for clients across the Province.

We will standardize and harmonize intake periods for skills development applications and other LMDA programs, such as the Job Creation Partnership program, to help ensure more responsive application processing times.

We will introduce new approval processes for grant-based programs to ensure that they are better aligned with provincial and regional economic priorities; and we will review our skills development supports, such as amounts provided for living allowances, to make sure participants throughout the Province have fair and equitable access to these benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of our accomplishments since the devolution of the LMDA programming and expect that 2011-2012 will be a hallmark year for these programs.

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 an advance copy of her statement, and to say that the Labour Market Development Agreement, no doubt, is a long-standing historic agreement that began way back in 1997.

We also have to remember, when we talk about the facts and figures the minister mentioned, about the unemployment rates that we see here in the city of 7.8 per cent, about the average throughout rural Newfoundland and Labrador being 17.9 per cent, there is no doubt that those programs are tremendous programs to help those to get ready for the labour market, Mr. Speaker, but one of the things we really have to do, which was mentioned yesterday in the private member's motion, we have to make sure of the retention of our young people so that they can find jobs right here in our own Province. We have to invest in literacy, too, Mr. Speaker, so people can be prepared for those programs. I know that is happening because we have a facility in my district, the Discovery Centre, where people do accept the responsibility.

There are two things the minister mentioned, that I am glad government is going to try to correct. One is them is: We will standardize and harmonize intake periods to help ensure more responsive application processing at times; and the other one is to make sure that the amount is provided for living allowances to help the participants be able to take part in the program.

I know, Mr. Speaker, those are issues that are of concern to many individuals, but I have to say - and I congratulate them - that the job creation program and the labour market partnerships are two wonderful programs and we look forward to them continuing into the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

I am glad to see government looking at the Labour Market Development Agreement in terms of amending it to make it more flexible and responsive to our local economy and labour force needs here in this Province. That is one of the benefits of the program: LMDA having been downloaded and the partnership program as well to the provincial level where the Province is managing the money that used to be managed under Human Resources and Labour.

One of the big benefits is that now we can shape programs to meet our needs here, but we do have needs that the programs, especially the LMDA, do not meet. Of course, the LMDA programs are EI funds, and there are young people who have not yet accumulated enough hours for EI, or not being paid EI premiums, who cannot access those programs if need be. Yet, they desperately need training and upgrading. There are also women who maybe have not been in the workforce, or have been for short periods of time and have not, either, had the ability to access EI funded programs.

So, I would like to see more employment training programs in place. I know there are some things that have been done to help women. For example, women, who I am aware of, who did the Orientation to Trades and Technology Program, went on in training. There was money allotted for the OTT; it was not EI eligible.

So, the government has been creative and I look forward to seeing more creative thoughts coming as to how we can make the program flexible for us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to bring attention to International Human Rights Day. Each year, December 10 is set aside in recognition of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. This year's theme is, Speak Up, Stop Discrimination, during which time we are encouraged to celebrate the dedication of human rights defenders who work to end discrimination.

In this Province, Mr. Speaker, our government works tirelessly to protect human rights and freedoms for each and every Newfoundlander and Labradorian. It is vital that no one in our society be subjected to discrimination in any form. The protection of human rights and human dignity is fundamental to the proper functioning of any society.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I was pleased to stand in this hon. House and introduce a new Human Rights Act that is progressive and sets the course for protection of the human rights for residents of this Province. That new legislation has now replaced the Human Rights Code, which first came into force in 1971.

The new Human Rights Act contains four major changes that reflect the society we live in today and further help to protect the rights and dignity of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

We changed the title from a code to an act and have added a preamble because we believe, Mr. Speaker, this is important as it signifies to everyone in our Province that this legislation is law. We have modernized the language to reflect the changing ideas and attitudes of our society. We have expanded the protections afforded under the act in two ways – by adding new grounds of discrimination and by expanding the definition of discrimination. Finally, we have improved the procedure for the processing of complaints with the Human Rights Commission.

Mr. Speaker, we have also proven our commitment to the protection of human rights through our continued support of the Human Rights Commission in this Province. Funding for the commission now, Mr. Speaker, stands at over $1 million thanks to the investments of this government.

Mr. Speaker, our investments in human rights and our significant new legislation serve as the guideposts for how we treat each other in our society and I am confident it reflects the values of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and will do so for many years to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

We, of course, in Canada have long been known throughout the world as being staunch defenders of human rights and freedoms throughout the country and throughout the world. Some countries and the inhabitants of certain countries in the world live in very atrocious circumstances when we talk about human rights. We are very fortunate to live in a country where we not only have them but we make sure they are heavily enforced and carried through on.

It was great to see that we did in fact have an overhaul, after forty years, of our Human Rights Act that came in, in 1971. Over the course of time, of course, circumstances change, people expect more political circumstances, different ideals in our society, and our new act certainly reflects some of those.

We feel there are some shortcomings in terms of the definition when it comes to disfigurement, for example. We made those issues known when we debated the legislation, and government did not see fit at that time to follow through. I am sure over the course of time some of these things, as they are implemented and go through the human rights systems and appeal process, some time again we might, I suspect, find our way back here to amend the code in that regard. That is a good thing when we acknowledge that it is not all right in the first place and we are prepared to be open-minded and accept changing laws as times change.

With regard to the Human Rights Commission, the minister is certainly well aware that we feel, as an Opposition Party, and a lot of people in this Province feel, that the Human Rights Commission should be distinct and at arm's-length from government. Although it is funded by government, it should be distinct from government so that it is stand-alone and it is not influenced by the paymaster – in any way, shape or form – who puts the money into its operations. We feel that is a legitimate way to operate and hopefully we will see the day when it is, in fact, a stand-alone agency.

Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a day to be recognized: human rights, not only in this Province but throughout the world, actually. We need to be vigilant as people to make sure that we continue to be staunch defenders of human rights and freedoms, and a leader when it comes to implementation of those rights.

Thank you.

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. It is important that we mark December 10 as the day of human rights throughout the world. It is something that we should always be grateful for; that we have come to the point that we have come internationally, of recognizing basic rights for all human beings.

I welcome the opportunity to raise some points with regard to our own legislation. I am, in many ways, very pleased with the new act, but there were issues that I raised in consultations, and issues I spoke to when we passed the act, that I hope someday we will revisit and make changes in our legislation with regard to them.

One, of course, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that our party also believes that the Human Rights Commission should be a truly independent body such as the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, or the Office of the Auditor General. Of all of our statutory offices it should stand alone and it should be independent, funded by government, but be able to be accountable to the minister while standing alone.

There were some things that we wanted to see in our new legislation. For example, the social model of disability which was adopted by the UN is not in our code. We still have a medical definition of disability which places the disability in the person, whereas the UN has a definition that looks at disability from the social context. That is something, I would hope, that we would continue to look at and the minister would see as something that he would be willing to change.

Another thing I would have liked to have seen in our new code is the recognition of protection to transsexuals and transgendered individuals, but not including the words gender identity and gender expression under the grounds.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the time to make these points. I would have liked to have done it in a more silent room, but thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

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

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Premier was asked to provide information which would justify her claim that power from Holyrood is more expensive in the long term than power from Muskrat Falls. Once again, she failed to provide that information. She did say, however, that the cost of refurbishing Holyrood, and I quote: well over almost $1 billion.

Well, we have gone through Nalcor's filings with the Public Utilities Board, and the total cost of refurbishing Holyrood, over the next twenty years, comes to something like $800 million. A mistake, a mere mistake of some $200 million right there, and it is certainly a lot less than the $6.2 billion it will cost to develop Muskrat Falls.

My question for the Premier is: Why, Premier, are you intent on portraying Holyrood as being more costly than it actually is?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in the House earlier this week, the Acting Leader of the Opposition made a claim that I had failed to provide information, or that I had said information was available through the Internet that he could not find. Mr. Speaker, I went back upstairs; my assistant, within one minute, downloaded the document he was referring to from the Internet. I immediately sent a copy to him. Mr. Speaker, I brought a copy to table later today, because it would not be unlike the Leader of the Opposition to say that he still did not have his hands on it.

Mr. Speaker, on page two, I do believe, of that document –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to conclude her answer.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: On page two of that document, Mr. Speaker, is the loading forecast. On page six of that document is the costing. In there lies his answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Now that the Premier has had an opportunity to try to deflect things again, Premier, would you like to try a simple answer?

Why are you, on one page, saying that it is going to be over $1 billion on Holyrood, and the actual figures you have filed through the PUB, over twenty years, is going to be $800 million?

Now, that is a $200 million mistake, Premier. Would you like to explain that to the people?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it has been stated quite clearly by the President and CEO of Nalcor that just the precipitators and scrubbers for Holyrood will be between $600 and $800 million. Mr. Speaker, there will be approximately another $250 million needed to do plant upgrades and renovations in Holyrood.

Now, I know they were having trouble with math yesterday around the ferries; they are having the same problem today. So, a huge cost to refurbishing Holyrood, Mr. Speaker.

More than that, and probably more importantly, Mr. Speaker, we are still tied to thermal generation and the price of oil which will drive electricity costs in this Province well into the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Premier mentioned the thermal generation again, because she certainly created the impression amongst the public that the thermal plant at Holyrood supplies most of the energy on this Island, for some reason or other. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The truth is that Holyrood provides somewhere – it varies – from 15 per cent to 25 per cent of the Island's total energy needs annually. It then fluctuates. The other 80 per cent of our energy comes from hydroelectric sources, clean hydroelectric sources here in the Province. Yet, the Premier would have us believe that because oil prices are projected to go up some 50 per cent in the long term, our electricity bills also go up that much if we do not build Muskrat Falls. I cannot understand the logic.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose his question.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes.

Would the Premier answer: If Holyrood supplies only 20 per cent of our energy, how would our oil prices on that 20 per cent drive up our overall bills by 50 per cent?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Acting Leader of the Opposition takes small pieces of information and tries to make a broad argument for his position, but it is flawed, fundamentally flawed. The thing that the people of the Province understand is that the Public Utilities Board governs electricity or power supply in this Province. Nalcor is legislated to provide the least-cost electricity to the people of the Province. So, Mr. Speaker, you have to look at what constitutes less cost. You have to be able to justify it to the Public Utilities Board, and you have to be able to explain what the load forecast is and how you are going to meet it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I say to the Premier, that was a pretty helpful explanation to the people of the Province as well. Fluff it off now and say that the Public Utilities Board is going to make the determination.

Premier, we will continue to answer the small pieces because, rather than take a thirty-eight-page term sheet that nobody in government is prepared to explain in this House, we are going to keep your feet to the fire so that you will explain it. Absolutely!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the Premier said the cost of generation from Muskrat, if developed, would be 14.3 cents per kilowatt hour, and that is to bring it to the Island. That was their figure. Now, currently, a lot of that power is going to get sold and used by Newfoundland Power, who in turn transports it on to consumers here in St. John's and throughout the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose his question now.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Tacked on to the 14.3 from Nalcor is the six cents that Newfoundland Power puts on. Mr. Speaker, we do not have –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. member has a question, I ask him to pose it.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

We are not getting 14.3 cent power.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Are there any further questions?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, thank you.

Since 2006 I have been asking successive Conservative Health Ministers where their plan for a home care and long-term care program is. They all said they were working on it, but, Mr. Speaker, it was continually postponed. Finally, consultations were begun this past August; but, Mr. Speaker, there is still no sign of the report from the consultations. This week the minister announced in this House a litany of reviews, including a Province-wide skill mix review and a potential operational review in Corner Brook concerning long-term care, but no mention of the report.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: When are we going to see the home care and long-term care plan that should alleviate these problems? When are we going to see action from government, instead of talk, on home care and long-term care?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I indicated earlier this week in this House, we have conducted long-term care consultation sessions throughout the Province. We have had tremendous participation by the public. We now have to, Mr. Speaker, take all of that information, accumulate it, correlate it and essentially come up with the strategy.

Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, we have been working on this strategy for years. Look at the long-term care facilities that we have built throughout this Province: in Corner Brook, the new St. John's home, in Carbonear, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Labrador West, and Lewisporte, Mr. Speaker. We have invested significant amounts of money.

In the home care sector, Mr. Speaker, we have also increased wages. In the personal care homes, Mr. Speaker, since 2004 we have increased the rates from $1,112 to $1,717; more than $500. So, Mr. Speaker, the investments go on. As I said back last fall: We are going to do it and we will do it right.

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.

I would like to point out to the minister that money being put into infrastructure and raising salaries is not a strategy. Mr. Speaker, we are seeing over and over again that people are suffering under the present long-term care system. We see that there is insufficient staff to care adequately for patients, try as they might. Mr. Speaker, families are suffering because of government policy. The most vulnerable who do not have the wherewithal to fight for themselves are getting the short end of the stick.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Is this government going to put in adequate human and other resources for the existing facilities to take care of people before he gets his strategy in place?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier this week the Leader of the Third Party asked me about: When are we going to conduct a review of the health care system in general? I am assuming she is talking about the long-term care included in that.

Mr. Speaker, the last time that a review of the health care system, in general, was conducted in this Province, the recommendations that came back were that we would lay off hundreds of people, there would be millions of dollars in cuts, and we would centralize clinical services. Essentially, Mr. Speaker, we would take all of the services out of rural Newfoundland and Labrador and we would centralize them.

This is the kind of question that is put by the hon. member to me, Mr. Speaker, with suggestions that we close everything else down. Is she suggesting the same thing in relation to long-term care?

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.

I would point out to the minister that the very fact of the results of that study and the things that were put in place are a sign that we do need to look more at what has happened because of that study.

Mr. Speaker, government is not doing its job. Our elderly and those who need care are being shifted from one facility to another. Government's inability to deal with our long-term care issues resulted, on November 25, in a ninety-two-year-old man being forced to move a three hour's drive from his family, five days later returned to the hospital. He died a week later, all within thirteen days, Mr. Speaker.

When are we going to see, Mr. Speaker, a comprehensive home care and long-term care program that meets the needs of people and their families?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I indicated in this hon. House yesterday that I was aware of the unfortunate situation that arose with this gentleman, and I expressed sympathies to the family. I also expressed, Mr. Speaker, over the last couple of days that I am aware of the problems that have arisen in the long-term care facility in Corner Brook.

Mr. Speaker, there have been at least three public forums and open meetings with families. I indicated again yesterday that part of the problem with opening up a new facility like this, with 236 beds, is that there are issues that we have to look at: Is there enough staffing? Are we delivering services properly?

I indicated that we were willing to consider, Mr. Speaker, an operational review to ensure we have it right, because this facility is a template for the new facility in St. John's and in Carbonear. We are not afraid of the truth, Mr. Speaker, and we will go out there and find out what it is, and we will implement the policies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The Premier confirmed here this week that it was going to cost 14.3 cents per kilowatt hour for the Muskrat Falls power. We also know that the PUB currently allows Newfoundland Power, which is going to use much of that power, to recover at least six cents per kilowatt hour. Premier, that is not 14.3 cent power; that is over twenty-cent power.

Can you explain that to the people, why you are out talking about a 50 per cent increase, when in reality it is a 114 per cent increase?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is one cost associated with capital, in terms of the building of generation and transmission infrastructure to have the capacity to develop power. There is another issue in terms of operations and maintenance. Mr. Speaker, the PUB has a regulated rate of return on transmission here in the Province that is applied to Newfoundland and Labrador Power and will also be applied to Emera Energy, Mr. Speaker. They are two different things. All of the capital expenses will accumulate to $143 per megawatt hour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Again, the Premier has not explained that it is not twenty-plus cent power; it is 14.3. The PUB has not played a role in this yet.

Premier, the public has been told as well, or given the impression, that Holyrood is going to be shut down once this is all done. Yet, Nalcor, in its 2011 capital budget, says: following completion of the Lower Churchill project the Holyrood plant will continue to be an essential component of the provincial electrical grid. That does not sound like a plant closing.

Can you explain what is exactly anticipated with respect to Holyrood? Is it closing or not going to close after we inject this $6.2 billion into this project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we will not be using thermal generation from Holyrood once Muskrat Falls comes online.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, it is important that we move away from thermal generation so that we can manage the costs of power generation here in the Province, that we can provide reliable costs, that we can provide predictable costs to the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, this is clean green energy for domestic use, for industrial use. It is a good deal for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and they are reflecting that in their approval of this plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the NunatuKavut of Labrador has expressed concern over their government's lack of meaningful consultation by government with them over the Muskrat Falls proposal. They held a press conference this morning and expressed that again, and in fact, said quite clearly that if there is not consultation, there will be no Muskrat Falls without them. The Premier did answer the other day saying they would have some consultation during the environmental assessment process.

Well I say, Premier, that is not adequate, according to them, and I ask you: Is government prepared to consult with the NunatuKavut with regard to an IBA so that they are part of this process totally, as opposed to just part of the environmental assessment process?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say that this government is proud of its record with Aboriginal people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we negotiate IBAs with groups who have established land claims in the Province. Mr. Speaker, we understand that NunatuKavut has such a claim before the federal government, and we encourage the federal government to deal with that claim expeditiously. Mr. Speaker, we have negotiated a wonderful, wonderful project here with tremendous benefits for all of the people of the Province, particularly the Innu of Labrador; and secondly, to all other people in Labrador; and thirdly, to the people of the Province, generally.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good deal for Newfoundland and Labrador, it is a good deal for the Innu, and it is a good deal for the NunatuKavut.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, in December 2008, this government expropriated Abitibi assets in Grand Falls-Windsor, including a hydroelectric generating station at Star Lake.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us exactly what is the status of the Fortis stake in the Exploits generation facilities which you expropriated? For example, are you still paying Fortis for what you expropriated from them, and if so, how much?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we established a relationship with these companies from the moment we decided to expropriate. It has been a long process through bankruptcy protection, through various appeals, through the settlement of the NAFTA claim, Mr. Speaker. We are at a place now where very soon you will see legislation brought forward here in the House of Assembly so we can conclude all our arrangements and keep these companies whole and end the process, as we promised to do when we took the action earlier, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, since the government's accidental expropriation at Grand Falls-Windsor, the former AbitibiBowater paper mill has sat idle.

Mr. Speaker, my question today is: What has been the cost to date for this Province's taxpayers to mothball this facility? What have Newfoundlanders and Labradorians paid in terms of immediate environmental costs, security costs, legal fees, consulting fees, and any other costs attached to maintaining the property?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, when we took possession of the mill it was properly idled and the current status is that it remains idle with security in place waiting, I guess, to see where we go with that particular idled mill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It would still be nice to have some idea of what the cost has been to date.

For nearly two years the former Abitibi mill at Grand Falls-Windsor has been out of use. In that time, at least two companies have come forward with potential plans to revive the facility; one as recently as this past summer. In both cases, any tentative deals have fallen through before ever gaining any traction.

My question is: What, if any, plans does this government have for the expropriated mill at Grand Falls, and can we expect future use for this facility?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a number of companies that have expressed interest in the property at the Grand Falls mill area. As has been our mantra right from the beginning with this, we will evaluate all submissions to see what is in the best interest of the Central Region, seeing that we can maximize the amount of employment, maximize the value of the resource, and make sure that we maximize the return on the resource to the people of the Province. When we are finished that evaluation, I will come forth with the recommendation to Cabinet at that point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, Corner Brook Pulp and Paper are proceeding with their plan for the trial run of burning tires for fuel in their mill. Several area residents have expressed concern over the levels of emissions this may cause.

I ask the question: Can the minister confirm what guidelines, if any, were issued to Corner Brook Pulp and Paper for inclusion in their EA, and are they required to study all forms of toxins that may increase during this trial run?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

As the hon. member, I am sure, is aware, last Friday that process closed. There was some, I believe, 170 submissions to the Minister of Environment. She has ten days to review those submissions, and I have every confidence that the minister will come back with a recommendation.

Thank you.

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 am sure the minister will come back with a recommendation.

Mr. Speaker, the government is prepared to invest $4.4 billion in the Muskrat Falls deal to make our Province 7 per cent more green while, at the same time, allowing Corner Brook Pulp and Paper to proceed with their plan to burn tires for fuel.

I ask the minister: What justification do you have for allowing this company to burn tires as an alternative energy source?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the hon. member was listening or not, but I think he should listen this time because I am going to tell him exactly what is happening.

What is happening is there is a process that is unfolding. Yes, there is an assessment being done. Last Friday it ended, and the minister has ten days to respond. There have been 170 submissions and, Mr. Speaker, once they are reviewed, we will respond to that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, in the past, the Minister of Environment and Conservation and the CEO for the MMSB have indicated that other options were being considered for the use of tires that are currently stockpiled in Dunville; however, it now appears that they are wholly supporting the burning of tires as the only option.

My question to the minister is: What other options were considered for the stockpiled tires? Was it a consultant's report, and, if so, could a copy be released?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, the only thing we are supporting is that members can now buy Q-tips to clean out their ears. That is about the best thing I can advise the hon. member.

I can only tell him we have not approved the burning of tires anywhere. There are 170 submissions in. People are concerned, and rightfully so. The Minister of Environment is very informed on this topic. She will hear all the submissions and she will make a decision. The hon. member should read the paper, or have one of his researchers read the paper, and will find out the answer in the ten days allowed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I saw to the minister: We do not need Q-tips to clean out our ears, but the residents of Corner Brook might need a solution to wash out their eyes after this starts.

Mr. Speaker, the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board is a Crown agency of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador reporting to the Minister of Environment and Conservation. They have endorsed the use of tire-derived fuel at Corner Brook Pulp and Paper as a solution to tire town in Dunville.

I ask the minister: Do you consider yourself to be in a conflict of interest as your Crown agency is endorsing a plan that is currently undergoing environmental assessment, and are you able to be unbiased in your decision?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, there is a process that unfolds when anybody wants to burn tires or dispose of tires, and that process is currently happening. Last Friday was the deadline for submissions.

There were 170 submissions submitted to this government, to our minister - our Minister of Environment. Mr. Speaker, she has ten days to review all of those submissions and she will respond appropriately. To say, Mr. Speaker, that we have approved it is absolutely false.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, in the Throne Speech on March 10, 2008, government said, and I quote, "My Government will introduce whistleblower legislation this year after appropriate consultation has taken place." We know there was no whistle-blower legislation introduced in 2008. We know there was no such bill introduced in 2009. We know there was no such bill introduced up to now, December 2010.

I ask the Premier: When can we expect to see this legislation come before the House, or is this simply a promise that was conveniently made at the time but you have no intention of keeping?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, let me say from the outset that this government is very much committed to openness and accountability. That has been demonstrated through a number of initiatives that this government has participated in, including passing the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act; the Lobbyist Registration Act; and Transparency and Accountability Act.

With regard to whistle-blower legislation, this is a significant piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. A lot of work has been done it, a lot of discussions have been held on it, a lot of scanning has been done it.

The provinces that have whistle-blower legislation at the moment are undergoing the regular growing pains of new legislation. We are monitoring that to see what best practices come out of it, how it is working out, what discrepancies lie in it, so when we produce our legislation, we have the best piece of legislation we can possibly come up with.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister could tell us then - it has been three years since you promised it. We assume you had some idea of when you promised it, what you were promising. You have had three years since.

Rather than just a fluff answer, can you give us some idea of who the minister or his department consulted with in the last three years? Give us a couple of names of interested stakeholders who you have consulted with?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the department has consulted with jurisdictions all across Canada, all associations, anybody with a stakeholder interest in whistle-blower legislation. We have done a tremendous amount of work on it, a tremendous amount of consultation on it. We are monitoring existing legislation in other jurisdictions to see how it is working out. It is new in most provinces, and when we see how it works out, what discrepancies can be ironed out of these legislations, where the discrepancies are, and what the best practices are, Mr. Speaker, we will look at bringing in our legislation to serve the best needs of our public service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier this week, government announced the creation of two new safety organizations for the fishing industry. While it was a long time coming, we were pleased to see the emphasis on enhanced safety for the fishing industry, which we all know is a dangerous line of work.

The concern we have, and we have heard this expressed by many harvesters this week, is that once the three year period funding by government runs out, fishermen will be left with yet another fee to contend with. Harvesters are already facing difficult times making their profession viable in the face of challenging times in this industry. They already feel they are fee'd to death.

I ask the minister: Can you explain how these two organizations will be self-sustaining in three years time?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission dues that are paid, Mr. Speaker, are not paid by the harvesters. They are paid by the processors, for starters. Mr. Speaker, you cannot put a price on safety. We have our vessels now, Mr. Speaker, who are often smaller than the bigger ships that were once at sea, going further.

So this is an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to create an even safer environment for the fish harvesters in our Province, and secondly, for the folks that work in the plants. Mr. Speaker, if we improve that, the natural evolution is that the amount that is charged goes down. So, Mr. Speaker, within three years, we will let the process work through, and then we will see what the results will be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My question is for the Premier. The Newfoundland and Labrador Office of Federal-Provincial Relations has been without a representative for some eleven months now.

I ask the Premier, because we know this was a pet peeve of the former Premier: Do you intend to keep this office in place, and if so, when do you intend to appoint a person to that position?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will have been in this position one week tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, and I have had more pressing issues –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: – that I have had to deal with during that particular time frame, Mr. Speaker. It is certainly something that is on my radar. I am going to deal with it in the coming weeks, and at that time, when I make a decision, I will be happy to share it with you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table, in this House today, the Generation Planning Issues 2010 July Update from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Nalcor.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents.

In accordance with section 51 of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, I hereby table the annual report of the Speaker on the activities of the House of Assembly Management Commission for the 2009-2010 fiscal year.

Further tabling of documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005. (Bill 52)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Implement The Comprehensive Integrated Tax Co-ordination Agreement Between The Government Of Canada And The Government Of Newfoundland and Labrador. (Bill 46)

Mr. Speaker, I also give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 3. (Bill 44)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Public Accountants Act. (Bill 49)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Abitibi Consolidated Rights and Assets Act. (Bill 47)

Further, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. (Bill 51)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

The hon. the Government House Leader and Acting Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 45)

Further, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 No. 2. (Bill 48)

Mr. Speaker, I also give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act. (Bill 50)

Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, December 13, 2010.

Further, I give notice under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. Monday, December 13, 2010.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act, 2005, Bill 41, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act, 2005, Bill 41, and that Bill 41 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 41 and that this bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act, 2005", carried. (Bill 41)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act, 2005. (Bill 41)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 41 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 41 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 41 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Regional Health Authorities Act, Bill 42, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Regional Health Authorities Act, Bill 42, and that Bill 42 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to provide leave to introduce Bill 42 and that this bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Regional Health Authorities Act", carried. (Bill 42)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Regional Health Authorities Act. (Bill 42)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 42 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 42 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 42 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999, Bill 43, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999, Bill 43, and that Bill 43 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 43 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999", carried. (Bill 43)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 43)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 43 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 43 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 43 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Order 1, second reading of Bill 32.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act". (Bill 32)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Labrador Affairs, that Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act, be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to pay compliments to my predecessor, the current Minister of Municipal Affairs, and what I should say, I guess, is that I would like to thank him very, very, very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, the Real Estate Trading Act, what we are doing in this one is making an amendment to remove the business of real property management from the application of the act.

As most people know in this Province, real estate, especially in the Avalon area, has been very brisk over the past number of years. In fact, Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest rate of home ownership in Canada. Just recently, most people might have heard too, that housing prices in most areas of Canada are expected to increase, but in our Province of Newfoundland we are expected to lead the way again with an estimated 8 per cent increase in the average price of a home in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the Real Estate Trading Act is an act that protects consumers in their dealings with real estate salespersons and agents when purchasing or selling a property. Not everyone can do that. The educational requirements to be met before an individual can call themselves a real estate agent or a salesperson, they have to do a certain course of study and be knowledgeable in the real estate transactions. Once they are licensed to become involved in that business, they certainly are expected to act in an ethical manner in all dealings that they do with consumers; because what we are talking about, Mr. Speaker, is the protection of the consumers interest.

This legislation that we are talking about now is the protection of consumers in the sale and purchase of property. The item that we are talking about removing from this act today of real property managers does not really fit in the business of buying and selling properties. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it was never the intent of the Real Estate Trading Act to have included dealings with respect to property managers. Mr. Speaker, that is why we are removing that, or asking to have this removed from the Real Estate Trading Act.

Just to give an example, I guess, of what we are talking about in terms of property managers, is that if I own a property and I wanted to sell it - or not wanted to sell it, but if I wanted to pass it on to a person to look after that property for me, to collect the rent, to see that repairs were made as needed and things like that. These things were never intended, like I said before, to be a part of the Real Estate Trading Act. That is what we are talking about removing from this act. Mr. Speaker, one really important thing about this removal is that the rights of tenants will still be protected and these rights will be protected through the Residential Tenancies Act.

Mr. Speaker, that is the only comment that I have to make at the beginning of this debate. I look forward now to hearing comments from the other members.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say it is a pleasure to be able to stand today and make a few comments with regard to the Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act, Bill 32.

Before I get into my few comments I want to congratulate the minister on this being his first piece of legislation, his first bill that he will put before the House. Even if we were against it, I guess he would not have much trouble getting it put through the House of Assembly.

This is a piece of legislation that we know it is a minor change, but a very important change, Mr. Speaker. All too often, we see changes, even though they are minor, they are something that has to be done to protect the consumer. Mr. Speaker, that is the sole purpose behind most legislation that we see coming forward.

It was only today – we know that we do it many times in conjunction with other jurisdictions, and it was only this afternoon we heard the Minister of Justice saying with regard to the whistleblower legislation, they were sizing up what is happening in other jurisdictions. I am sure many of the points that other provinces use will be a part of our legislation when it comes forward. Mr. Speaker, a lot of times it is basically housekeeping, like the minister mentioned. It may be an addition of a sentence or a word. It may be a deletion of a word or two, but the main thing is that it is a part of the legislation where people, the salespersons and agents, make sure that the consumers are protected at all times.

With this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, in section 1, really what it does, the punctuation in section 1 has been adjusted in order to remove real property management from the definition of trade and confirms that the act does not apply to real property management. I think the minister explained that. He went on to say that, really, this probably should not have been a part of this piece of legislation. I guess one of the key things and one of the questions I had for the minister, and I will pose them probably in a little different way, but it is good to see that this piece that is being taken from this legislation will still be – those people will be covered under the Residential Tenancies Act.

I know last year, through the Department of Government Services, there were other pieces of legislation that came in, like the Condominium Act and so on. So, really, even though it has been taken out, it is not that those people will be ignored totally.

Mr. Speaker, another part in section 4 has been adjusted to specifically exclude persons involved in property management. Basically, overall, the sum total of amendments in this act is to make sure to exclude persons involved in property management from this particular act. This act, on a whole, pertains to real estate agents, as the minister explained, and regulating the conduct of their business.

Under trade, it goes on to reference, it says, (i) a disposition or acquisition of property; (ii) an offer to list real estate for sale; (iii) a negotiation to further a sale, and (iv) is what is being deleted, the real estate property management as a section of government. Mr. Speaker, as the minister stated, there are no major changes here; it is just a deletion of the part when we reference real property management.

The question I had for the minister, I was wondering: By removing it from this piece of legislation, where would it be covered under other legislation? I think he already answered that for me, because he said those people would be covered under the Residential Tenancies Act.

I know there was another piece of legislation last year; I am not quite sure if it was called the Condominium Act or something pertaining to similar issues. It is good to see that it is not just being taken away, eliminated from this act, but it is also being covered off somewhere else.

As the minister stated, this piece of legislation solely looks after the real estate end of it. It is good to know that what is being done here, the consumer will be protected.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my place.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Minister of Government Services speaks now, he will close the debate on second reading of this bill, Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Member for Port de Grave for his comments. He is correct in that tenants who were involved with property managers, they will automatically be covered through the Residential Tenancies Act. So, it will not have any bearing at all upon these people.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add, too, that the property managers themselves, they have been requesting that they be removed from this Real Estate Trading Act because they did not see the point of being involved there anyway. Also, the Building Owners and Management Association have been fully supportive of having them removed.

Mr. Speaker, on that, I would like to conclude second reading on this bill.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House to move second reading of Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act?

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 Real Estate Trading Act. (Bill 32)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 32 has now been read a second time.

When shall Bill 32 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 32)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I want to call from the Order Paper, Order 2, second reading of Bill 33.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 2, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 2". (Bill 33)

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

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to begin second reading. I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture that Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 2, be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 33 is an act that will be amended and it will allow consumers to start an action, a court action, against the manufacturer. What we will be doing is broadening the definition of the word supplier to include a person engaged in the business of manufacturing, importing, producing or assembling goods. Right now, Mr. Speaker, that is not included in our legislation. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we are the only Province in Canada where that is not included in our legislation. By removing that requirement, that will put it in order then to start an action of consumers entering into transactions dealing with suppliers.

Mr. Speaker, the Consumer Protection and Business Practices Act is new legislation which consolidates several different pieces of legislation that came into effect last year. This new act took the place of, I think, probably seven or eight, or eight or nine old acts that were in our legislation. I know some of them were: the Consumer Protection Act; Direct Sellers Act; the Trade Practices Act; and there were four or five more. So, these were all repealed.

The intent of the act is to prohibit unfair and unconscionable business transactions and provide remedies for wronged consumers. That is the principal purpose of this piece of legislation.

One of the old pieces of legislation that it replaced, the Consumer Protection and Business Practices Act, was the Trade Practices Act, as I mentioned earlier. It has come to the department's attention, Mr. Speaker, that the act limited the definition of the word supplier that was included in the legislation. It did not specifically include or it did not involve people who were in the manufacturing part of the supplier business, or importing, or producing, or assembling of goods.

Mr. Speaker, this came about, as some people may recall, a year or so ago. Ches Crosbie Barristers took a class action suit against Imperial Tobacco. In that class action suit, what it involved was the taking of that company to court with respect to advertising that they used for some of their tobacco products. The lawyer felt that it was not appropriate and it was misleading. As a result, this came to our attention, and that is one of the main reasons, I guess, because that is where his court case stopped, when it came to the interpretation of the judge in word supplier. It did not mean the manufacturers of the tobacco products in this particular case.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, Newfoundland and Labrador is the only jurisdiction that does not have this definition of supplier in its legislation. What we are saying by broadening the definition of supplier, it will be more encompassing of all suppliers in the business community, not just the retailers or the wholesalers but everyone involved in that product.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, we will remove some wording in section 10, which is in the same spirit as the definition of supplier. Currently, that section in the current act states that a consumer has the right to start an action in court where a consumer has entered into a transaction with a supplier and has suffered damages as a result of unfair business practice or unconscionable act or practice. By removing the words - as we are doing - entered into a transaction, we are removing a limited interpretation of the wording and also removing a limitation of the actions of a consumer in seeking compensation for damages.

Mr. Speaker, basically that is what this piece of legislation is all about. Right now, I will conclude my remarks on this part of the debate and leave the floor open to any other member who would like to participate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Like I said earlier, it is a pleasure to be able to stand and make a few comments with regard to Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 2.

Like the minister stated, this is a fairly new piece of legislation that was brought forward last year by his former colleague and replaces some six, seven or eight pieces of legislation.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, similar to what I said earlier, what we are doing here today is, again, protection for the consumer. From time to time, changes have to be made to make sure that should take place. It is good to hear the minister saying where this came from, because with regard to the issue with tobacco products and how it went before the courts, the definition of a supplier and where it could go.

Mr. Speaker, there are many incidents like that. I know there is another piece of legislation that is probably being worked on and the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, the late minister, I know she referenced one time a definition of what a car wreck was. So many times different pieces of legislation – it might only seem minor but it means a lot when you go out into the community and whether a municipality can sue somebody for having old wrecks on their property and so on. So that is where that stands.

This, Mr. Speaker, is similar. Really what it is doing is expanding on what a supplier is to include someone who offers or advertises goods for sale, also engaging in consumer transactions and manufacturing, importing, and assembling goods.

Mr. Speaker, we all know today in this modern world that we live in there are so many scenarios put before our people, whether it is purchasing on the Internet – we hear talk of the eBay situations – the TV shopping and so on. Many times people make purchases regardless of what the product is. All too often if there is something wrong the reply that comes back is: Well, I am sorry you have it; there is nothing we can do. Many times when people get those products come, it is just as well for them to keep it even if it is damaged because it costs just as much to send it back to the manufacturer or the shippers, so they are stuck with it anyway.

Mr. Speaker, there are many situations when it comes to this bill where there are unfair business practices. They include things like representing that a good has some sort of approval or sponsorship. Many times there are products that are placed before us and they are saying: Look, this is a really good product; it is similar to this and it is similar to that. All too often we know that is not the situation. We see products representing that a good has a particular standard when it does not. We might know of a product that has been in the marketplace for many years and someone saying this new product is of the same standard when we know full well it is not. The consumer before this legislation that is being brought forward did not have much choice in the matter.

We also know, Mr. Speaker, representing a good to be a particular style or origin or model. All too often, and I know in just this example I am going to use, I have heard people say they have gone to one clothing store and bought something, went to another one with the same brand name on it, but they soon found out it was not the same product. So the supplier or the manufacturer – probably an undercover agent – was doing this, but when they got this product, there was very little they could do with it.

It also means representing that a good is new, when it is used. Many times, and I know I have been caught in this one, you go buy something, whether it is a part for a vehicle or whatever it is, from some supplier. All too often you find out that it was used or remanufactured or what have you, but you bought it as if it was a new product. Mr. Speaker, under this legislation now, I believe that individuals will be protected.

Also, representing that goods have a particular prior history, when in fact they do not. How often do we hear talk of items that are for sale, and they say, well, this has been proven or that has been proven, but probably it only came on the market recently and there was no history behind it at all. We can also talk about representing that a particular good has a particular advantage, when in fact, it does not. All too often, people are led down the garden path with issues such as this.

So it is good to see the changes in this bill, Mr. Speaker. It is good to see that this will also probably cut off false advertising that we see many times, whether a brand is good or bad versus some other brand. To know that the word supplier has been expanded to include those other transactions, I think, is a great thing for the consumer, and Bill 33, I believe, is meant to do just that; to protect the consumer and put in place legislation that will correct the wrongs that have been done in the past.

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 am very happy to have time to speak to the bill that we are dealing with here today, An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act, which is dealing with a very important issue in our society right now, and has been for a long time; that is making changes to a bill that does relate to the whole issue of smoking in our society.

I think what we have here, Mr. Speaker, is a real example of the devil is in the details, because, as the minister has pointed out, the reason for the main change that is taking place in the bill today is that there was a class action lawsuit against a tobacco manufacturer by a private law firm. The lawsuit was dismissed by the courts on a technicality, and the technicality was: Who is the supplier of the tobacco product? So, it is extremely important that we are taking time to spell out who is the supplier.

The supplier now is much broader than the former meaning, which was mainly the retailer was the supplier. The supplier now means somebody who actually directly or indirectly, in the course of business, "(i) offers or advertises the sale of goods or services to a consumer, (ii) engages in consumer transaction…or (iii) manufacturers, imports, produces or assembles …" So, it is a much broader definition. There are many, many more people than just the retailer involved in supplying tobacco and tobacco products.

What this amendment will do, and I suspect we are going to see it happen, is that the amendment is going to allow the type of lawsuit that was brought before to be brought forward again. This time there will not be a technicality standing in the way of those lawsuits. It will still remain to be seen whether or not a judge would agree with the contention of the lawsuit, but at least the lawsuit will get heard; it will not be thrown out on a technicality, which is extremely important.

We all know the harmful effects of smoking and we know that tobacco companies are more and more in our society being found responsible in the courts for the health consequences on people who use their products. Of course this is resulting in the tobacco industry and individual tobacco companies becoming more active in lobbying governments with regard to legislation. I suspect that there are tobacco companies out there who are watching us in this room here today and who are not happy with the changes that are being made in this act, because they know that it is going to make it easier at least for a lawsuit to get heard in the courts, which is absolutely essential because consumers have to have the right to complain. They have to have the right to bring causes to the law courts if they feel that they have been treated unjustly or not fairly.

As I said, I am sure that there are all kinds of people out there in this industry who are not happy. I wonder to what degree have some of them tried to have access here; tried to have access to our own ministers to try to bring to bear on our ministers what they have brought to bear on the ministers in Ottawa. We have a very sad thing happening right now that our federal government – the Conservative government in Ottawa – spent six years and nearly $4 million developing new health warnings on cigarette packages.

We now have a decision in Ottawa which is very disturbing, because yesterday we get a big announcement with regard to the fact that the government is backing down from expanding warning labels on cigarette packages. We do know that this action by the government in Ottawa has been taken because of really heavy lobbying that was going on. Tobacco company lobbyists waged a co-ordinated, sometimes secretive lobbying campaign. Nothing around lobbying in Ottawa is supposed to be secretive and yet, research is showing that this is, in actual fact, what has happened.

It has been noted, for example, on The National CBC news, that Canada's three major tobacco companies employed lobbyists with strong ties to the government in Ottawa. This government has not shown itself open to that. This government itself has shown a concern about tobacco companies and the use of tobacco. I certainly would see the action that our government is taking today as a sign that they are not susceptible. We have a high rate of smoking here in this Province. While we do know that it is going down somewhat, it is still very, very high.

A Memorial University study in October of this year has shown some dangers around smoking. It is really good to know that our own university is doing this research. The study is called Tobacco Smoking and Colorectal Cancer - which is a high cancer here in this Province - a population-based, case-control study in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have the highest incidence of colorectal cancer in Canada. Globally, colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of death from cancer in men and the fourth leading cause of death from cancer in females. Researchers here in our Province found a significant association between smoking cigarettes and colorectal cancer.

This is another case where people probably did not recognize that smoking can affect us in causing colorectal cancer. People now know that, of course, it is directly related to lungs, and they know there is a relationship to heart, but there is also a relationship to colorectal cancer. So, it is very important with the high rate of this particular cancer in this Province, and with the high rate of smoking, even though it is slowly going down, that our government is taking this action to make sure that if people feel the need to take action through lawsuits, that they will have more of a protection in bringing those lawsuits into the justice system.

I thank the minister for the action. I thank him for this amendment that is being made, and, of course, I will be supporting this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Government Services speaks now he will close the debate on second reading of Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 2.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to express my appreciation to the hon. Member for Port de Grave and the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi for their comments on this bill.

The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is right, in that by the passing of this legislation we will now be able to give permission to Ches Crosbie Barristers in that particular lawsuit against Imperial Tobacco to resume that case. That in itself is very, very important, or I should say very, very, very important maybe. In any event, Mr. Speaker, it is an important issue and something that could affect a large number of people in this Province.

Also, one other point on that; by doing this now, we will also be harmonizing this piece of legislation with all of the other jurisdictions in Canada.

On that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude second reading on Bill 33.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 33 be now read a second 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 Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 2. (Bill 33)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 33 has now been read a second time.

When shall Bill 33 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 2", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 33)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we go to Order 3, second reading of Bill 34.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 34, An Act To Amend The Mortgage Brokers Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Mortgage Brokers Act". (Bill 34)

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

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that Bill 34, An Act To Amend The Mortgage Brokers Act, be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the Mortgage Brokers Act will provide greater enforcement abilities to the Department of Government Services in the enforcement and the protection of consumer interests from unethical and improper acts of mortgage brokers in this Province. Many of the provisions that we are bringing forward in this piece of legislation are similar to those other acts that the government brought forward last spring by my predecessor. What it does is ensure harmonization with the other sections of legislation that is with this department.

Some of the specifics that I would like to point out, first of all, is one that includes where a judge is now being able to issue a search warrant for one of our investigators to enter and search a private dwelling where it is believed that evidence of violations of the act is located. In the present legislation, Mr. Speaker, that was not included. We will also be able to seize actual documents or records as opposed to only being able to take copies of these records. This will ensure that original documents are available for court purposes and also eliminate the possibility of altered documents showing up at a later date in the court process.

In today's age of computers, business transactions are recorded electronically and that is common pretty well wherever you go now, Mr. Speaker, in this Province, whether it is in an urban centre or in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. With laptop computers and mobile storage devices, these business records of mortgage brokers can be kept anywhere, including in a private dwelling. Our investigators need the ability to seize these records wherever located.

A judge, Mr. Speaker, will also be able to issue a production order requiring a person that is not under investigation but has documents that pertain to non-compliance with the legislation, to pass over these records. This process of obtaining evidence from a third party is more efficient and less disruptive than using a search warrant, as a business will be ordered to produce copies of required documents and to pass them over to an investigator within a required period of time.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments will also provide authority for investigators and examiners to summon and enforce a person to testify and to produce documents in relation to a particular case. This enables an investigator or examiner to gather evidence from a person who is reluctant to co-operate with the investigator or the examiner. The amendments also make it an offence to obstruct or interfere with an investigator or an examiner in a course of a lawful investigation or examination. This will provide a deterrent to those who may consider not co-operating, as we have seen in a number of cases in the past.

Also, Mr. Speaker, a very important of this legislation is the fact that in the current act a person who violates the act must be charged within three years from the date the violation occurs. This simply means that by the passage of time a person can avoid being penalized for their fraudulent acts or whatever. This is not fair, Mr. Speaker, to the consumer who realizes in year four that they have been taken advantage of by the system.

The new provision in this new legislation gives the registrar two years instead of three years from the date he or she became aware of the violation. That is the important point about this: before it was three years, they had three years from the time the violation occurred, but in this new piece of legislation it will be done within two years of the time that we became aware of the violation, even though it might have occurred four or five years previous. So, that is an important piece of this legislation.

Also the new penalty provisions increases imprisonment and the amount of fines that can be levied. The imprisonment term will be increased from nine months to, under the new legislation, two years. Also, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the penalties incurred, right now the maximum that can be charged is a $2,000 fine; however, we are proposing, in this new legislation, to have that amount increased to $100,000.

These two changes, in particular, will act as a deterrent to those who would look to scam consumers of their hard-earned money. In this Province, a mortgage broker last year - as probably most people may remember - was charged with fifty-one counts of fraud against a private individual. Mr. Speaker, I think it was something over a half a million dollars that this person was charged with for defrauding an individual. Mr. Speaker, those kinds of things cannot go on any longer.

There is a greater awareness now, by consumers, that financial products are used as a means to scam consumers. These provisions in this new act will help establish greater consumer confidence that the government is now able to more efficiently and effectively investigate and charge those who violate the Mortgage Brokers Act.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks now and let the other members have whatever comments they want to make.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I have to say it is a pleasure to be able to stand once again to have a few comments with regard to Bill 34, An Act To Amend The Mortgage Brokers Act.

Mr. Speaker, I will not delay it very long, but I think the minister covered it all off. I think one of the key components in this piece of legislation is the last part that he did mention, the fines that will be imposed against individuals, and rightly so. I know the minister also mentioned that it is very important - and I know there were quite a few pieces of legislation last year from his department that went through, and I would have to say each and every one of them had the best interests of the consumer at heart, and also to harmonize with other jurisdictions throughout our country. Many times, when something happens in this Province or another province, if we do not have the same legislation that joins the issues together properly, then a major problem, no doubt, can result from that.

The minister mentioned, with regard to this piece of legislation, where the registrar can now appoint a deputy of mortgage brokers, and that individual can pass along to the individuals to see that they can conduct an investigation. I guess the only question I have, and the minister can respond at the end, I am just wondering: Are those people within your department now who are eligible to conduct this, or is this something that would have to be brought in, new people hired on or what have you, to carry out those acts? There are probably people in your department who are doing that now for other pieces of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing, based on that, I was just wondering what the qualifications would have to be. I would think they would have to be fairly well trained, because they are going to be people who are going to enter other premises. Sometimes it can be a dangerous situation, so they are going to have to be on the security side of the equation.

Mr. Speaker, as the minister stated, all too often we hear of situations, and he mentioned one where fifty-one counts were done by a mortgage broker last year against a private individual. We know that the consumers, the individuals of our Province, they work hard for the dollars that they have. Then they go into a situation with the greatest interest at heart and find that something like this should happen. I believe that legislation like this, and other pieces of legislation that have been revised last year - and I am sure there are more coming; the minister announced more today - have to be done to protect the people of our Province. We live in an age, not only with mortgage brokers or any other issues, the many scams that are ongoing that he referenced. All too often people get wrapped up in it. A lot of our seniors become involved and, before long, their money is gone, and they do not realize what is happening.

It is good to see that this piece of legislation will help to protect those people and make it more a deterrent for anyone to try to get involved. When you look at the fines part of it, as the minister mentioned, a maximum now in our legislation is $2,000. To see that jump to $100,000, I think that is going to make some people think before they really get involved. I guess we will never stop it all, people will have ways around it and means to do it, but this is one way.

To know that the limitation is there now - I think he said before, it is possible that it could be a nine-month imprisonment term, but now it is to a maximum of two years. That, in conjunction with the fines, I think is what the consumers, the individuals of this Province, would want to see.

To know that they can also go in, take the documents and make sure that those documents cannot be tampered with in the future, because many times - I am not only referencing mortgage brokers or anyone else - once they see the actual documents and what is going to be brought forward in a time frame before the courts, many times they are altered. In this case, once you can go in and do that, I am sure that will be taken care of.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, I think this is a good piece of legislation. I can assure you we will be supporting it, because most all the legislation that comes from that department is to help individuals. It is not controversial. It is issues that have to be brought forward and they are brought forward in a timely manner. It is to be in conjunction with other jurisdictions, but also to strengthen our laws so that the individuals who we represent, each and every one of us, the consumer can have added protection that they know that their concerns are taken care of.

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.

Again, I am very happy to stand and speak to this bill, which is An Act To Amend The Mortgage Brokers Act. Again, it is important in the lives of consumers in this Province, and once again, as with the former bill that we discussed here this afternoon, there is always a reason why amendments are being brought to an act. Of course this bill is bringing a change to the Act To Amend The Mortgage Brokers Act. Whenever something like that happens something has happened, something has occurred. We did have a very public case here in this Province, Mr. Speaker, called the Sterling Norman case, where an individual made big profits on mortgages and promised investors huge returns and then lost people's money. When investigators tried to deal with this case they could not get access to the evidence that was located in the home of that person. That became very, very significant. Now the person was found guilty down the road but this became something that was recognized as a real stumbling block and it is one of the big pieces of this legislation. One of the most important parts of the pieces is allowing those who are qualified and who are appointed to investigate, allowing them access to evidence in the home of the mortgage broker.

Now I understand and we had a little briefing actually – my office – from people in the department. I do understand that things are much better in this Province right now with regard to licensed mortgage brokers. We would hope that the use of this act will not have to be used very often in this Province. We are growing up; we are maturing in the industry here in the Province. Most people now are trained. They are self-regulating to protect clients and their own reputations. They do have a concern and of course right now mortgage brokers do not charge their clients directly any more – the fee comes from the banks. So things have changed a lot in the Province.

However, we have to make sure that, even with all of that, any individual who may be inclined to cheat people of money will be deterred. So that is why the other part of the act is so important, the deterrence factor. The fact of the fine going up so astronomically which is extremely important; the fact that if you have to go to prison, the time that one would spend in prison going up as well, which is extremely important. One would hope that those deterrent factors would keep anybody from trying anything.

If, in fact, somebody does cheat people, we now have a strong piece of legislation that will allow the investigators to go into that person's home. It is interesting to note what they may do when they get that warrant. The warrant will authorize the investigator "in the warrant to enter the private or public premises, including a dwelling house". That means their personal home. They will be able to search; they will be able to examine the contents of the premises and make inquiries that the investigator considers necessary, and will also be able to copy, extract, photograph, video, seize, and take away evidence, books and records for the purpose of investigating the suspected contravention of the law.

So what we have here now is real protection for the consumer, for those who are getting mortgages. We have deterrents for anybody who is a broker who might be tempted for whatever reason. Unfortunately we know that there are all kinds of reasons that tempt people to misuse or to actually take money from others.

A big one in our Province right now, and has happened a number of times – a couple of cases right now before the courts – where people have gambling addictions, VLT gambling addictions; they become completely out of control. This addiction is a serious, serious addiction. Just like anybody else in society, I am sure there could be mortgage brokers who have gambling addictions and with those addictions become completely out of control and unable to help themselves. If that kind of thing were to happen with a mortgage broker and people suffer because of it, we now have protection for people that will help find that person guilty if such were the case.

So this is a solid piece of legislation. I think that the details are needed, especially around the search; I find the details there very important. It seems to me that nothing has been left out, especially with today's technology. I think every way in which one could copy a piece of evidence is covered here.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to see this piece of legislation and happy to support it.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Government Services speaks now he will close debate on Bill 34.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I would like to thank my colleagues on the other side for their input into this piece of legislation regarding mortgage brokers in the Province.

The hon. Member for Port de Grave had a question there with respect to if new people would be needed to do the enforcement of this legislation. My understanding is that this will not be the case; people we have on staff will certainly be able to carry out these duties, and certainly be able to do it with greater protection behind them. So that should bode well for everyone.

Mr. Speaker, in summary, this piece of legislation will harmonize enforcement abilities with the other legislation that we have in the department. It will also give greater flexibility in ensuring that we have the means now to be able to see that mortgage brokers are in compliance with the regulations in a timely manner. Like the other two speakers have already mentioned, the most important thing of all is that what it means is greater protection for the consumers in this Province. So on that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude debate on this bill.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 34, An Act To Amend The Mortgage Brokers Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Mortgage Brokers Act. (Bill 34)

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

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Mortgage Brokers Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 34)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I call Order 4, second reading of Bill 35.

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

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Education, that Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Public Safety Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Public Safety Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Safety Act". (Bill 35)

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

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This act – I do not know how many people on the Province might be aware of it – what it does, it provides the legislative requirements for the use and operating of things like elevators, elevating devices, lifts, amusement rides that you see from time to time, pressure systems, and electrical systems. Under this act, Mr. Speaker, companies or individuals can appeal decisions by inspectors and chief inspectors through the Public Safety Appeal Board; however, the sections that lay out the appeals process have very few provisions that must be followed in hearing an appeal. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, that is the reason why we want to make the changes to this particular section of the legislation.

The department has other legislation that provides a model for the process to be followed for hearing an appeal. In particular, we have under the appeal provisions, laid out in the Financial Services Appeal Board Act; there is a guide there for amendments to the Public Safety Act being presented here today. By outlining the general appeal procedures and legislation, government will be ensuring the board's process for consideration of appeals is clear to all parties. Right now, Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. It should also allow the appeal to operate more smoothly, efficiently, and most important of all I guess, more fairly.

The changes will also allow decisions of the board to be appealed to the Supreme Court Trial Division, which is an option that had not been available up until now. Mr. Speaker, up until now, under the current legislation, the decision of the person who was making the call on this was binding and final. Now, Mr. Speaker, that will not be the case. The person will now have an opportunity to go to the Supreme Court Trial Division. The amendments also will provide more detailed provisions for the governance structure of the board, including outlining the number of members, the term of appointment, the allowance for re-appointments and replacement of board members, and for the board to continue in the event of the expiry of a member's term or a vacancy on the board.

Mr. Speaker, to give you an example of the way the legislation is now, is that it does not specify the number of members to be appointed to the board. The term of the appointments are not specified. The appointments of a chairperson, there was no clear direction as to how that could be done or the continuity of the board in the event of terms expired before a new board is appointed.

Mr. Speaker, what I just outlined will take care of all of these things that are now missing from the current legislation. It will also clarify the process for accepting and hearing appeals to ensure the process is transparent and allows sufficient time for the parties to prepare, while also ensuring the matter is dealt with in a timely manner. It will clearly lay out the procedures for the board and the parties to follow in the hearing of an appeal. A person aggrieved by a decision of the board may appeal to the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland on a question of jurisdiction or law in section 28. This is also standard with other pieces of legislation in this Province.

The final section of the bill, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to point out, repeals the existing avenue of appeal under the Electrical Regulations. Right now in section 14 of these regulations, there is an appeal to the assistant deputy minister responsible for the government service centre. This is the only such provision in the three sets of regulations under the same act. The others are the Boiler, Pressure Vessel and Compressed Gas Regulations, and the Amusement Rides and Elevating Devices Regulations. This one for the Electrical Regulations is the only one that does not conform to the present legislation. The provision is rendered largely unnecessary by the existence of the appeal board provisions under the act.

Mr. Speaker, on that, I will conclude my remarks at this time and let any other member who would like to comment have the opportunity.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to make a few comments with regard to Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Public Safety Act. I know, Mr. Speaker, in conjunction with the minister, we have gone through three bills here this afternoon; three very important bills. I want to say: Why waste time on them, when you make your comments and you agree with it? Sometimes we have legislation that is confrontational, we probably linger it on a bit longer, but I think the minister is covering off on this legislation, explaining it properly and that is the way it should be.

As he outlined, Mr. Speaker, this legislation covers people in the electrical field. He mentioned very importantly, the type of work that is involved and what we are referring to here with the elevators and lifts, and different electrical systems. Those individuals, up until this point of time – and I am sure there are other trades in the Province where there is legislation that covers off on them as well - they did not have a means to appeal a decision that had been made not in their favour. Mr. Speaker, that is the part I want to touch on because I believe the appeal process is very, very important, regardless of what it is.

I just want to reference three issues that I get involved in fairly heavily: EI appeals, workers' compensation appeals, and CPP disability. Even those individuals when they present a case – I will give you an example with EI; if someone has their EI claims rejected, they are given an option to go before the Board of Referees. Once that is settled, if they are not satisfied they go to the umpire, which is in the court system. That is what is happening here. Those individuals now have a process, that if it is not satisfactory there as it is at the present time the decision is binding, but now they can go to the Trial Division.

It is the same way with workers' compensation. If someone has an issue with workers' compensation, first of all there is an internal review. If they are not satisfied, they have another option where they can go before the chief review commissioner. Each and every group in this Province have that process.

The Canada Pension one is no different, even though it is federal. With the CPP disability, you appear first before the Review Tribunal. That is who makes the decision for you. If you do not like that you can go to the Canada Pension Appeals Board, and that is three Supreme Court judges who travel to our Province periodically throughout the year. That is good to see with this piece of legislation. I know it is very important for those individuals because they have a very important job to do and safety is a key issue with it. So if something should come up or go wrong and they feel that they are not treated properly, now this appeal process is really where they want to go and what they have been looking for. I am sure those people have been consulted and I would say they are very pleased with this because at the present time they do not have that option. It is good to see this piece of legislation.

It also outlines other issues that the minister mentioned and that is in regard to how the committee, how the chairperson - the terms that they serve on this committee. If that was not there before I can understand why a decision was made and it was binding because there was no other options open to them.

Mr. Speaker, this act and incorporated amendments apply to Electrical Regulations across the Province in general, which includes design, construction, use and maintenance.

So, Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with this piece of legislation that the minister has brought forward and to know that those people have a process from here on in. It explains the time frame when they can appeal and so on, Mr. Speaker, and they can bring forward oral submissions. It is not just a haphazard thing. They have a process to go through and then if they are not completely satisfied again, they also have the option to go through the Trial Division.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Public Safety Act - and I am sure there are other acts within the minister's department when it comes to the public safety aspect of it that will be coming forward - I would venture to say that this is also in conjunction with what is happening in other jurisdictions throughout our country.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I will take my place.

Thank you.

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

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

Again, I am happy to take my place in speaking to this bill, Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Public Safety Act.

In some ways, it is a housekeeping bill. I think the minister has alluded to that. It is important that we have uniformity and consistency with different processes under government. The process that we are dealing with here is the appeal process that comes under the Public Safety Act. It looks like a big act - the bill itself I mean. It is certainly longer than the other bills we have dealt with this afternoon, but in terms of content it is pretty straightforward. As the minister has said, what it is doing is modelling the appeals process under this act after other appeal processes throughout the government, for example, the Financial Services Appeal Board. This act and the bill that we are dealing with to make amendments to the act would bring appeals under this act more into line with that kind of a process that exists, and there are many, many other examples in government where the appeal process takes place.

The important thing about this, which is similar to the other acts we are dealing with this afternoon, is that we are dealing with the protection of the public. In some cases, as we have dealt with earlier today, it is the protection of the consumer aspect of the public. Here it is, in actual fact, dealing with public safety, physical public safety. That is what is the important difference, I think, that we have a bill that is designed to ensure, the act is designed to ensure, that systems as have been described already such as electrical systems, boiler systems, elevator systems, et cetera are properly designed, installed, maintained and operated.

It is good for the public to know that there is protection for them out there if, for some reason, they become injured from any of these types of things. It does not matter whether the system is put in place publicly by government or put in place by private operators; this act protects the public with regard to their physical safety.

I like the changes that have been made to the appeal process. As I said, it is pro forma now, in a way, where it is the template for appeal processes in the Province, and that is good. I think an important thing to point out, when you have final decisions with regard to technical rulings, if there has been a case brought forward, that the decision has to go all the way to the board and not to the assistant deputy minister, which was the case before in the appeal process. I think that recognizes the importance of the appeal being fair. When you allow one person to make a decision with regard to appeals, you can get a lot of individual bias brought in. So, the process that is in place now takes away that danger of individual bias, and treats much more seriously the whole process of appeal.

The other thing I like too – there are a number of things, but it is something else that I particularly like; and again, this is now found in other appeal processes as well – is that members considering an appeal may permit oral submissions. I think that is extremely important, because not everybody has the same level of literacy skills, and putting things into written documentation can be very difficult sometimes for some people. So, oral submission allows for a much more flexible way and a fairer way of making sure that evidence brought forward, whether it is written or oral, will be considered. Again, this will always be important, I think.

So, having said that, I really do not think there is more to add. There certainly is not anything to change in this bill. It is very straightforward and very clear, and of course, I will be supporting it.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Minister of Government Services speaks now, he will close debate on Bill 35.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I would like to thank my colleagues on the other side for their comments and, more importantly, their positive comments with respect to the changes that we are making in this piece of legislation.

On that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude second reading of Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Public Safety Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Public Safety Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Public Safety Act. (Bill 35)

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

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

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Safety Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 35)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, Order 9, second reading of Bill 40.

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

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 40, An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 3, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 40, An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 3, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 3". (Bill 40)

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

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess this particular piece of legislation is very appropriate for this time of the year because we are talking about amending the Consumer Protection and Business Practices Act No. 3. This act is a piece of legislation that consolidated several different acts and regulations into one piece of legislation. This was done last year. I think there were eight different pieces of legislation altogether.

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing with this particular piece of legislation is that we are amending it by adding to the regulations authority with respect to gift cards or gift certificates. Mr. Speaker, that is the main content of this particular piece of legislation. Gift cards, as most people are aware, have become very, very popular now, not only in the Province but in the country, in the United States of America and internationally, but we did have some concerns with this. It is only the past two or three years that it has really taken off and become a major part of our economy.

There were three particular items that we had concern with in terms of gift cards and certificates and these were: expiry dates; fees that were being charged in some circumstances; and proper disclosure of terms and conditions. Since 2007, pretty well worldwide, the gift card industry has come to be regulated.

Mr. Speaker, just to give you some indication of the magnitude of the gift card industry; in Canada in 2006, 82 per cent of Canada's large retailers offered gift cards. That is up from 53 per cent just two years prior. A 29 per cent increase in the use of gift certificates and gift cards in just two years, in Canada.

In 2007, the total sale of gift cards in Canada amounted to approximately $3.5 billion. Mr. Speaker, that will give you an indication of the size of this business and, certainly, more reason why it should be protected; why it should be included in legislation so that the interests of consumers can be protected.

A survey done in 2008 indicated that almost two-thirds of all Canadians – 65 per cent – plan to buy gift cards during the Christmas season. In Atlantic Canada alone, the percentage was even higher at 74 per cent. In our own Province, it is probably up to that percentage.

The primary advantage, Mr. Speaker, for those people who have used gift cards is convenience. If you have a problem making up your mind as to what you want to give to an individual, whether it be your spouse or your children, grandchildren or whatever, then you make out the gift certificate for the amount that you want specified so that the person receiving it can then determine what they want to buy to suit themselves. That is the most convenient part of this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the bill itself defines gift card as "…an electronic card, written certificate or other voucher or payment device, including a gift certificate, that has an express or implied monetary value and is issued or sold in exchange for the future purchase or delivery of goods or services."

There are different types of gift cards, as people know, who have used them. There are cards offered from individual retailers, there are cards redeemable at multiple retailers such as in a mall or something, credit card branded gift cards, there are phone cards, and paper gift certificates. The bill, Mr. Speaker, also provides a definition of the word supplier.

Up until now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the Province, government, has not received very many complaints at all with respect to the use of gift cards in this Province. I guess mainly one of the reasons is that a lot of these companies are national and multinational companies who have already established the use of gift cards in other jurisdictions.

Section 106 of the act, I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, has been amended to provide for ministerial regulation making authority respecting gift cards. The new requirements are outlined in regulations which are harmonized with the requirements in most of the other provinces in Canada. In Newfoundland we have looked at all of the other jurisdictions in the country with respect to gift cards. Based on what we have seen we are modelling ours after the regulations that the Province of Nova Scotia has adopted. These regulations appeared to our people who looked into this to be much clearer to the consumer, more concise in its direction, and address the three areas of concern that we have: expiry dates, fees and terms, and conditions of the card itself.

Nova Scotia legislation also provided added consumer protection because gift cards issued for specific goods or services do not expire and charging dormancy or activation fees on gift cards issued or sold for use towards multiple unaffiliated vendors is prohibited. These regulations in Nova Scotia came into effect on February 1 of this year. Also, the Province of PEI proclaimed new gift card legislation – I think it was sometime the summer – in July. In respect to Nova Scotia we understand as well that the feedback from the use of this legislation has been very positive from the consumers in that province.

Specifically in the new legislation regarding expiry dates; we will legislate that there should be no expiry date, except for cards issued or sold for charitable purpose or cards that are issued for marketing, advertising or promotional purpose. The reason for that, Mr. Speaker, and I will just give an example: if an airline company, such as Provincial Airlines, wanted to give a certain charitable organization, such as a Lions Club, a gift of a trip for two for someone, that supplier would have the opportunity and would be allowed to specify the dates on those particular cards. That, Mr. Speaker, is also for the benefit of their business in that during a slow period of operation in a given year they could probably use those gift certificates to make their trips more worthwhile to where the destination is.

Mr. Speaker, also regarding fees; this is another item of concern that we had with respect to gift cards. We will legislate that "A supplier must not issue or sell a gift card with a value that is less than the value of the payment made by the purchaser of the gift card." That means that the gift card must be sold at the value of the payment made by the purchaser. In some cases, Mr. Speaker, there have been gift cards sold, just say for $100, and a fee might have been attached, $105 or so, whatever. But that will not be the case now under this new legislation.

There are exceptions to that, I guess, and that is for replacing or customizing a lost or stolen gift card and cards issued or sold for a charitable purpose; the issuer of that card may also be permitted to charge a fee. Also, Mr. Speaker, consumers may demand a refund for any unauthorized fees that we may come in contact if a complaint is made against a certain supplier.

We also have a number of stipulations for the disclosure of information at the time of purchase. The purchaser must be provided with information on all restrictions on the card, all limitations and the terms of conditions imposed for using, redeeming or replacing the gift card, including any fees or expiry dates. As well, the purchaser must be supplied with information on how a consumer can obtain information about the gift card, including any remaining balance.

On the gift card itself, consumers may be able to find expiry dates so there would be no confusion as to how long a person may be able to use that card. There will also be information on the card itself regarding fees, in the case of, like I said, replacing a card or a stolen card and the return policies that apply to the purchases made with the gift card. Contact information for the consumer will also be included on that card.

Mr. Speaker, we propose that the amendments for this legislation, when passed, will come into effect on April 1, 2011. That will allow time for businesses that are in the process or who do engage in using gift cards as a part of their business, it will allow those businesses time to comply with the new requirements. As I have pointed out earlier, the majority of national stores now in the country are already compliant with the new requirements as they have to comply with similar rules where they use these cards in other jurisdictions in the country.

Mr. Speaker, on that, I will – no, there is one other point I would like to make, an important one too. The bill also repeals the Consumer Reporting Agencies Regulation, the Consumer Protection and Business Practice Act, repealed and replaced the Consumer Reporting Agencies Act. These regulations are now unnecessary as the provisions have either been included in the Consumer Protection and Business Practices Act.

Mr. Speaker, on that I will conclude my remarks at this time and, again, allow the other members to participate in the debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to make a few comments with regard to Bill 40, An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection and Business Practices Act No. 3.

As the minister outlined, this is another act that came forward in the last session of the House and encompassed different pieces of legislation, and here we see an addition to it now with regard to the gift certificates and gift cards.

Mr. Speaker, first when I saw this I thought to myself: Why would you want protection in legislation? Because if anyone gives me a gift card, I do not have it long enough to expire and I thought maybe everybody did the same thing, but I guess not. There are people who have encountered problems down through the years with this issue. To be honest with you, I was amazed when the minister mentioned the amount of business throughout the country from gift cards. It is only something that happened in recent years, but it is a major business transaction, for sure.

The other thing that is important, as the minister stated, I do not know if we are the only jurisdiction, but just about every other jurisdiction in the country now have this legislation brought forward and it is good to see that we have done the same thing. I was going to, in conclusion – not in conclusion now, but at the end of my comments I was going to ask the minister - and I think he said there were very few issues brought forward to them of a complaint nature here in this Province when they brought up this legislation. I was going to ask him what percentage of defaults might have been brought forward to government here in our Province, but he may not have that information and it is not that important with regard to my comments.

As the minister mentioned, in section 106, paragraph (h.1), this now allows the government to make regulations affecting gift cards and gift certificates, and also including the expiration dates and user fees. Mr. Speaker, government can now, with this, make regulations with regard to gift cards. Many other Canadian jurisdictions have done the same. The minister mentioned Nova Scotia, and I know, Mr. Speaker, back just last year when this happened in Nova Scotia, the consumers – why they did it there, and I am sure that is the reason we are doing it – deserve to get the full value of this gift card that they buy, regardless of what time it was purchased. Those regulations should protect the consumers by banning the expiry dates and the fees, Mr. Speaker.

There are various types, and maybe the minister touched on this, but there are those for a specific good or service, such as you can go probably get a certificate for a massage or a hotel stay, and then there are those with the associated dollar value to them. When this comes into effect, I am sure this will be taken into consideration. In some jurisdictions, Mr. Speaker, gift cards with the associated dollar value that are expired will have no expiry date. I know the minister mentioned this time of the year, it is a very busy time of the year, and hopefully, I do not know if our legislation will be in place by that time, but hopefully if there are certificates that are given this Christmas with an expiry date on them that may be in the system, that would be taken into consideration.

Then there are others, the value of the goods or the service increase over a period of time. In some jurisdictions, when the gift card is for a service or goods with an expiry date on it, they more or less do not look at those the same as the ones with the dollar value on the card, because to the supplier of that particular card, it is an increase in the cost of the goods that they provide for that card. Some of them do not look at that one in the same light.

As I stated, Mr. Speaker, this is, no doubt, totally a great protection for the consumer. I think it was in Nova Scotia, there was another issue they brought forward, and that is with regard to the fees. There was no fee - and I think the minister stated that is what will be here, but they went on to say there will be fees, such as an inactivity fee, that can be charged, except for customizing and the replacement fee. So, there would be a fee there.

The other thing - and I know the minister noted this as well - is the refund policy, and that is very important. Many, many people do not have the contact information and now it is good to know that this is going to be provided. It has to be made very clearly, whether it is on the card or with the information that will come forward with the card, to make sure that the consumer understands the rules and regulations pertaining to whatever type of card or gift certificate they had.

I think it is important, the minister gave a good example with regard to – he mentioned Eastern Health. I can understand totally why they would be given extra guidelines to go by with regard to a trip given to a Lions Club, that there would be an expiry date on that and that date would be upheld. It is not similar to the other cards.

Mr. Speaker, like in Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, they have similar regulations but some of them, although some allow expiry dates for certain types of specific goods; in Saskatchewan it is interesting to note, they have an interesting regulation stating that a gift card can expire; however, the balance thereon never does and may be transferred to future cards. In other words, if a card had expired and you did not use that card you could return it and be given another card in its place rather than lose out on it.

The hon. minister has brought forward this piece of legislation. I think this is five pieces of legislation he has introduced here today. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, all good legislation. The greatest thing about it is the protection of the consumers here in our Province. That is first and foremost.

With regard to this particular bill, Bill 40, An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 3, I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that we totally agree with the legislation that is brought forward here, because, like I said, it protects the people that we represent and I guess that is what this is all about.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Again, I am happy to speak to another bill that is here on the floor today from the Department of Government Services; another one for protection of consumers, which, of course, is extremely important.

I find it interesting, a few days ago, maybe last week, I heard on radio a consumer advocate talking about gift cards. Consumer advocates are warning those of us who give them to think about it because what is starting to happen is, I guess I have done it myself, people forget they have them, especially when you get gift cards at a time like Christmas where you have so many things around – papers, envelopes, and boxes et cetera – people can lose them. Very often they forget they have them. Down the road they may someday find one and the first thing they wonder is: I wonder can I still use it? They are not sure they can still use it so they leave it on a shelf and what ends up happening is that retailers are making a lot of money – and this was just a radio program that I heard so I cannot remember the amount that they estimate – but retailers are making an awful lot of money for nothing but just this card, because the person who buys the card puts the money out and if the person who is given it forgets they have it, or in the days when there was an expiry date did not use it in time, it is just straight profit for the retailer because no merchandise was passed over; no service was passed over. So, they are making a fortune on these cards anyway.

It is extremely important from that perspective that the expiry date is gone. I am sure, I know I have, and I am sure others in the House have had the experience of finding one and seeing the date on it. Now sometimes people challenge; I remember last year I actually found one which was for a service and I called the company and said I had this thing and I said there is a date on it. They said no do not worry about the date – that was not a chain; that was a local company. So, I think people were starting to realize that they really should not be putting expiry dates on these gift cards or certificates – there are different names for them because sometimes it is a certificate.

I guess that is the kind of thing – that is the one thing that I would like to ask the minister to clarify because when you get these cards from the chains, for example, or retail stores they are specifically called gift cards. Now very often if you go to, for example, a spa here in the city they will have gift certificates, so I think I want clarification is the gift certificate also considered a gift card? Sometimes gift certificates will have expiry dates on them and so I would like to make sure – sorry, I just found it. It says it. It says "…respecting gift cards or gift certificates…"; so that is fine, because you want to make sure. That is one of those devil in the detail items; if that was not there that would have been problematic. I just realized, yes, I thought I read it and found it. It is in the amendment so that is extremely important.

The removal of the expiry date and any fee or anything to do with the cards is extremely important so that people get treated fairly. There was this warning though, that was part of this consumer advocacy program that I was listening to; a warning about, you know, it is very convenient but how often are you giving a gift and it is not used. I can think right now of about five gift cards and gift certificates that are in my house that I have not used yet. With the expiry date gone I do not have to worry about it now because I know that I am going to be able to use them whenever I finally do it, and will get my service or my merchandise.

I am glad to see governments right across the country taking care of this issue and I am glad to see us finally being in compliance with what others are doing across the country, not so much compliance, but doing the same thing; harmonizing our legislation here to match what has already happened in Canada. As the minister told us, we are the last Province in Canada to eliminate the expiry dates and fees on cards and certificates. It is about time, but now it is happening so that is what is important.

I think it begs the question to mention something I think governments have a responsibility to look at. I know this one is a tricky one. It is one that I think all governments – it cannot be just one because it is too big an issue. All governments, provincially, federally, territorially need to look at the whole role of credit cards because everybody recognizes that credit cards have exorbitant interest rates. Yet we continue, governments continue, to allow financial institutions to have them.

Now slowly some credit cards are coming down in their interest rates, or some will give you a lower interest rate for a period of time as a promotion, that kind of thing. I really think governments in our country have a responsibility to look at the whole issue of interest rates on credit cards, in particular. Especially when you know that credit cards get really targeted to students, especially post-secondary education students. One of the first things they try to do is get that credit card in their hand when they go to university or go to college. I do not know if the ministers responsible for consumer affairs ever get together on a federal level like First Ministers, but maybe it could be through the Minister of Finance that the minister of consumer affairs could be talking about it.

It is a serious issue, so I would encourage our government to be looking at that as an issue to put on the table of the larger discussions that take place in our country, because the gouging by gift certificates or gift cards, when they have expiry dates on them, is nothing in comparison to the gouging that goes on because of the high interest rates on credit cards. So I put that out as something for the minister to think about, not really in the bill, but in the broad spectrum of the discussion that we are having.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Minister of Government Services speaks now, he shall close debate on Bill 40.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I would like to thank the hon. members, thank them very, very, very much again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, in response to a comment made by the hon. Member for Port de Grave with respect to this legislation becoming effective now for this Christmas, unfortunately that cannot happen, because in consultations with the businesses around the Province, they need some time in order to comply with this new legislation. So, we have set the date April 1, 2011 for the time when this will become effective.

With respect to a comment made by the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi regarding the number of cards that have not been redeemed, I did see the statistics on that and it is surprising to see how many of these cards were not redeemed and the supplier of these cards ending up with the money in their pocket. This legislation will certainly protect them from that. Also, the other point she mentioned after that, gift cards, gift certificates, it does not matter, they are all covered under this particular piece of legislation.

So, Mr. Speaker, on that, I would just like to add that even after those amendments now become effective, that we will continue as a department to ensure that the act reflects current practices and means of conducting businesses in this Province. It is also the department's intent to update, as necessary, to ensure the utmost protection of consumer rights.

Mr. Speaker, as the other speakers have alluded to, that is what this legislation is all about: the protection of consumer rights in this Province.

On that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude debate on second reading of Bill 40, An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 3.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 40, An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 3, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 3. (Bill 40)

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

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

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 3", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 40)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper number 5, second reading of Bill 36.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education, that Bill 36, An Act To Amend The Judicature Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 36, An Act To Amend The Judicature Act, be now read a second time.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to introduce Bill 36, An Act To Amend The Judicature Act. Mr. Speaker, this bill would make three particular amendments to the Judicature Act: number one is simply to correct an error; number two, confer Supreme Court clerks the status of Justices of the Peace; and three, remove an antiquated requirement for filing true copies of certain court documents.

The bill would also, Mr. Speaker, make a consequential amendment to the Provincial Court Act, 1991 to make provisions of that act the same as the proposed amendment that we are going to make to the Judicature Act respecting the designation of court clerks as Justices of the Peace.

Mr. Speaker, the Judicature Act has governed the function of the Supreme Court, the superior courts of Newfoundland and Labrador, in a manner which allows the judiciary to respond to the ever-changing needs of society in accordance with the rule of law. The Judicature Act and the rules of court made under it oversee the procedures of the court and the rules that the person seeking to appear before the court are required to follow in order to pursue their legal rights.

While the Judicature Act had its roots and legislation dates back to 1791, the current Judicature Act was adopted in 1986. It served the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; certain amendments have been made over time in order to respond to changes in society and changes in the law.

Mr. Speaker, the first amendment that is set out in this bill is a very simple amendment. It addresses a numerical error in subsection 43.9(4) of the Judicature Act. In that subsection, Mr. Speaker, there is a reference to section 740 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Criminal Code of Canada, like all other legislation, is a living document; it is amended from time to time and is amended every year. Subsequently, numbers and numerical arrangements change and whatnot, so that section 740 is now 733.1 in the Criminal Code. The Judicature Act now will have to be amended to reflect this change in the number.

The second amendment, Mr. Speaker, proposes to confer on Supreme Court clerks the status of Justice of the Peace for the purpose of performing the administrative duties of a Justice of the Peace. Mr. Speaker, that amendment is a little bit more substantive.

The Supreme Court clerks are appointed under the Judicature Act, while the Provincial Court clerks are appointed under the Provincial Court Act. Provincial Court clerks are designated Justices of the Peace for certain administrative duties, but Supreme Court clerks are not, and consequently cannot perform their administrative duties such as the signing of oaths and documents and that sort of thing. This amendment proposes to confer on Supreme Court clerks the status of Justice of the Peace for the purpose of doing these administrative duties.

The appointment of Justice of the Peace, Mr. Speaker, is governed by the Justices Act. At the time the Justices Act was adopted, the Justices of the Peace appointed in this Province performed many judicial functions that were set out in the Criminal Code of Canada.

These functions are no longer performed by Justices of the Peace; they are now performed by the Provincial Court judges. Conducting contested bail hearings, for example; that was something a Justice of the Peace could do. Authorizing search warrants was something a Justice of the Peace could do. That is no longer the case. The Provincial Court Act now has given those duties to Provincial Court judges and they perform all the judicial functions of a Justice of the Peace. Justice of the Peace awards, citations or certificates are no longer given out by the Department of Justice and have not been for some time.

Now, Justices of the Peace, in addition to the judiciary functions that were set out in the Justice Act, also perform certain duties which are administrative in nature. For example, the Administration of Oaths for information and affidavits, signing information and affidavits, issuing summons to appear, and signing all court orders after the judge orders. The clerks in the Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador are designated Justice of the Peace under the Provincial Court Act and they have those administrative powers and they presently perform them. But, unlike their Provincial Court counterparts the Supreme Court clerks are not automatically designated Justice of the Peace by virtue of their office and consequently cannot perform those administrative duties. In order for them to get Justice of the Peace designation they have to apply to the Attorney General for such designation under the Justice Act.

Consequently the Supreme Court clerks now are at a disadvantage and in order to do the administrative duty they have to send documents out to somebody else to do – Provincial Court clerks – or to bring people in – Justice of the Peace – to do these duties. They have a third option, and that is to apply to the Attorney General to be appointed as a temporary Justice of the Peace for a limited period of time. Under section 8 of the Justices Act the Attorney General can do that. He can appoint Supreme Court Clerks as temporary Justice of the Peace pursuant to section 8 for a six month interim period and that is what has been happening in order to get around this problem.

The temporary appointments allow these clerks to perform the administrative functions of the Justice of the Peace for a six month period without any remuneration. The appointments are renewable but it is an awkward situation, Mr. Speaker, because the Attorney General must reappoint that court clerk every six months by issuing a new certificate and each appointee must attend the office of a provincial judge and be sworn in for each and every temporary appointment.

Now what Bill 36 proposes to do, Mr. Speaker, is to confer upon the Supreme Court clerks the designation of Justice of the Peace for purposes of performing the administrative duties only. The other duties, as I mentioned before, have been taken over by the Provincial Court judges. That designation, Mr. Speaker, is crucial to the efficient operation of the Supreme Court.

This amendment, Mr. Speaker, will provide that that appointment will continue to comply with the requirements of the Justice Act which means they have to apply before the Attorney General and have to be sworn in before a Provincial Court judge. The appointment shall cease upon the termination of the clerk's employment with the Supreme Court. Whenever the person is finished with the employment of the Supreme Court that Justice of the Peace appointment ceases. Of course, unlike the old Justice of the Peace appointments the clerk will not be entitled to pay, or to any additional fees for servicing the administrative duty of Justice of the Peace.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is the amendment that needs to be done to the Judicature Act to give those Supreme Court clerks the same designation, the same administrative duties or capacity as Provincial Court clerks have. Then, in order to ensure consistency with respect to the designation of the Supreme Court and the Provincial Court clerks as administrative Justices of the Peace, you will now have two separate pieces of legislation dealing with this particular issue. The bill also proposes that we change, now, the wording of the Provincial Court Act, 26(4), to be amended to mirror the same language as the amendment to the Judicature Act.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, Bill 36 proposes to repeal section 109 of the Judicature Act. The old section 109 of the Judicature Act, required that when letters of probate or administration are issued at a judicial centre, other than the judicial centre in St. John's, a true copy of all the documents that go with those applications have to be forwarded immediately to the central registry located in St. John's, and filed. In an application for probate or administration there are a number of documentations: you have to have a true copy of the will, you have to have an application, there are letters of probate, there is a petition that goes with it, there is a proof of will, and so on. In the old 109, true copies of these had to be forwarded immediately to the central registry located in St. John's by the assistant deputy registrar of the judicial centre. The section further required the registrar to maintain an index or directory of all grants and administrations. These all had to be located in the central registry in St. John's.

When this section was enacted, Mr. Speaker, none of the judicial centres were equipped with computers or used computers, did not use fax machines or scanners, and as a result, it was important to have all these estates' documents filed and indexed in the central registry located in St. John's for searching purposes. If you wanted to go down to search a probate or estate, you went to the central registry in St. John's, where all the true documents were located.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the administration of the court relies mainly on a centralized computer system which can be accessed by all judicial centres within the Province. There is no longer a need to have a true copy of these documents sent to the central registry in St. John's, or the maintenance of a hand-written index, or a directory, as we did have. Any member of the public, or any member of the legal profession can now request to see that document at any judicial centre. Depending on the location of the original document, the court officials can photocopy and fax or scan or mail the documents requested to the person who was looking for the document.

Mr. Speaker, these are proposed amendments. I think they are constructive amendments. It will make access to the courts and justice a little bit more accessible, and will expedite proceedings in these matters. Members of the public and stakeholders in the judicial process will be well served, I think, from these amendments and they reflect the current realities of court administration in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, these are three simple amendments. I will wait for the opportunity to hear a comment from the other side.

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Burgeo & La Poile.

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

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words on Bill 36. Certainly, we will be supporting Bill 36. I think it is a very appropriate clean up, shall we say, and a lot of these pieces of legislation we are dealing with in this short session of the House are of that nature, but it is things that certainly need to be done.

Talking about Justices of the Peace, for example - having practised for some thirty years myself in the Province, I had lots of experience with Justices of the Peace and what they do. I know in rural Newfoundland, sometimes a Justice of the Peace was a very valuable and important person in your community. Not only did they witness deeds, they actually drafted up deeds.

I know when I first went back to Port aux Basques in 1979-1980 to begin a practise; people did not understand the difference. Why would we go to a lawyer and pay a bunch of money to get a deed done when Mr. Such-and-Such up the road was doing it for years and he only charged a few bucks to do it? All of a sudden, of course, lawyers came on the scene and ended up charging fees that were much more in order to get your land deed done. That is how important a role, that even as recently as 1980, in places like Port aux Basques and in my district, people relied heavily when it came to their property work to get their deeds done by a Justice of the Peace.

They also had the criminal code responsibilities, alluded to by the minister. I have had occasion when judges, for example, who were going to come out from Stephenville or Corner Brook to conduct a hearing of one sort or another, did not make it because of the weather conditions on a particular day and you found yourself in a situation where the police had an individual in custody, he had to be remanded beyond the period of time that was there and we never had a judge present to do it because of the weather. The criminal code provided circumstances whereby a Justice of the Peace could step in, in that instance, and remand the person over for a further period of time until the matter appropriately got dealt with. So, there was a very important role.

I had a lot of personal issues when it came to Justices of the Peace doing wills, however. I do not know about this part of the Island but I know, not only did they do deeds, not only did they do those criminal code type functions, they also did wills. Unfortunately, we ran into a lot of situations where it was not done properly, particularly after 1979 when the Matrimonial Property Act was proclaimed because it set down a whole new set of rules. It was not just a man leaving his property to his wife, or a wife to her husband or children, and it got very complicated. We spent a good portion of the 1980s and the 1990s, as people died and they left these wills that had been done by JPs, with the courts unravelling them. The clergy used to do a lot of wills as well.

Over the course of the 1980s, I think educationally they caught on and they realized that: look, for the few bucks that I might get for doing it, it is not worth it. It is causing problems. They deferred then, the legal people got involved and it became much better in the sense of far less problems in wills when it came probate time because they were done, of course, considering what the laws were at that time.

I just put a few questions to the minister though, just for clarification, not in disagreement but in clarification. According to what I am reading here under section 2(5), it is saying that, "A person appointed as a clerk of the Supreme Court under subsection (1) is, for the purpose of performing his or her administrative duties, a justice of the peace." That makes good sense, because if you are a clerk of the court you have certain duties you can do, and if you are now made a Justice of the Peace you can do whatever a Justice of the Peace could do administratively as well.

Then when you flip down to subsection (8), it says, "The Justices Act", whereby Justices of the Peace are appointed, it says, "…applies with the necessary changes, to a person who is a justice of the peace by virtue of this section." So I would just like some clarification. I would read that to mean that a court clerk is a Justice of the Peace for only the administrative things that a Justice of the Peace would do, but not otherwise a Justice of the Peace. I would just like some clarification on that maybe when the minister responds in clueing up second reading.

The other thing I think is important here is the remuneration part. If the minister had any statistics or information available quick at hand that he could provide us. Just so people do not get the wrong idea that Justices of the Peace in this Province make a lot of money or what they do make, I am wondering if the minister has any information as to exactly how many Justices of the Peace we currently have in the Province, aside from the clerk of the court type Justices of the Peace which we are going to have. How many do we have still remaining on the books in the Province, justices? It is my understanding that they get a form of stipend for being a Justice of the Peace and, in addition to that, they get a nominal amount if they should witness a document, like if the police want a document witnessed and so on, or if information needs to be sworn to by the police that they get a nominal amount. Just so we do not give the wrong impression here - and I agree fully that if you are getting this designation as a clerk of the court, you certainly should not be getting this remuneration which is quite clear here. It would certainly help give the full picture of what the differences are going to be between a normal Justice of the Peace and a clerk.

Now, of course, a lot of people – because, I guess, it is a mark of distinction in the communities - jostle to become Justices of the Peace. The justification that administrations have used for some time now not to make new Justices of the Peace is to say: We do not need them as much any more. You do not do your criminal code stuff any more. You do not draft many deeds and documents or wills any more. You are basically a signing officer or a witness to certain oaths that people might take in front of you.

I am wondering if the minister has any information as to how many. Are we appointing any more Justices, or are they basically now becoming kind of unnecessary to the point where we are going to let expire the ones that do have the designation and we will deal with things on a go-forward basis just solely from a clerk of the court position? I raise the question because I hope that is not an ingrained policy that we are not going to appoint any more new ones because I think there is certainly a rural aspect to this that still needs to be considered when it comes to a Justice of the Peace, particularly from the administration and the swearing of oaths. There are lots of communities in this Province who do not have officers who can swear an oath. It is fine if we, as members, are back in our district, or wherever, and someone comes to you and wants a document signed, we can do as an MHA. It is fine if there is a lawyer around who can witness your document or a notary public if you need it done.

I take it a person is not, for example, going to be able to go into a courthouse and say to the clerk: Could you witness my oath? She has been given the designation - he or she - in order to do her administrative duties as a clerk not to be open to the public or accessible to the public just for any kind of witnessing. If it is that broad range of signing anything, I think that needs to be made known to the public as well because then an individual, for example, who is in Isle aux Morts who needs a document witnessed cannot find a JP because there is none around or there is none in Isle aux Morts. If he or she knows that they can go to the courthouse in Port aux Basques on court day and get the clerk of the court who is there to witness it, that is, no doubt, what would become the routine.

I am just wondering if the minister can clarify that: Is she or he, the clerk, just the administrative duties of a JP, in the clerk's role, but not for normal purposes of witnessing documents and stuff from the general public. I think that is an important designation.

With respect to my comment about rural Newfoundland again, we have situations where a lot of these individuals were appointed years ago. Somewhere, for example, like Ramea, we do not have a court in Ramea; we do not have a court in Burgeo. Anybody in those communities, for example, a JP is extremely important when it comes to having somebody to do the administrative witnessing functions of a JP.

I would hope it is not a hard and fast policy of government that we are not going to appoint any more JPs because that would certainly be a disservice to those people in those areas who rely upon that. They do not even have access – there is no law firm, for example, in Ramea or in Burgeo. Here you are with a couple of thousand people at least in that area, 2,000 or 3,000 people, and if you do not appoint another JP, they do not have access to a court clerk and they do not have a JP. We have done a disservice to those people.

I am just wondering if the minister can clarify, on a go-forward basis, where we are with respect to JPs in more isolated and rural communities that do not have court clerks and so on, and where the JPs have died off. I know of some instances where JPs have died in some communities and there has been no reappointment. I think that is very important to tie that in. I agree wholeheartedly with what we are doing here for the clerks of the court, whether they are provincial or in Supreme Courts, but we need to make sure that the people understand that we are not taking something away from them or making a service less accessible that they always had.

Other than that, Mr. Speaker, I have no further comments. As I say, I look forward to the minister's explanations and information that he can provide in that regard when he sums up second reading, or even in Committee stage for that matter.

Thank you.

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

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

I thank the hon. member opposite for his comments, support, and his questions. With respect to the first issue he raised under 2.(8) of the bill, how the Justices Act applies, the appointment of Supreme Court clerks as Justices of the Peace for administrative purposes still has to comply with the Justices Act in that the person will still have to apply to the Attorney General, and still will have to swear an oath before a provincial judge. That is how the Justices Act would apply in this case.

With respect to the number of Justices of the Peace who have been designated in the Province, in the mid-1990s - and the member would know this – the Department of Justice's policy instituted a freeze on the appointments of permanent Justices of the Peace. The reason for that was, I suppose, rather obvious. I realize what the member is saying: they fulfilled an important function in outlying communities in Newfoundland. I guess the freeze was brought about because of the problems they ran into. These people, in often cases, did not have the requisite training or judicial independence to carry out their judicial functions of the Justices of the Peace. Consequently, there might be civil liability coming out of that. So, it is my understanding that since that time, no new Justice of the Peace positions have been designated.

How many exist in the Province today, I do not have that information. I can try to get it for the member, and probably give it to him in third reading, but I do not have that information at my fingertips. I would suspect that the numbers are few. Some of them had been appointed a long time ago, and a lot of them are deceased. So, there are probably very few of them still left around.

With respect to his question regarding whether or not the Supreme Court clerks or the Provincial Court clerks, whether the designation would carry beyond the official duties of Supreme Court clerk, that information, again, I am not sure of. I can find that information for the member. I understand that if you are designated a Justice of the Peace for these administrative duties, they would occur and carry over to any other situation besides doing court documents.

With respect to his concern about continuing to appoint those people in outlying communities and the need that exists, the same purpose can be served by Commissioners for Oaths and notaries public, and we have legislation that allows us to provide for these. These are the appointments, the designations done in lieu of what was formerly Justice of the Peace.

So, hopefully that answers the member's questions. With respect to anything else that is there that I have not answered, I can get that information for him. In regard to numbers and amount of money that was being paid out to Justices of the Peace and what not, that information, if it is available, I can have it for third reading.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments, and I look forward now to this bill moving into second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 36, An Act To Amend The Judicature Act, now be read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Judicature Act. (Bill 36)

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

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

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Judicature Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 36)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Order 6, second reading of Bill 37.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources that Bill 37, An Act To Amend the Statues Act be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Statutes Act now be read a second time.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

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

This again is really a housekeeping act; a tidying up act if you will. It invokes an important and significant initiative with respect to enhancing and expediting access to justice and the court system. The bill will provide that versions of the act and the regulations that are published on the House of Assembly Web site now be considered an official version. Currently only the version that is published by the Queen's Printer is an official one.

Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member across the House is well aware of this, of course, that currently and traditionally the only official versions of the acts, legislation, statutes, and regulations in this Province – the only ones that are recognized by the courts as the official version – would be the ones published by the Queen's Printer, and in the case of regulations the ones published in the Newfoundland and Labrador Gazette. That is the only official version that is now recognized.

This has meant, Mr. Speaker, a circumstance, for example, where an official statement of the legislation of this Province was required to be provided, whether it is in court or part of a commercial transaction or anywhere else, the only official version would be a printed copy of the legislation by the Queen's Printer. That is the one that would suffice.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this was appropriate prior to the establishment of the Internet Web site versions of legislation. Since the establishment of Internet Web sites containing accurate, up-to-date versions of acts and regulations, access to the law has increased, through this medium, through the second logical medium.

Now, as a result of the expansion of this information superhighway, a number of jurisdictions have passed legislation to provide that the versions of their acts and the regulations placed on and accessible from the Internet Web sites can be considered official versions. Canada has done that, Mr. Speaker, so has Nova Scotia, so has Ontario.

The actual regulations of this Province have been available on the Web site of the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, for ten years. The Web site now constitutes the principle means of access to our acts and regulations. The easiest and quickest way to get access to them now is through the Web site. The users of the Web site know that they are reliable, accurate, and up-to-date. Making this version the official one would enhance its convenience and its usefulness for these users.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to making the version of the acts and regulations published on the House of Assembly Web site the official version, this bill also proposes to require the courts to take judicial notice of Web site versions of our acts and regulations. That means, Mr. Speaker – to the people who are viewing these proceedings and the people here – taking judicial notice of a Web site version of acts and regulations the official one simply means that the courts, a judge would recognize those versions as official ones without the need for either one of the parties to bring supporting evidence to that effect; the courts would have to recognize judicial notice of these versions.

It also would require the Chief Legislative Counsel to maintain the electronic database of legislation and consolidated legislation for the legislation Web site to facilitate convenient, reliable public access to that Web site. The bill would also require the Chief Legislative Counsel to safeguard the accuracy and the integrity of the electronic database of legislation and consolidated legislation that appear on the legislation Web site – have to make sure it is accurate and up-to-date. The minister would be given the power to make regulations generally to give effect to the purposes of this act.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of this amendment, several other acts would need consequential amendments which will come later on. The Evidence Act will have to be amended, the Interpretation Act, the Statutes and Subordinate Legislation Act; they would also require consequential amendments to ensure that the versions of the acts and the regulations published on the House of Assembly Web site is an official version. That will be recognized and cross-referenced in these acts as well.

Mr. Speaker, a very simple bill but a very important one. It will have huge ramifications for the court process and for people practicing in the judicial system to make the versions on the House of Assembly Web site official.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to the comments from the other side.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Burgeo & La Poile.

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

I have some very brief comments on this. We are fully supportive of this issue. The times have changed; we are not back in the dark ages anymore when it comes to technology.

As long as the information that you require is accurate, up-to-date, and reliable, there is no reason why it should not be accessible. Everybody is pretty well wired today, especially those who practice in the legal profession. If you have a court case, almost everybody has their laptops, wireless devices and so on. It makes the whole process that much easier, accessible and it adds somewhat too, to the client's bill. If you do not have to be digging out, photocopying all of these official things, or tracking them down, and getting them sworn to as official copies and so on, it makes the whole process simpler and I would think, in the end result somewhat cheaper for the clients who use the service.

I had the days when you had a court case and you had to lug suitcases full of statutes and regulations just to prove a point. Nowadays you sit with your laptop and you can do so. I think it is about time and certainly support the move.

Thank you.

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

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

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

I thank the member opposite for his support and look forward to this bill being moved in second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill, Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Statutes Act, now be read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Statutes Act. (Bill 37)

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

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

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Statutes Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 37)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, No. 8, second reading of Bill 38.

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

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

I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources that Bill 38, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that Bill 38, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law, now be read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law". (Bill 38)

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

I am pleased today to introduce Bill 38, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law. The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to bring before the House of Assembly matters in the statute law that require legislative correction as a result of various amendments and enactments that have been in previous sessions of this House. It is a bill that is brought periodically before this House, and this is the second that I have brought in my tenure as minister.

The amendments set in this bill, brought to my attention, are technical in nature, and they are not matters of policy. They are amendments aimed at that the correction of errors and anomalies that have appeared as a result of appeals and amendments and new legislations; the bill will also repeal a number of acts and regulations that are now obsolete or extinct.

On average, Mr. Speaker, a Minister of Justice brings this bill every year when in a judgement of the Office of the Legislative Counsel there have been a sufficient number of these anomalies and errors discovered, accumulated and compiled, enough to warrant a bill. That is what, again, is the case with this bill, Mr. Speaker.

The amendments are the usual amendments, Mr. Speaker. There is one, for example, we correct the title of Officer of the House known previously as the Commissioner for Members' Interests. He is now a Commissioner of Legislative Standards under the ATIPP Act. It corrects errors of cross-referencing where references are made to other acts and other provisions of acts that no longer exist or have been repealed or changed. They correct errors in citation, typographical errors, numbering errors, drafting errors, syntax errors, erroneously repeated words and so on. These are the sort of things this bill addresses.

It also repeals a number of acts and regulations that are obsolete or spent. Periodically, between revisions of statutes and amendments, as these spent or obsolete acts and regulations come to the attention of the Legislative Counsel Office, a list of them is prepared and sometimes you have a special repeal act prepared for the consideration of repealing these acts. There are other times they are included in the Attorney General's Statutes Amendment Act, as they are in this case right here.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is the extent of this bill. It is very simply a clean up act. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss it. I look forward to any comments from the other side.

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

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to moving this bill on second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill, Bill 38, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law, now be read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law. (Bill 38)

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

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

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 38)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper No. 8, second reading of Bill 39.

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

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

I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Justices And Public Authorities Protection Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Justices And Public Authorities Protection Act, now be read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Justices And Public Authorities Protection Act". (Bill 39)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Justices And Public Authorities Protection Act. This is another one of those very exciting pieces of legislation, Mr. Speaker, that will have everybody riveted to their seats and their television screens this afternoon as we go through these pieces of legislation.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, deals with the protection of Provincial Court judges, protection from liability as they pursue the exercise of their duties as Provincial Court judges. This bill would amend the Justices and Public Authorities Protection Act to remove its application of Provincial Court judges. Right now, Provincial Court judges are referenced in two separate pieces of legislation with respect to indemnities governing them in the exercise of their duties, the protection of them in the exercise of their duties. There is a little bit of duplication and confusion, so the purpose of this act is to remove that confusion.

We want to amend the Justices and Public Authorities Protection Act to remove its application to Provincial Court judges. The protection of Provincial Court judges is already in the Provincial Court Act. So, it is duplication to have both pieces of legislation governing the same issue.

The Justices and Public Authorities Protection Act was statutorily conceived, Mr. Speaker, in England in 1893 and adopted in this jurisdiction in 1955 as a part of the history of this Province adopting English law. The Justices and Public Authorities Protection Act provides protection to a justice, and, Mr. Speaker, a justice was initially defined as a judge of a family court; a judge of a juvenile court; a stipendiary magistrate, and a Justice of the Peace. That protected the justice against lawsuits in relation to acts performed during his duties, or acts done pursuant to various court orders.

Now, as mentioned in a previous piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, all of those duties have since been taken in under the Provincial Court Act and performed now by a Provincial Court judge. The definition of justice was amended on two separate occasions. In 1979, the stipendiary magistrate term was replaced by the term, Provincial Court judge. A stipendiary magistrate no longer exists in that definition but Provincial Court judge is still there. In 1989, the judge of the family court term was taken out and a judge of the juvenile court was taken out. That definition of justice now, in the Justices and Public Authorities Protection Act, provides protection to a justice, and a justice is a Justice of the Peace and a Provincial Court judge. These changes are reflective of the evolution of the Provincial Court system currently in place in the Province and, as I said, governed now by the Provincial Court Act.

As mentioned earlier, at the time the Justices and Public Authorities Protection Act was adopted, Justices of the Peace in this Province performed duties and functions set out by the Criminal Code - as the hon. member across the way so eloquently summed up a few moments ago – and took part in judicial functions in the communities in the absence of judges. It is no longer the case in this Province. Provincial Court judges now perform all the judicial functions of a Justice of the Peace in this Province.

It was recently brought to the attention of the Department of Justice, Mr. Speaker, that judicial immunity now of a Provincial Court judge is addressed in two separate worded provisions, in two separate different pieces of legislation. It is covered under the definition of justice in the Justices And Public Authorities Protection Act, and it is also covered in section 32 of the Provincial Court Act. This is duplication; it creates confusion and uncertainty concerning immunity and potential liability of Provincial Court judges in this Province.

In order to remove this confusion, Mr. Speaker, and remove the uncertainty, Bill 39 proposes to amend the definition of justice in the justices of the court act, to drop all references to Provincial Court judges. There will be no reference to Provincial Court judges in that definition. As a result of that, section 32 of the Provincial Court Act will be the only immunity clause applicable to Provincial Court judges. That immunity clause says that every judge has the same immunity from liability as a Judge of the Supreme Court.

If this amendment is accepted by the House of Assembly, then the Provincial Court Act, 1991 will constitute the sole legislative framework for the organization and operation of the Provincial Court. Mr. Speaker, again, a simple amendment, a clean up issue that has been brought to the attention of the department. I look for comments, if any, from the other side.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Burgeo & La Poile.

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

I would just confirm that we have had an opportunity to review Bill 39. We have no problem with it whatsoever. It is basically a housekeeping, clean up situation. It certainly is required and necessary, and we will be supporting Bill 39.

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

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

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

I thought I was finished. I thank the hon. member for his comments, and I now look forward to the bill going to second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill, Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Justices And Public Authorities Protection Act, now be read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CHAIR: A bill, An Act To Amend The Justices And Public Authorities Protection Act. (Bill 39)

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

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

Now? Tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Presently?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Justices And Public Authorities Protection Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 39)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bills 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

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!

We are now debating Bill 32, An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act". (Bill 32)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Real Estate Trading Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 2.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 2". (Bill 33)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 2.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 34, An Act To Amend The Mortgage Brokers Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Mortgage Brokers Act". (Bill 34)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 6 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 6 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Mortgage Brokers Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Public Safety Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Safety Act". (Bill 35)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Public Safety Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 36, An Act To Amend The Judicature Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Judicature Act". (Bill 36)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 4 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 4 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Judicature Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: We are debating Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Statutes Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Statutes Act". (Bill 37)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 4 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 4 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Statutes Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 38, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law.

A bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law". (Bill 38)

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 19 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 19 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 19 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Justices And Public Authorities Protection Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Justices And Public Authorities Protection Act". (Bill 39)

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Justices And Public Authorities Protection Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 40, An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 3.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 3". (Bill 40)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act No. 3.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: I move, Mr. Chair, that the Committee rise and report Bills 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40.

CHAIR: It is moved that the Committee rise and report Bills 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40 without amendment.

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): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. T. OSBORNE: The Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bills 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40 passed without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bills 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40 carried without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the bills be read a third time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we will return to Address in Reply on the Order Paper.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed a pleasure to have an opportunity today for nineteen minutes and fifty-one seconds to speak about the Speech from the Throne.

Before I get into some comments I want to make, Mr. Speaker, I just want to make mention of a couple of things. First of all, as it has been mentioned before, of course, I want to pay tribute to a colleague that we all lost – all of us in the House – the MHA for Conception Bay East & Bell Island. I just want to pay my respects there. Of course, I want to welcome her replacement, the new MHA elect, and welcome him aboard. We look forward to having you join us in the House at the appropriate time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Also, Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues who have had the chance to speak this week, I want to pay tribute and say thank you to former Premier Williams for his contribution to the Province over the last ten years and for the opportunities that I had during his time here in both the 2003 and 2007 elections. I certainly feel indebted to him for that and thankful for the opportunities that I received and, of course, thankful for the support that I received relative to the good things that we were able to do on the Burin Peninsula and in particular in my district. So thank you to former Premier Williams.

Congratulations to our new Premier, the Member for Virginia Waters. We are all very excited. We are making history now once again. We made history awhile back with I think it was the first female House Leader in the Province, and now of course we have the first female Premier. So we are a government that is intending to make history as much as we possibly can. It is certainly great to see our former Minister of Natural Resources in that particular capacity and we all feel really good.

It has been a real great week here and things are going well. I certainly congratulate her and wish her all the best. It has certainly been a week thus far where people are on their feet, Mr. Speaker, and on their toes. We are attentive to the issues, taking the direction, obviously, from the Premier, working together and it is great to be a part of that this week, I have to say. It is great to be back; it is great to be here as part of the team.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I am going to take a few moments to have a chat, a little bit about education which is obviously my portfolio. I would like to take a few moments to talk about education from the perspective of the value that our government sees in education and the commitment that we continue to make, not only in education by way of the Education Department but by working collaboratively across all departments, Mr. Speaker.

As any of us would know here in government, education is supported not only by what we do in the Department of Education, but it is supported by very many important initiatives, whether it is, for example, working with the Department of Health to look at after-school programs, or whether it is working with the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, or, Mr. Speaker, in the Department of Business. I had the good pleasure over the last couple of months to join with my colleague, the Minister of Business, on a number of very key announcements; one was just several days ago. We were joined by the MHA for St. John's East at the Marine Institute where we had a great announcement on the use of some world cutting-edge software technology, Mr. Speaker, for the Marine Institute.

We also joined the Minister of Business about four to six weeks ago with the MHA for Gander when we made a great announcement with Lufthansa, bringing in a new curriculum in Gander for aircraft maintenance that will be only the second place in Canada where that training can be found; the other is British Columbia. We are now the second – and only the third in all of North America – Mr. Speaker, where students can study aircraft maintenance and can get the certification level that will be provided through that program. This essentially takes them from a national level to an international level of certification, and allows them to work on many more different types of aircrafts in many other places outside of Canada, or likewise for companies to bring aircrafts into our air space. It is certainly great, Mr. Speaker, but I use those examples just to illustrate the kinds of partnerships that we have ongoing across all departments with the Department of Education.

Mr. Speaker, speaking for a moment to education specifically, I want to highlight a couple of things that we have been engaged in and have continued to focus on for the last number of years. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, one of the key pieces that we have had to try and deal with is crumbling infrastructure in our school system and at our post-secondary level. It has taken a lot of time, effort, and investment, Mr. Speaker, to try and bring schools up to the level that we need them to be at; to get back on track with maintenance and repairs. As all of us know, Mr. Speaker, the end result of doing no maintenance and repairs over an extended period of time just leads to a cumulative effect of a lot more money required and a lot more damage to be fixed and addressed.

We certainly tried to do our part. Mr. Speaker; over the last two budget years alone nearly $240 million we have invested, and that is not only for repair and maintenance of school facilities, but we are also talking about new schools. I think as of now, Mr. Speaker, we are at thirteen, the number of new schools that are either opened as of now or in construction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: I have had the good fortune, Mr. Speaker, over the last number of months to visit a number of sites where we have facilities in different states of readiness. I remember when we went out for the unofficial walk-through of Paradise Elementary with a number of my colleagues who represent that part of the Province, and I can say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the facilities that we are building are just phenomenal. The opportunities that are going to be available for the students in those facilities, and the kinds of resources that we are providing to assist the teachers and the caretakers and all of the support staff in those schools is just tremendous.

Mr. Speaker, I have not been out of the system long. I left the school system when I got elected in 2007, but even in three-and-a-half or so short years, I can assure you that significant changes have been made, and our government is investing where we need to, to make sure that as we build facilities, we are building state-of-the-art facilities.

The other area I visited very recently, Mr. Speaker, was with my colleague from Baie Verte-Springdale. We had a look at the new school that is being built in Baie Verte, and I have to say, it was wonderful to get out in that part of the Province. We visited a couple of schools in the area, as well as the local College of the North Atlantic campus. Mr. Speaker, it is really refreshing when you get the chance to talk to the teachers and students and some of the parents and you see the excitement that they are experiencing in anticipation; in anticipation of moving from older schools to a brand new modern facility. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, they are going to have that. They are going to have a state-of-the-art facility in Baie Verte, just like we are putting in all other parts of the Province, and I guarantee that people in the particular schools there and in those communities who are served by that school, will not be disappointed, Mr. Speaker.

We are doing those things because we are committed to making our facilities safe, positive, and constructive learning environments, Mr. Speaker, and we will continue to do that. Not only are we investing in infrastructure, Mr. Speaker, we are investing in a lot of other parts of education. We focus, for example, on curriculum renewal. We are looking at a mathematics strategy, and we are nearing the end now of a three or four year strategy that will see an entirely new mathematics curriculum, Mr. Speaker, brought in to the K-12 system. We are doing that because we want to make sure that the experiences students are receiving in mathematics, like other areas of the curriculum, are relevant and timely, and preparing them for moving beyond the K-12 system into the post-secondary system, Mr. Speaker.

One of the greatest challenges that we have to face at the K-12 level is ensuring that we do not close doors on students. We want to make sure that every single opportunity that students have in front of them is made available to them by way of ensuring that they get proper program offerings and the proper courses, so that if they want to choose to go to university, Mr. Speaker, they can go. If they want to choose to do a skilled trade or go to the College of the North Atlantic, or one of our private colleges in the Province, Mr. Speaker, they can do that. That is all about focusing on proper curriculum and proper preparatory work for those students.

Mr. Speaker, I touched on the post-secondary system and I want to make a couple of comments on that because we are also very proud of some of the investments that we continue to make there. On the infrastructure side in particular, as many people would be aware, we have invested heavily over the last couple of years in the College of the North Atlantic, things like the Seal Cove campus, the Prince Phillip Drive campus, for example, College of the North Atlantic. We have done a lot of other smaller renovations and remediation type of work, Mr. Speaker, to bring labs and those kinds of facilities up to scratch. We have invested in new equipment, Mr. Speaker, for schools.

Just within the last six months, Mr. Speaker, we made a commitment for a total of more than $80 million for two new residences for the Corner Brook campus and for the St. John's campus of Memorial University; more than $80 million invested in post-secondary and in our students, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: More than $80 million; and I say to you, that is a demonstration of our commitment to students. It is a demonstration of our commitment.

Mr. Speaker, you talk to students at the post-secondary level - let me say this to you, because I hear it time and time again, and it makes me so happy, not only as the Minister of Education but also as part of a government that is focused on students, Mr. Speaker. I cannot let this one go. It is that we, right now, have the best student aid package in the country, Mr. Speaker. Not only have we frozen tuition, Mr. Speaker –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Not only have we frozen tuition and made it the lowest in Canada, except in Quebec - and that is for only Quebec residents, Mr. Speaker – not only have we done that, but we have also taken our grant and we started to reduce. We have reduced the amount of money per week students borrow and we have increased by the same amount, Mr. Speaker, the grant that they receive; in other words, the free money that they receive. They are borrowing less and they are getting more grants, Mr. Speaker, to put towards their post-secondary education. Now, what that means, Mr. Speaker, in very simple terms is that students are having to gather less provincial student loan debt than they ever did before because we are lowering the amount that they can borrow and we are increasing the amount that we are giving them in a grant.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most important initiatives that we undertook as a government and one of the most important initiatives that students are so pleased to be a part of and so pleased to have received - and I had the great pleasure this past summer of celebrating the first anniversary - is the elimination of interest on provincial student loans in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: That is the elimination of interest on provincial student loans, Mr. Speaker, and it is just a tremendous investment. Why do we do it? We do it because this government is committed to education as one of the cornerstones of everything that we do.

We recognize, Mr. Speaker, the importance of education and we recognize that if our Province is to continue to grow and to prosper economically and socially, we have to make sure we have an educated society, an educated population; a population that is able to take advantages of the many opportunities, Mr. Speaker, that are going to come our way over the next number of years.

That is why we continue to invest in education. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we are also focused on the other end of the educational spectrum, early childhood. That is why a number of years ago, Mr. Speaker, we established a ministerial counsel that I chair on early childhood education. It is made up of a number of my colleagues, the Minister responsible for Child, Youth and Family Services, the Minister of Health, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, the Minister responsible for Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and the Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker, that committee was established with a mandate to explore what kinds of programs and or services we ought to pursue in this Province to make sure that we are providing better learning opportunities for students before they come into Kindergarten and enter the K-12 system. It is based on a very fundamental belief that brain development in children happens at a very early age; it starts at a very early age. The earlier in a child's life that we can expose them to learning opportunities, both formal and informal, the earlier we can do that, the greater the impact the educational system will have on that child, the more prepared that child will be when they enter the K-12 system. Mr. Speaker, research proves that when you do those things, those children and those students will have a more successful life when they come out of high school and go to follow whatever career path it is they want to choose.

We are really focused on that, Mr. Speaker. We have been working across departments and I want to say thank you here today to my colleagues, to the ministers and their staff who sit on that committee, because there is a lot of work gone into that, a lot of collaboration, Mr. Speaker. None of these things happen overnight, it takes a lot of work and a lot of commitment. Ministers are busy in their own portfolios and on other committees. So I say thank you to them for the efforts that they have given on behalf of government to make sure that we bring forward a strategy that is going to be good, sound and solid, and it is going to be reflective of the needs of students in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, we have made tremendous gains in where we are with that strategy. We concluded our public consultations a short while ago, and our staff, our officials, are pulling together the feedback that they have been receiving on the draft document that we circulated. That was shared, Mr. Speaker, in last year's Budget. We outlined a three-phase approach. We talked about the third phase being the possibility of full-day Kindergarten; the middle phase looking at whether we would do a more structured opportunities for learning for three- and four-year-olds; and the first phase, the initial phase, looking at what we could do for those from birth to age three by way of opportunities and the provision of resources.

We introduced that in our last Budget. Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased to have finished the consultations, and we are looking forward, very eagerly, to the result of that and what our draft framework might look like.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to that, but I want to take my final couple of minutes and I want to shift gears a little bit. I want to go back to a discussion we had yesterday on the private member's motion that was brought forward by my colleague from St. John's North. We had a great debate in the House here yesterday on skilled trades, the commitment that government has made to skilled trades in our Province, and the many advances we have made in skilled trades. Mr. Speaker, it was a great debate. Even my colleagues who are sitting across the House today had some great things to say, some great comments, and a number of good questions. Certainly, I did my best to respond to some of those issues that were raised. I thought it was just a great debate.

I want to pick up on a couple of points because one of our colleagues who leads the NDP made a few comments that I thought I would like to revisit for a few moments, Mr. Speaker, because there was a couple of points raised there that I neglected to cover yesterday. I just want to touch on them.

One of the points the member opposite raised was a disappointment - I am looking for my notes to make sure I get this straight - that government is not yet using PLA - for those who do not understand PLA, it is called prior learning assessment - and expressed to us the need for government to start focusing on using PLA. I want to say for the House, and for those who are tuned in at home and who might have listened to the speech yesterday, and for those who are listening very intently today, thank you for that. Mr. Speaker, prior learning assessment is a cornerstone of post-secondary education in this Province; we use it every day, Mr. Speaker.

Let me remind people in the Province that when we had issues in Stephenville and when we had issues recently in Grand Falls with workers being unemployed, one of the first things we did: we brought people in and we used that tool to determine where they are. Because we recognize, Mr. Speaker, what the member opposite yesterday, obviously, did not: people bring many skills and many experiences to their profession. Someone who has been in a profession for ten or twelve or fourteen years, Mr. Speaker, we recognized that they have prior learning and that is the intent of that tool. So, I say for the benefit of the member opposite that we are doing it, we are doing it. Obviously, somebody who is doing the research is not tuned in to what this Province is doing with skilled trades, because we are doing it and we have been doing it for a very long time.

Mr. Speaker, I thought that was very important to point out, and I am sure that people in Grand Falls-Windsor and surrounding areas can speak to you about the value of that. Many people avoided having to go back to school in a formalized setting and start over, Mr. Speaker, because of the leadership of this government and the task force who brought that out and went to work with the people on the ground, in the community, where it made a difference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: The other point, Mr. Speaker, that I just want to touch on in my final one minute and eight, seven, six seconds is that I want to reiterate a point I made yesterday, because there was a little challenge, if you will, from the member opposite with the NDP that questioned whether or not this government was committed to women, and committed to women in the skilled trades.

I made the comment yesterday, and I am going to finish off by reminding everybody of this: Not only have we introduced initiatives in the skilled trades to bring women into the workforce - like the one that a number of us attending a few months ago at the Carpenters and Millwrights College. Let me finish with this statement as a reminder: It was the first female Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, when she was the Minister of Natural Resources, who negotiated the benefit for females in this Province as part of the Hebron agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Any member who can stand opposite and say that this government is not committed to helping females in the workforce needs to invest in another researcher, Mr. Speaker.

With that, I conclude my remarks and I thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

This House now stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow, being Monday.

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